                                                                        1



          1               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

          2   

          3   IN RE:  PROPOSED RULE FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR           
                      QUALITY STANDARDS for OZONE
          4   
              DOCKET NO.:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172
          5   

          6   

          7   

          8   

          9                        PUBLIC HEARING 

         10   

         11                      SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

         12   

         13                    9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

         14   

         15                AFC Conference Center Atlanta 

         16   

         17                        Federal Center 

         18   

         19                    61 Forsyth Street, SW 

         20   

         21                2nd Floor - Conference Room B 

         22   

         23                       Atlanta, Georgia

         24   

         25                  Janet R. Allen, CCR-B-1213              




                                                                        2



          1   

          2   

          3   

          4   

          5   

          6   

          7   

          8   

          9                      A P P E A R A N C E S

         10   

         11   

         12   

         13   FOR THE AGENCY:  

         14   

         15        STEPHEN PAGE              

         16        BEVERLY BANISTER            

         17        CAROL KEMKER 

         18        ERIKA SASSER
              
         19   

         20   

         21   

         22   

         23   

         24   




                                                                        3



          1                         I N D E X

          2   
              PROCEEDINGS....................................    4
          3   
              TESTIMONY OF SPEAKERS..........................   11
          4   
              ADJOURN........................................  220 
          5   

          6   CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER........................  221

          7   

          8   

          9   

         10   

         11   Transcript Legend:

         12   

         13   (sic)        Exactly as said

         14   

         15   (phonetic)   Exact spelling unknown

         16   

         17   --           Break in speech continuity

         18   

         19   . . .        Indicates halting speech, unfinished     

         20                sentence or ommission of word(s) when    

         21                reading written material

         22   

         23   (inaudible)  Mechanical or speaker failure

         24   

         25   Quoted material is typed as spoken




                                                                        4



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

          2                                          9:10a.m.

          3                         - - -

          4        BY PAGE:  Good morning.  Sorry for the 

          5   10-minute delay.  We were technically challenged 

          6   this morning getting everything ready for this 

          7   hearing.  

          8        I wanted to make a few announcements first and 

          9   some protocol for the hearing, if we could, but 

         10   first I want to welcome everybody here and thank 

         11   you for making the effort to be here.  We 

         12   appreciate that.  

         13        This is the public hearing on EPA's proposed 

         14   revisions to the ozone standards.  My name is Steve 

         15   Page and I'm the Director of the Office of Air 

         16   Quality Planning and Standards, which is part of 

         17   the EPA's Office of Air & Radiation.  I will be 

         18   chairing today's hearing.  The purpose of today's 

         19   hearing is to listen to your comments on EPA's 

         20   Proposed Revisions to the Ozone National Ambient 

         21   Air Quality Standards.  

         22        As a reminder, this is a hearing and it's an 

         23   opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's 

         24   Proposed Rule.  The panel members may answer 

         25   questions that seek to clarify what we have 




                                                                        5



          1   proposed, but the purpose of this hearing is to 

          2   listen to your comments, not to discuss or debate 

          3   the proposals.  

          4        Before we begin the comment period, I would 

          5   like to briefly describe the Proposed Rule that is 

          6   the subject of today's hearing.  This proposed rule 

          7   is published in the Federal Register on July 11, 

          8   2007.  

          9        Ground-level ozone is the primary component of 

         10   smog.  It is formed to the reaction of nitrogen 

         11   oxides and volatile organic compounds in the 

         12   presence of sunlight.  Exposure to ozone is 

         13   associated with an array of respiratory problems 

         14   including aggravated asthma, increase of 

         15   susceptibility to respiratory infections, increased 

         16   doctors visits, increased emergency department 

         17   visits and hospital admissions and premature 

         18   death.  In addition, ground-level ozone can have 

         19   harmful effects on sensitive plants species, 

         20   including trees and crops and on the ecosystem they 

         21   inhabit.  It's been shown that both the level of 

         22   ozone to which plants are exposed and the duration 

         23   of the exposure are important factors in 

         24   determining plant response.  The most significant 

         25   effects including biomass loss and yield reductions 




                                                                        6



          1   result from the accumulation of ozone exposures 

          2   throughout the growing season with higher 

          3   concentration of ozone producing greater impacts. 

          4        Based on careful review of the large volume 

          5   of scientific evidence now available regarding the 

          6   health and welfare effects associated with the 

          7   exposure to ozone, the EPA Administrator has 

          8   concluded that the current ozone standards are not 

          9   adequate to protect the public health and welfare. 

         10        A number of new health studies have been 

         11   conducted indicating that adverse effects occurred 

         12   while exposure to ozone levels below the current 

         13   standards.  Furthermore, these studies indicate 

         14   that people with respiratory illnesses, such as 

         15   asthma, are particularly sensitive to these adverse 

         16   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies 

         17   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely affects 

         18   the growth of sensitive plants species and may 

         19   increase their susceptibility to disease and pests. 

         20        After careful consideration of this scientific 

         21   evidence, advice from the EPA's Clean Air 

         22   Scientific Advisory Committee and public comments, 

         23   the Administrator has proposed to revise both the 

         24   primary ozone standard designed to protect human 

         25   health and the secondary ozone standard, designed 




                                                                        7



          1   to protect welfare, such as vegetation and crops.

          2        Currently the primary and secondary ozone 

          3   standards are identical.  An eight-hour standard of 

          4   0.08 ppm, which is effectively 0.084 ppm with the 

          5   rounding that takes place is the current standard 

          6   for the primary standard.  It is the current number 

          7   for the primary standard.  Under EPA proposal, each 

          8   of these standards will be revised and a form of 

          9   the secondary standard might change so that it is 

         10   no longer identical to the primary standard that I 

         11   just mentioned.  

         12        EPA has requested comments on all aspects of 

         13   this proposal and on all alternatives of proposed 

         14   revisions.  Specifically, with respect to the 

         15   primary standard to protect public health, the 

         16   proposal included revising the level of the 

         17   standard to within the range of 0.070 to ppm.  

         18        The Agency has also requested comment on an 

         19   alternative level, down to 0.060 ppm up to and 

         20   including retention of the current standard of 

         21   0.084 ppm, specifying the level of the primary 

         22   standard to the third decimal place is something we 

         23   intend to do because today's monitors are more 

         24   accurate than they were ten years ago when the last 

         25   standard was developed, so there will be no more of 




                                                                        8



          1   the rounding.  

          2        With respect to the secondary standard to 

          3   protect public welfare, EPA proposed two 

          4   alternatives.  One option would be to establish a 

          5   new form of the standard called the W126, that is 

          6   designed specifically to accumulate ozone exposure 

          7   and to give more weight to higher concentrations.  

          8   This form of the standard would add together 

          9   weighted, hourly ozone concentrations measured 

         10   during the 12-hour daylight window from 8:00 a.m. 

         11   to 8:00 p.m. across the consecutive three-month 

         12   period with the highest ozone levels.  

         13        EPA is proposing to set the level of this 

         14   cumulative standard within the range of 7 to 21 

         15   ppm-hours.  Another option would be to revise the 

         16   secondary standard so that it is identical to the 

         17   proposed primary eight-hour standard.  

         18        Additional information on the proposed rule 

         19   can be found in the fact sheet which is available 

         20   in the registration area.  Publication of the rule 

         21   on July 11th, 2007 marked the beginning of the 

         22   90-day public comment period which closes on 

         23   October 9th, 2007.  We have a handout available in 

         24   the registration area with detailed information for 

         25   sending in written comments.  In addition, we 




                                                                        9



          1   prepared a list of all the topics in the proposed 

          2   rule that the Agency is seeking comment on.  This 

          3   handout is also available in the registration 

          4   area.  We will issue a final rule by March 12th, 

          5   2008.  

          6        So now let's turn to the comment portion of 

          7   today's hearing.  This is one of five public 

          8   hearings we're holding across the country.  Last 

          9   Thursday we held hearings in Los Angeles and 

         10   Philadelphia.  Today hearings are being held in 

         11   Houston, Chicago and here in Atlanta.  

         12        We will be preparing a written transcript 

         13   script of each hearing.  The transcripts will be 

         14   available as part of the official record for each 

         15   rule.  Today's hearing will work as follows:  I 

         16   will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone 

         17   in pairs, please state your name and affiliation.  

         18   It will help our court reporter if you also spell 

         19   your name.  

         20        In order to be fair to everyone, we're asking 

         21   that you limit your testimony to five minutes each 

         22   and to remain at the microphone until both speakers 

         23   in a pair have finished.  After you finished your 

         24   testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying 

         25   questions.  




                                                                       10



          1        As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

          2   hearing and each speakers' oral testimony will 

          3   become part of the official record.  Please be sure 

          4   to give a copy of any written comments to our staff 

          5   at the registration table out front and we will put 

          6   the full text of your written comments into the 

          7   docket for you.  

          8        We have a time keeping system consisting of 

          9   green, yellow and red lights.  You will see this on 

         10   the speaker table.  The yellow light will signal 

         11   that you have two minutes left to speak and we'll 

         12   ask you to stop speaking when the red light comes 

         13   on.  We will try to insure everyone has an 

         14   opportunity to comment.  If you would like to 

         15   testify, but have not registered to do so, please 

         16   sign up at the registration table.  We'll take 

         17   breaks periodically throughout the day.  

         18        For those who are already registered to speak, 

         19   we have tried to accommodate your requests for a 

         20   specific time shot.  We ask for your patience as we 

         21   proceed through the list.  We may need to make some 

         22   minor adjustments as the day progresses.  

         23        And now I would like to introduce the EPA 

         24   representatives on our panel.  On my right Beverly 

         25   Banister, who is the Director of Air Pesticides and 




                                                                       11



          1   Toxics Management Division here in EPA Region IV 

          2   here in Atlanta.  Thank you, Beverly, and thank you 

          3   for making your building available to us as well; 

          4   and Erika Sasser who works with me in the Office 

          5   the Air Quality Planning & Standards.  

          6   She works in the Health & Environmental Impact 

          7   Division located in the Research Triangle Park in 

          8   North Carolina.  It's out of Erika's division where 

          9   the standards are developed.  They are responsible 

         10   for pulling to science and policy together to 

         11   submit to the Administrator to help in his 

         12   decision.  

         13        Again, I would like to thank you all for 

         14   participating today and with that, I would like to 

         15   get started.  Our first two speakers that have 

         16   registered are Frank O'Donnell and Robert Bullard.  

         17       MR. O'DONNELL:  Thank you, very much.  Mr. 

         18   Page, I'm Frank O'Donnell, President of the Clean 

         19   Air Watch.  It's O-'-D-O-N-N-E-L-L.  Clean Air 

         20   Watch is a national non-profit organization which 

         21   seeks to promote clean air chiefly through public 

         22   education.  Please let me start by thanking the 

         23   Agency's career staff.  We really appreciate your 

         24   dedication to public service and we know that 

         25   without your efforts we would have made little or 




                                                                       12



          1   no progress in recent years against air pollution. 

          2        Having said that, let me get right to the 

          3   point, what is literally at stake here is the 

          4   quality of air Americans will breathe for many 

          5   years into the future.  The standards we are 

          6   talking about today are truly the heart and lungs 

          7   of the Clean Air Act.  Contrary to the disingenuous 

          8   testimony you heard last week by a lobbyist for the 

          9   Southern Company, parent company of Georgia Power, 

         10   that would be Jeffrey Holmstead, these standards 

         11   are vitally important.  They form the backbone and 

         12   the driving force for all clean-up programs under 

         13   the Clean Air Act.  

         14        Ozone, commonly known as smog, is the nation's 

         15   most widespread air pollutant.  A doctor recently 

         16   told us that breathing smog is like rubbing 

         17   sandpaper on your lungs.  And we know that without 

         18   a medical doubt that the standards for ozone are 

         19   two weak to protect people's health.  That's the 

         20   unanimous opinion of EPA's Independent Science 

         21   Advisory Board, that's the opinion of EPA's career 

         22   scientists and that's the frequently expressed 

         23   opinion of EPA Administrator, Steve Johnson, 

         24   despite what we think are attempts by the White 

         25   House to tamper with EPA's rulemaking.  




                                                                       13



          1        We do believe EPA's proposal is a step in the 

          2   right direction, but it doesn't go far enough.  

          3   Indeed, it falls short of unanimous position taken 

          4   by EPA's external science advisors and we are 

          5   deeply troubled by EPA's decision to entertain 

          6   comments to keep the weak status quo standards.  

          7   That's obviously the result of political arm 

          8   twisting.  

          9        It's been a decade since the ozone standards 

         10   were last updated.  We know more about ozone than 

         11   we did then.  We know that smog isn't just about 

         12   someone getting itchy eyes or the sniffles.  Smog 

         13   can make us sick.  It can send us to the hospital.  

         14   It did even shorten our lives.  Yes, ozone kills. 

         15        So we urge you to listen to the science and 

         16   follow the recommendations of the American Lung 

         17   Association, the American Thoracic Society and 

         18   EPA's Children's Health Advisory Panel set a 

         19   primary standard at a level of 16 ppb.  

         20   Unfortunately, this is shaping up to be a clash 

         21   between real science and political science.  We 

         22   know that lobbyists for the nation's biggest 

         23   polluters, oil, car, electric power, chemical and 

         24   other industries have gone to White House to try to 

         25   avert tougher standards that would make them clean 




                                                                       14



          1   up more.  

          2        I'm sure that you remember that these same 

          3   groups that now want to keep the current standards 

          4   fought bitterly against those standards a decade 

          5   ago.  And the White House is not the only one 

          6   apparently being influenced by this smokestack 

          7   crowd.  I regret to say that the Governor of 

          8   Georgia appears to be manipulated by some of these 

          9   same polluters.  He has urged the EPA to make no 

         10   change in the current standards.  Now that's an 

         11   outrageous position without any scientific basis.  

         12   Does Sonny Perdue know more than all the medical 

         13   experts.  The appearance here is that Georgia Power 

         14   is influencing Governor Perdue.  We know that 

         15   Georgia Power and Southern Company, as I noted 

         16   earlier, oppose tougher standards.  Indeed, 

         17   Perdue's chief of staff came from Georgia Power and 

         18   Perdue has received large campaign contributions 

         19   from executives of that company.  He looks like he 

         20   is being a tool for this big power company.  

         21        So we urge you to reject the views of special 

         22   interest polluters and their political tools and 

         23   follow the medical science, make sure that kids 

         24   with asthma can take a deep breath without fear. 

         25        We also want EPA to tell us the truth about 




                                                                       15



          1   what levels of air pollution are safe to breathe.  

          2   These standards are supposed to be the federal 

          3   government's assessment based on the best 

          4   availability science of what level of pollution is 

          5   safe to breathe with an adequate margin of safety 

          6   to account for uncertainties and for groups like 

          7   children, like those in low-income communities who 

          8   may be especially harmed by breathing dirty air.    

          9      We hope the Bush Administration won't seek again 

         10   to mislead the public as it did for years about 

         11   global warming.  We believe the public should have 

         12   the right to know if the air they are breathing can 

         13   harm them.  Thank you very much. 

         14        MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.  Any 

         15   questions?  

         16        Mr. Bullard.  

         17        MR. BULLARD:  Good morning.  My name is Dr. 

         18   Robert Bullard and I direct the Environmental 

         19   Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University 

         20   here in Atlanta.  It's B-U-L-L-A-R-D.  I am here 

         21   today to present testimony as a researcher and 

         22   scholar who has studied and written about 

         23   environmental health and vulnerable populations for 

         24   the last three decades.  I'm also here representing 

         25   the National Black Environmental Justice Network, a 




                                                                       16



          1   national preventative health organization that's 

          2   located in 33 states in the U.S.  

          3        First, I would like to also thank you the U.S. 

          4   EPA for holding this important hearing.  This 

          5   hearing is about public health.  It's about life 

          6   and death and saving lives.  It's not about 

          7   compromise, economic trade offs or balancing acts 

          8   that subject millions of Americans to unnecessary 

          9   environmental health threats, in this case, 

         10   ground-level ozone.

         11        We know that air pollution, including 

         12   ground-level ozone, claims 70,000 lives a year and 

         13   nearly twice that number killed in traffic 

         14   accidents.  Ground-level ozone affects more than 

         15   158 million Americans in 10 of the 11 most popular 

         16   states.  We're talking about half of the U.S. 

         17   population.  Public health costs due to air 

         18   pollution accounts for over three-quarters of the 

         19   total pollution related public health cost and 

         20   could be as high as $182 billion annually.  An 

         21   estimated 50,000 to 120,000 premature deaths are 

         22   associated with air pollution, so when we talk 

         23   about this issue of the right to breathe, we're 

         24   talking about a basic human right.  

         25        People with asthma experience more than 100 




                                                                       17



          1   million days of restrictive activity annually 

          2   costing $4 billion a year.  A major part of this is 

          3   the problem of smog or ozone.  Under the Clean Air 

          4   Act, air quality standards must be set at levels 

          5   that protect public health, including vulnerable 

          6   and sensitive populations.  The current level is 

          7   inadequate.  We know that.  And we have applaud EPA 

          8   for taking first steps in the right direction, but 

          9   its proposal is not is adequate.  EPA should come 

         10   clean and set the ozone standard at the lowest 

         11   level to protect public health at the 0.06 level. 

         12        Vulnerable populations such as children are at 

         13   special risks from ozone.  One in every four 

         14   American child lives in an area that regularly 

         15   exceeds the EPA ozone standards.  We're talking 

         16   over 27 million children under the age of 13 living 

         17   in the areas with high levels of ozone that are out 

         18   of compliance.  This is especially a problem for 

         19   children of color.  More than 61 percent of 

         20   African-American children, 69 percent of Hispanic 

         21   children and 67 percent of Asian-American children 

         22   live in areas that exceed the 0.08 ozone level. 

         23        High ozone levels causes illnesses and 

         24   emergency room visits and death, so when we talk 

         25   about these issues of emergency room visits, 




                                                                       18



          1   illnesses and death, this is real.  This is not 

          2   make believe.  When we talk about asthma and 

          3   children with asthma and populations with asthma, 

          4   we're talking about the special-needs populations.  

          5   Asthma attacks send African-Americans to emergency 

          6   rooms at the rate of three times that for whites.  

          7   African-Americans will likely be hospitalized with 

          8   asthma three times more likely than whites.  So 

          9   when you talk about the issue of cleaning up the 

         10   air, putting in stronger standards, it's about life 

         11   and death.  It's about the right to breathe.  

         12        Here in Atlanta from May 1st up to September 

         13   4th we've experienced 45 days of smog.  You only 

         14   have to go out today to see what we're talking 

         15   about.  

         16        The big problem is transportation the fact in 

         17   this region we are so tied to cars, we're so tied 

         18   to building highways that it's killing us all.  

         19   While some car owners may occasionally chose not to 

         20   drive, those without cars really do not have a 

         21   choice of not breathing.  Enforce a stronger 

         22   federal ozone standards and more alternatives for 

         23   automobiles including regional transit, will go a 

         24   long way in improving the health and livibility of 

         25   this entire region.  It's a matter of growing 




                                                                       19



          1   smarter and growing healthier.  And I think 

          2   enforcing stronger and tougher ozone standards will 

          3   move many of our policy makers, hopefully in a 

          4   direction of doing something about transportation 

          5   and pollution that's generated from that source.  

          6   Thank you very much. 

          7        MR. PAGE:  Next two speakers are Gerald Staton 

          8   and Daniel Moenter.  Welcome, gentlemen.  Thank you 

          9   for coming.  Mr. Staton, you first.  

         10        MR. STATON:  I'm Gerald Staton, M.D., 

         11   S-T-A-T-O-N, Professor of Medicine at the Emory 

         12   University School of Medicine and a member of the 

         13   American Thoracic Society. 

         14        Today I'm presenting comments on behalf of the 

         15   American Thoracic Society.  American Thoracic 

         16   Society is an international medical professional 

         17   society dedicated to respiratory health.  As such 

         18   the American Thoracic Society is deeply committed 

         19   protecting the public from the dangers of air 

         20   pollution.  

         21        The American Thoracic Society strongly 

         22   recommends the EPA Administrator issue the 

         23   following National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

         24   Ozone.  The level of the primary standard should be 

         25   established at 0.060 ppm.  The degree of precision 




                                                                       20



          1   for the standard should be expressed at the 

          2   thousandth ppm.  The form of the standard should be 

          3   constructed as a three-year average of the annual 

          4   fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

          5   concentration.  

          6        The American Thoracic Society believes that 

          7   the EPA Administer Johnson has directly stated 

          8   that, beyond any degree of scientific uncertainty, 

          9   convincing and compelling evidence has demonstrated 

         10   that exposure to ozone at levels below the current 

         11   standards is responsible for measurable, 

         12   significant adverse health effects in terms of both 

         13   morbidity and mortality.  We strongly support the 

         14   Administrator in his efforts to issue a more 

         15   stringent standard and absolutely reject any 

         16   efforts to maintain the current standard.  

         17        However, in proposing a revised standard 

         18   between 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, EPA Administrator 

         19   Johnson has failed to truly appreciate the dangers 

         20   ozone poses to our nation's health.  A stronger 

         21   standard of 0.060 ppm is needed to protect the 

         22   nation from the adverse effects of ozone.  Due to 

         23   time constraints I cannot cover the breath of 

         24   research data that supports the need for a stronger 

         25   standard, so I will focus my comments on such 




                                                                       21



          1   research done in Atlanta that proves the need for a 

          2   higher standard to truly protect our public health. 

          3        While there is a specific body of literature 

          4   that links exposure to ozone air pollution to 

          5   asthma exacerbation, two of the pivotal studies 

          6   were conducted in Atlanta.  Dr. White and his 

          7   colleagues reviewed the medical records from 1990 

          8   for children aged 1 to 16 with physician diagnosed 

          9   asthma at a local public hospital for a time period 

         10   June 1st to August 21st.  During that time period 

         11   the peak ozone concentration of 0.11 ppm was 

         12   reached on six occasions.  Hospital visits for 

         13   asthma was 37 percent higher on those days than 

         14   during other dates during the chart review period.

         15        Tolbert and colleges compared pediatric 

         16   emergency room visits for asthma, the air pollution 

         17   from weather data from 1993 to 1995 and found a 

         18   strong correlation between air pollution in terms 

         19   of ozone and particulate matter and pediatric 

         20   emergency room visits for asthma.  

         21        Both these studies followed by a host of 

         22   others helped establish a definitive link between 

         23   ozone and exacerbations of respiratory illness.  

         24   Another Atlanta provided insight on how reducing 

         25   ozone emissions can improve respiratory health.




                                                                       22



          1        Friedman and colleagues compared hospital 

          2   asthma events for children immediately before, 

          3   during and after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.  They 

          4   found that lower ozone peak exposures observed 

          5   during the Olympics due to traffic mitigation 

          6   efforts led to a 37 percent reduction in pediatric 

          7   asthma events.  

          8        While the three Atlanta studies I cited 

          9   focused only on pediatric asthma, subsequent 

         10   studies have linked ozone exposure to lower birth 

         11   weight, airway remodeling in children, mortality 

         12   from respiratory and cardiac events, adverse health 

         13   in healthy adult joggers, cancer, and most recently 

         14   onset of asthma in children exposed in outdoor 

         15   sports.  As a concerning list of adverse health 

         16   effects liked to ozone exposure.  These studies 

         17   have noted adverse effects at ozone at 0.06 ppm and 

         18   lower. 

         19        The encouraging part about the Friedman study 

         20   is that it showed that public policy can make a 

         21   difference.  That is why the American Thoracic 

         22   Society is urging the EPA to adopt a standard of 

         23   0.060 ppm to insure communities across the nation 

         24   can enjoy every day the public health benefits from 

         25   reduced ozone that Atlanta enjoyed during in 1996 




                                                                       23



          1   Olympics.  

          2        Just one parenthetical comment that is not in 

          3   my written thing, I'm a practicing lung physician 

          4   here in Atlanta and I don't have to hear what the 

          5   pollution index for the day is.  The number of 

          6   charts and requests that I have from patients about 

          7   problems is directly related to that, so I don't 

          8   need to know.  I know from the number of problems 

          9   my patients are having.  Thank you.

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

         11        MR. MOENTER:  Good morning.  My name is Dan 

         12   Moenter.  I'm appearing today on behalf of Marathon 

         13   Oil Corporation.  Marathon is the fourth largest 

         14   U.S.-based, fully integrated international energy 

         15   company engaged in exploration and production, 

         16   intergrated gas and refining, marketing and 

         17   transportation operations.  Marathon commends the 

         18   Environmental Protection Agency for its continuing 

         19   effort to improve the quality of the air we 

         20   breathe.  A sentiment likely shared by every 

         21   participant in today's hearing.  Indeed, this is 

         22   not a struggle between clean-air advocates and 

         23   proponents of dirty air, but rather an important 

         24   discussion among interested parties on how best to 

         25   achieve a shared objective, improving air quality 




                                                                       24



          1   while maintaining our nation's economic well-being. 

          2        For its part Marathon favors steady, 

          3   continuous progress for the attainable air quality 

          4   objectives, which is why support retention of the 

          5   current ozone standard.  Without question, air 

          6   quality in the United States is improving.  The EPA 

          7   reports that total emissions of the six principal 

          8   air pollutants dropped by 54 percent between 1970 

          9   and 2006 while gross domestic product increased 203 

         10   percent.  Moreover, national average ozone levels 

         11   decreased by 21 percent between 1980 and 2006.  And 

         12   the progress will continue without revising the 

         13   current standard, due in large measure to 

         14   regulations and programs already adopted whose 

         15   benefits have not yet been fully realized.  For 

         16   example, the petroleum industry as invested 

         17   billions of dollars updating our refineries to 

         18   dramatically reduce the presence of sulfur in 

         19   gasoline and diesel fuel.  These cleaner fuels 

         20   coupled with cleaner cars, buses, trucks and 

         21   non-road equipment that are now being produced will 

         22   provide significant continuing air quality 

         23   improvements.  

         24        Adopting a more stringent ambient ozone 

         25   standard now will place a heavy new burden on 




                                                                       25



          1   States.  It will force state air regulators to 

          2   pursue a far more difficult target before many have 

          3   completed developing their plan to attain the 

          4   current standard.  While EPA has proposed a primary 

          5   ozone standard within the range of 0.07 to 0.075 

          6   ppm, the Agency also has requested comments on 

          7   alternative standards ranging down to 0.06 ppm.  If 

          8   the ozone standard were lowered to this level it is 

          9   projected that the level of non-attainment counties 

         10   will almost triple and it's likely that some 

         11   metropolitan would be doomed to non-attainment 

         12   status.  The EPA's proposal to lower the ozone 

         13   standard is an extremely important complex and 

         14   controversial public policy issue with serious 

         15   economic complications.  

         16        Consequently, Marathon believes any decision 

         17   to tighten the standard must be based on sound 

         18   science.  It should be supported by clear and 

         19   compelling scientific evidence, but that does not 

         20   appear to be the case.  Indeed, there is 

         21   significant debate surrounding the underlying 

         22   analysis of the science being used to justify the 

         23   ozone proposal.  A few examples:  The EPA recently 

         24   changed the way it calculates naturally occurring 

         25   ozone background levels in a manner that inflates 




                                                                       26



          1   the benefits of a new standard.  An action the 

          2   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has 

          3   questioned.  Due to EPA's reliance on an 

          4   unpublished, non-peered-reviewed analysis which 

          5   contradicts the author's original peer-reviewed 

          6   results, the presumed health benefits of a revised 

          7   ozone standard are subject to question.  The EPA 

          8   has not adequately evaluated the uncertainty of 

          9   their quantitative estimates.  And, interestingly, 

         10   the uncertainties they have quantified include 

         11   negative values, that is, health effect 

         12   improvements with increased ozone levels.  This 

         13   underscores the uncertainty of the presumed health 

         14   benefits.  

         15        In summary, Marathon supports retaining the 

         16   current ozone standard.  We do so because our 

         17   nation's air quality is improving and will continue 

         18   to improve under the current standard.  Adopting a 

         19   more stringent standard now will place a heavy new 

         20   burden on States before many have completed 

         21   developing plans to attain the current standard. A 

         22   more stringent standard will significantly increase 

         23   the number of non-attainment areas with serious 

         24   negative implications for their future economic 

         25   growth; and while health concerns are paramount, 




                                                                       27



          1   there are significant uncertainty surrounding the 

          2   scientific analysis that was used to justify the 

          3   EPA proposal to lower the ozone standard, which 

          4   calls into question presumed health benefits.  

          5   Thank you for your attention.

          6        MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr. Moenter, and with 30 

          7   seconds to spare.  Thank you, gentleman.  We 

          8   appreciate you coming here today. 

          9        Our next speakers are Roger Mills and Vanessa 

         10   Williams.  Welcome, Mr. Mills, you are the first 

         11   speaker.  

         12        MR. MILLS:  I am Roger Mills, M-I-L-L-S,  an 

         13   attorney making this statement as a private citizen 

         14   who has a daughter with asthma.  And I'm also an 

         15   avid outdoor athlete who runs and bikes.  I live in 

         16   the metro Atlanta area.  In South Coast Air Quality 

         17   Management District versus EPA, the U.S. Court of 

         18   Appeals describes ozone, which is formed from the 

         19   chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides with volatile 

         20   organic compounds in sunlight as, "dangerous at 

         21   ground-level."  The Court states that exposure to 

         22   high concentrations "cause lung dysfunction, 

         23   coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, nausea, 

         24   respiratory infection and, in some cases, permanent 

         25   scarring of lung tissue."  One third of our nation 




                                                                       28



          1   breathes air in areas with unhealthful levels of 

          2   ozone.  Right here in metro Atlanta you are in one 

          3   of those highest ozone levels.  Last year alone, 

          4   Atlanta violated air quality standards for 30 

          5   separate days and this year it has exceeded that. 

          6        The Environmental Protection Agency's middle 

          7   name is protection.  On the EPA website it states, 

          8   "The mission of the EPA is to protect human 

          9   health."  To do so, EPA in 1997 set the eight-hour 

         10   National Ambient Quality Standard for ozone at 0.80 

         11   ppm, but because of rounding it's effectively 

         12   enforcing it at 0.084 ppm.  EPA Clean Air 

         13   Scientific Advisory Committee has concluded, 

         14   however, "there is no scientific justification for 

         15   retaining this standard."  This 23 member committee 

         16   of independent science advisors has recommended a 

         17   less weak standard within the range of 0.060 to 

         18   0.070 ppm.  The Clean Air Act requires the standard 

         19   to be set "with an adequate margin of safety" to 

         20   protect sensitive populations.  In 2001 the Supreme 

         21   Court ruled that protecting health was the only 

         22   basis for the standard when the EPA considers 

         23   setting standards.  Instead of following this 

         24   Scientific Advisory Committee's advice, however, 

         25   the EPA has proposed a standard of only within a 




                                                                       29



          1   range of 0.070 to 0.075 ppm.  The American Academy 

          2   of Pediatrics, the American Lung Association, the 

          3   American Public Health Association and others have 

          4   also told the EPA that this proposed standard is 

          5   inadequate, especially protect sensitive 

          6   populations such as children, the elderly, those 

          7   with heart and lung disease, and those, like me, 

          8   who spend a lot of time outdoors.  This is not 

          9   speculation or junk science.  For example, a 2004 

         10   study by Bell and others in the Journal of the 

         11   American Medical Association found an increase in 

         12   the deaths from respiratory and cardiovascular 

         13   causes following short-term increases in ozone 

         14   concentrations in 95 cities over a 14-year period.  

         15   We'll all breathe easier with less oxidizing of our 

         16   lung tissue if the EPA truly pursues its mission 

         17   and follows the advice of its Scientific Advisory 

         18   Committee.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity 

         19   to speak. 

         20        MS. PAGE:  Ms. Williams.  

         21        MS. WILLIAMS:  Good morning.  My name is 

         22   Vanessa Williams.  I serve as the Executive 

         23   Director for the National Conference of Black 

         24   Mayors.  I am here this morning representing our 

         25   distinguished President, the Honorable George L. 




                                                                       30



          1   Grace of St. Gabriel, Louisiana.  Mayor Grace 

          2   intended to be here this morning, but due to 

          3   last-minute scheduling, conflicts he was not able 

          4   to have his appearance here today.  Two copies of 

          5   his statement have been filed this morning for the 

          6   docket record.  

          7        I would like to set forth on behalf NCBM for 

          8   the 640-member mayors, our views and concerns 

          9   regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

         10   recently announced notice of a proposed ruling to 

         11   review the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

         12   for ozone.  

         13        I would like to begin by making three points:  

         14   First, the National Conference of Black Mayors 

         15   support EPA regulatory policies that are intended 

         16   to improve our nation's air quality in a manner 

         17   that the cost-effective for our communities and 

         18   make sure that it is based on sound science; 

         19   second, because of the EPA policies and the 

         20   coordinated efforts of state and local government 

         21   and industry, substantial progress has been made 

         22   over the last 25 years in meeting the Clean Air Act 

         23   air quality goals.  While more progress is needed 

         24   in selected areas and communities across the 

         25   country are in need, we should make no mistake that 




                                                                       31



          1   Clean Air Act is working as it was originally 

          2   intended.  EPA's own data shows that between 1970 

          3   and 2006, total emissions of at least six principal 

          4   air pollutants dropped by 64 percent.  Lastly, the 

          5   NCBM, the National Conference of Black Mayors, 

          6   however, is deeply concerned about the potential 

          7   adverse effects on the communities we represent, 

          8   should EPA decide that its final ruling to adopt 

          9   more stringent standards for ozone.  

         10        In specific regard to Louisiana, it is my 

         11   understanding is that currently there are four or 

         12   five parishes classified as non-attainment for the 

         13   ozone.  Under EPA's referred range of 0.070 or 

         14   0.075 ppm over half of the 65 parishes in the state 

         15   of Louisiana will be reclassified as non-attainment 

         16   for ozone.  As I am sure you are aware, the 

         17   designation of a county or a parish as 

         18   non-attainment for ozone triggers a second process 

         19   in which it will effect both the State and they 

         20   will have to develop and submit to EPA a state 

         21   implementation plan that demonstrates compliance 

         22   with the new standard within a certain time frame.  

         23   The emission control strategy required to make such 

         24   a demonstration will significantly impact the 

         25   economies of local communities, including the jobs 




                                                                       32



          1   and future growth.  

          2        Many parishes across the State will, for the 

          3   first time experience the stigma of compliance 

          4   changes for being designated a non-attainment for 

          5   ozone area.  Moreover, those parishes that are 

          6   currently designated as being a non-assignment for 

          7   ozone will be faced with identifying and 

          8   implementing more demanding compliance strategies 

          9   even before they've had an opportunity to fully 

         10   implement the plan to comply with the present 0.08 

         11   ppm standard on which they are now working.  

         12        The situation in Louisiana represent what many 

         13   of our member mayors are facing across America and 

         14   they will be facing should the ozone standard be 

         15   made more stringent.  Over half of Alabama's 

         16   counties could be designated as non-attainment 

         17   depending upon which standard is chosen.  

         18   Similarly, in Mississippi, up to one-third of the 

         19   State's 82 counties could become non-attainment, 

         20   again, depending on the standard that is chosen.  

         21   The impact is being designated as a non-attainment 

         22   would have a desperate impact on those communities 

         23   undertaking economic revitalization efforts and 

         24   rebuilding like in the Gulf Coast and the aftermath 

         25   of Katrina.  Such impact manifests themselves in 




                                                                       33



          1   the form of increased costs of industry, permitting 

          2   delays, restrictional industrial expansions within 

          3   the area, impacts on transportation and planning 

          4   and increased costs to consumers for commercial and 

          5   consumer products.  In addition, each community 

          6   will be facing continuing oversight by EPA until 

          7   the area has met and maintained the standard of 

          8   required number of years.  These aspects have real 

          9   impacts on the local communities.  

         10        I have heard some say that at the levels being 

         11   proposed, attainment and maintenance of the 

         12   standard will be out of reach for many of the 

         13   industrialized states.  We simply cannot afford to 

         14   jeopardize the progress for meeting the current 

         15   ozone standard by setting a lower ozone standard 

         16   that may never be achieved.  The National 

         17   Conference of Black --

         18        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  We'll make sure that we 

         19   have copies of your written statement to put in the 

         20   docket.  Thank you very much for coming today, both 

         21   of you.  We appreciate it.  

         22        MS. WYLIE:  Nancy Wylie, spelled W-Y-L-I-E.  I 

         23   live in Atlanta and I'm speaking as an individual.  

         24   I'm retired.  I ride a bicycle and I do it for 

         25   fitness, fun and touring.  I mean I take my 




                                                                       34



          1   vacations, I ride all over the country, I take 

          2   week-long bike rides and to be able to do that you 

          3   got to be able to ride a bike in Atlanta.  

          4        With the air standards the way they are now, 

          5   we have had so many days this year that I simply 

          6   can't go out and ride.  I don't like to ride by 

          7   myself.  I already had one accident.  I would 

          8   rather have somebody with me to call 911, so I got 

          9   to ride with people who work and they ride after 

         10   work and that's when the air pollution is so bad.  

         11   You've had the experts tell you what happens to 

         12   lungs, to people who are sick.  I'm healthy.  I 

         13   want to stay that way, so I don't ride when we have 

         14   bad air days and that means I suffer more when I 

         15   take my bicycle trips.  

         16        In the past couple of months I've gotten 

         17   involved with the Atlanta Regional Commission.  

         18   They do transportation plans.  They just issued 

         19   their regional transportation plan.  My specific 

         20   concern was bicycle paths and sidewalks, pedestrian 

         21   facilities.  Governor Perdue has done essentially 

         22   all he can to discourage bicycle paths and that 

         23   kind of alternative transportation and encourage 

         24   the construction of highways.  And thanks to Mr. 

         25   Bullard for raising the question of transit.  The 




                                                                       35



          1   Governor appointed a Congestion Mitigation 

          2   Taskforce.  MARTA, which is the regional 

          3   transportation provider was not represented on the 

          4   Congestion Mitigation Taskforce.  That taskforce 

          5   recommended that in determining whether or not to 

          6   build a new highway, congestion mitigation should 

          7   represent 70 percent of the waiting factor, which 

          8   means everything goes to highways.  It doesn't go 

          9   to transit, it doesn't go to bicycle paths, it 

         10   doesn't go alternative other than a car.  And what 

         11   makes the ozone?  The cars.  

         12        There is another factor and that is the State 

         13   Environmental Protection Division.  They give a 

         14   budget that has to be met for the transportation 

         15   planning.  The higher, lower, better, the more 

         16   relaxed the air quality standards, the more 

         17   flexibility the Environmental Protection Division 

         18   has in this budget and, apparently, the way the 

         19   standard is now, there effectively is no budget. 

         20        The basis that was used was sent during a time 

         21   that the temperatures in the Georgia area were 

         22   relatively cool, so there weren't a lot of air 

         23   conditioners running.  And, apparently, when 

         24   Georgia Power generates their air emissions are 

         25   based on the total power generated, so the more 




                                                                       36



          1   power generated, the more air pollution there is, 

          2   the more the air conditioners run, the more air 

          3   pollution there is and that's not constrained.  The 

          4   more you use, the more you are allowed to emit.  

          5        I think that's everything I wanted to say.  

          6   I'm healthy.  I want to say that way.  I want to be 

          7   able to exercise.  You've got all the experts 

          8   telling you what the numbers should be and the 

          9   State of Georgia, I, bottom line, came down here 

         10   when I heard the Governor was supporting the 0.08 

         11   standard as opposed to the 0.06 standard because he 

         12   is supporting it because he wants to build more 

         13   highways.  We don't need more highways.  We need 

         14   rapid rail, we need transit alternatives and we 

         15   need healthy air.  Support to 0.060 standard.  

         16   Thank you. 

         17        MR. PAGE:  Mr. Bright.  

         18        MR. BRIGHT:  Good morning.  I think I have 

         19   some more time.  Thank you for adding it to me. 

         20        MR. PAGE:  You are on the clock.  

         21        MR. BRIGHT:  I am very pleased to be here.  

         22   I'm Richard Bright.  I have been working as a 

         23   research scientist since 1961 and a regulatory 

         24   scientist, having worked for EPA for 22 of those 

         25   years when we first started looking at single 




                                                                       37



          1   chemicals to see what would be causing the 

          2   deleterious effects of those chemicals.  And then 

          3   we moved from there to looking at multiple 

          4   chemicals within a family.  And I'm hoping one day 

          5   we're going to be looking at cross-family chemicals 

          6   working to be bring about deleterious reactions and 

          7   harm to not just people and animals, but also to 

          8   plants.  It's extremely important that EPA now look 

          9   collectively at various kinds of plant and animal 

         10   systems and conditions that are atmospheric 

         11   conditions because they all lead to deleterious 

         12   effects.  

         13        We can have reduced levels of ozone, but not 

         14   necessarily reduced bronchial impacts upon animals 

         15   and people.  We still have an increasing levels of 

         16   sickness and deleterious effects, despite the fact 

         17   that sometimes the ozone is being reduced. There 

         18   are no safe levels of ozone.  Not any.  We need to 

         19   take a look at the mechanism of action.  

         20        First, let me give you a little bit more of my 

         21   background.  I am the Assistant Director for the 

         22   Prevention Research Center at the Morehouse School 

         23   of Medicine.  There are 33 prevention research 

         24   centers and I hope some of you in here represent 

         25   some of those, but there are only one at a 




                                                                       38



          1   historically black institution and that's the one 

          2   at Morehouse School of Medicine.  One of the things 

          3   that we look at are environmental impacts from 

          4   chemicals and from various kinds of conditions that 

          5   we find.  

          6        What is the actual mechanism of action?  What 

          7   does ozone do?  Ozone is an O3 molecule and what it 

          8   does is it replaces in plant and animal systems O2.  

          9   It competitively replaces them.  Organ systems will 

         10   take the O3 before they will take the O2 and if you 

         11   understand that, then you would understand the 

         12   statement that I made earlier, there are no safe 

         13   levels of ozone.  

         14        While we're looking at ozone as getting into 

         15   the body through inhalation and through the skin, 

         16   we've got to look at more than inhalation in the 

         17   skin.  90 percent of the ozone that is taking in 

         18   through inhalation stays within the body and is 

         19   absorbed and dissolved, therein that 90 percent of 

         20   all ozone that goes into the body is there now to 

         21   attack the body replacing the oxygen within all 

         22   systems.  This was brought home very clearly to me.  

         23   I worked for EPA for 22 years, but six years prior 

         24   to that I worked for the Department of Agriculture 

         25   in Washington, D.C.   And there I used to do 




                                                                       39



          1   ozonolysis reactions, trying to change milk such 

          2   that we can make products for industry.  And during 

          3   those ozonolysis reactions, I never had a nose 

          4   bleed, I never had any eye problems.  I never had 

          5   any health problems, but working in a laboratory I 

          6   came down with eye problems.  I had to get glasses, 

          7   more or less immediately.  I developed blood 

          8   dyscrasias and I developed nose bleeds, blood 

          9   dyscrasias and I found one thing that really 

         10   shocked me, my hands had started to shake.  Now, 

         11   we're taking ozone in.  I was taking in large 

         12   amounts during that time, but in latter years I 

         13   discovered that we have to look at the mechanism of 

         14   action.  What does ozone actually do.  How does it 

         15   break down the body.  How does it cause the 

         16   problems with eyes.  What are the impact of ozone 

         17   relative to lung-type diseases.  What's going on.  

         18   Well the ozone is not just in the upper layer of 

         19   the lung, but it goes down -- it's a heavier 

         20   molecule.  It goes down to the lining of the lung 

         21   where it is absorbed, so you just cannot get rid of 

         22   it so easily.  When it attacks the skin, I 

         23   sometimes laugh at people who like to do sunning.  

         24   Stop people from doing, people, please, if you want 

         25   these people to live longer.  It breaks down the 




                                                                       40



          1   skin.  You are not asking for this one but too much 

          2   washing of your skin will break it down also. 

          3        MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr. Bright.  

          4        MR. BRIGHT:  I got a few more seconds.  Thank 

          5   you.   I need to give you this:  We've got to take 

          6   a look at ozone because ozone in any concentration 

          7   is harmful, plus you cannot really reverse the 

          8   effects of ozone on the body.  Thank you very 

          9   kindly.

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.  Appreciate 

         11   it.  Next speakers are June Deen and Naeema 

         12   Gilyard.  Welcome to both of you.  Ms. Deen, you 

         13   are first.

         14        MS. DEEN:  Thank you.  Good morning and thank 

         15   you for the opportunity to comment on the Agency's 

         16   proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

         17   ozone.  I am June Deen, Vice President of Public 

         18   Affairs for the American Lung Association, 

         19   Southeast Region based here in Atlanta.  

         20        As you all know the American Lung 

         21   Association's mission is to fight lung disease.  An 

         22   important part of this battle is the quest for all 

         23   Americans to breathe clean and healthy air.  In 

         24   Georgia, and I will talk a little bit about our 

         25   State and also I learned this morning we have 




                                                                       41



          1   forecasts of a ozone exceedance today, so that's 

          2   something to keep in mind.  In Georgia over ten 

          3   percent of our children in Georgia have asthma.  

          4   The percentage increases in middle school and high 

          5   school to 15 and 16 percent respectively.  These 

          6   children miss over a half a million school days 

          7   each year.  Many live in cities where ozone is 

          8   already a concern.  Needless to say, they can 

          9   ill-afford to be exposed to pollutant that burn 

         10   lungs and airways and exacerbates their asthma.  We 

         11   know children with asthma can benefit greatly with 

         12   from a reduction of the ozone concentrations, as a 

         13   study of the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta 

         14   demonstrated.  Dr. Staton referred to this earlier.  

         15   The City made a concerted effort to reduce traffic 

         16   congestion to enable spectators to go to the games.  

         17   Public transit was enhanced, access to downtown was 

         18   limited or closed to private cars and businesses 

         19   were encouraged to promote telecommuting and 

         20   alternative work hours.  The results, large and 

         21   significant decreases in ozone concentrations.  

         22   During this period, researchers found significant 

         23   reductions in the number of urgent care visits, 

         24   emergency care visits and hospitalizations in 

         25   asthma in children ages 1 through 16.  Clean air 




                                                                       42



          1   does make a difference and it is achievable.  

          2        I mention children with asthma, but only as an 

          3   example.  Children and teens, senior citizens, 

          4   people with other lung diseases like chronic 

          5   bronchitis and emphysema are particularly 

          6   vulnerable to the health effects of ozone.  Those 

          7   that exercise outdoors and some who are responders 

          8   and then probably you and I.  Millions of children 

          9   and adults with lung disease in this country are 

         10   exposed to levels of ozone that can potentially 

         11   make them sick.  

         12        The Clean Air Act was designed to anticipate 

         13   that better science would clarify and improve 

         14   existing standards.  A significant body of research 

         15   shows that ozone endangers human health in 

         16   concentrations well below the current federal 

         17   standards.  The proposed revisions to the national 

         18   standards for ozone are a good step towards cleaner 

         19   air.  While the American Lung Association is 

         20   pleased that the EPA is calling for significantly 

         21   tighter standards, the Agency's plan falls short of 

         22   the range recommended by its own scientific 

         23   experts.  We believe that there is ample evidence 

         24   to support a standard at 0.06 ppm and we urge the 

         25   Administrator to adopt that level.  What is the 




                                                                       43



          1   cost of clean air?  A better question might be what 

          2   is the cost if we don't achieve clean air.  

          3        We urge EPA to follow the science follow the 

          4   law and adopt a standard that truly offers the 

          5   protection the Clean Air Act provides.  Thank you. 

          6        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

          7        MS. GILYARD:  Good morning.  My name is Naeema 

          8   Gilyard.  I am here today representing adults with 

          9   asthma.  I have had asthma for the past six years 

         10   and I'm here today, even though there is a orange 

         11   alert, which means that the air is sensitive to 

         12   people like me.  On and off you will hear me 

         13   coughing.  There are days that I can't go out 

         14   because the air quality is so bad that it will 

         15   trigger an asthma attack even though I have taken 

         16   all of my medicine.  On these days I have to take 

         17   off from work and stay in.  

         18        Over the years, the air quality has become 

         19   worse and I know so because there are more frequent 

         20   alerts and there are more days that I have to stay 

         21   home because of this.  It doesn't matter to me what 

         22   statistics reflect in terms of how the air quality 

         23   has improved over the years.  My asthma tells me 

         24   otherwise.  It is unthinkable to me that stricter 

         25   ozone standards are not being considered that would 




                                                                       44



          1   drastically improve our air.  To me, not doing so 

          2   is driven by greed and profits, but what else is 

          3   new.  Apparently, the health of our children is not 

          4   being considered with revised standards.  Poor air 

          5   quality is another public health crisis facing our 

          6   nation.  While our nation continues to focus on how 

          7   much it will cost to improve public health or will 

          8   there be a serious effort to improve our quality of 

          9   life.  It's up to all of us who breathe the awful 

         10   air we're breathing.  It's scary to me to see that 

         11   we're not functioning based on logic and 

         12   compassion.  Thank you.  

         13        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Our next speakers are 

         14   Sherrill Marcus and Dr. Beverly Wright.  Thank you 

         15   for coming today.  Welcome, Ms. Marcus, you're 

         16   first.  

         17        MR. MARCUS:  It's Mr. Marcus.

         18        MR. PAGE:  Oh, Sherrill Marcus is you.

         19        MR. MARCUS:  It's S-H-E-R-R-I-L-L, 

         20   M-A-R-C-U-S.  Thank you very much for the 

         21   opportunity to address the counsel on ozone.  I 

         22   come to speak and speak to you today as one who has 

         23   done some -- coordinated some research in the area 

         24   of ozone concentrations in metropolitan Atlanta.  

         25   As you can see, I had a lung collapse a few years 




                                                                       45



          1   ago and the one of the sensitive groups, I want to 

          2   begin by saying that I agree with Reverend Bright's 

          3   comments that no level of ozone is good for human 

          4   health.  It's dangerous and it does harm to the 

          5   body.  I got back from reading many studies on 

          6   health and air pollution while working.  

          7        In 2002, I want to tell you about the study, 

          8   we had 21 locations in the Metropolitan area that 

          9   used these (inaudible) to measure ozone levels.  Of 

         10   those 21 sites that we had we got adequate 

         11   information or data from 14 of them.  One of the 

         12   sites, by the way, was at trade where the EPD Air 

         13   Quality offices are located here in Atlanta.  We 

         14   had locations in Forsyth County, Hall County, 

         15   Douglas County, DeKalb County, Cobb County and, of 

         16   course, in Fulton.  Living in Fulton where you can 

         17   get more participants those were volunteers.  For 

         18   that year we had 23 exceedances, 23 more 

         19   exceedances from our monitoring efforts than EPD 

         20   reported.  Now, what is the difference and what 

         21   attributed to that?   EPA and all of the States use 

         22   a worldwide monitoring system.  Many who as many of 

         23   you know the scientists that study air quality know 

         24   that pollution has different concentrations in 

         25   different pocket we call them roses.  I first saw 




                                                                       46



          1   roses it was one of my favorite flowers, but when 

          2   it comes to the pollution level in communities 

          3   pockets are those 23 exceedances that we found in 

          4   communities that (inaudible) measured communities 

          5   level ozone meant that those persons were suffering 

          6   greater exposure than is being reported by the 

          7   area-wide monitoring.  So I say I made that point 

          8   to say this:  With respect to the lowering of the 

          9   standard for monitoring ozone, lowest standard 

         10   0.060 which is being proposed I would support, but 

         11   remembering to that all ozone is harmful to the 

         12   health and I'm sure to the environment too.  We 

         13   need to work to eliminate even more ozone from the 

         14   ambient air.  This research project was done by a 

         15   group that focuses on transportation.  

         16   Metro-Atlanta has had some of the worst congestion 

         17   in the nation during some of the years past and 

         18   continues to have serious congestion problems.  

         19   Most of the areas -- Let me just add too that 50 

         20   percent of the pollution in the air in Atlanta 

         21   comes from automobiles, so that the work in this 

         22   area, in Metropolitan Atlanta, the area of 

         23   transportation needs to focus on transit and ways 

         24   of getting people to use alternative means of 

         25   transportation.  We don't have that happening here.  




                                                                       47



          1   If it's possible for EPA to work with DOT to bring 

          2   about some things in that area, I think would be 

          3   very good. 

          4        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

          5        DR. WRIGHT:  Good morning.  My name is Dr. 

          6   Beverly Wright.  I am Director of Deep South Center 

          7   for Environmental Justice at Dillard University in 

          8   New Orleans, Louisiana and I'm here to present 

          9   testimony as a researcher and a scholar who has 

         10   studied and written about environmental health in 

         11   vulnerable populations for many years.  I am also 

         12   representing the National Black Environmental 

         13   Justice Network that has affiliates in 32 states 

         14   and the Environmental Justice Climate Change 

         15   Initiative is part of an organization called 

         16   Redefining Progress.  Both groups are focused on 

         17   national preventive health, environmental economic 

         18   justice and finding change.  

         19        I am also a displaced resident of New Orleans, 

         20   Louisiana with grave concerns around issues of 

         21   clean air and EPA's ability to protect human 

         22   health.  To the point, ozone kills.  Ozone exposure 

         23   has and been linked to premature death, shortness 

         24   of breath, chest pains, wheezing and coughing, 

         25   inflammation and damage to the lining of the lungs, 




                                                                       48



          1   increased asthma attacks, greater need for medical 

          2   treatment and for hospitalizations where people 

          3   with lung disease such as asthma and chronic 

          4   obstructive pulmonary disease.  Long-term repeated 

          5   exposure to high levels of ozone may also lead to 

          6   reduced lung capacity.  People who are most at risk 

          7   include:  People with lung disease, especially 

          8   chronic lung disease, such as asthma and emphysema; 

          9   children, because their airways are smaller their 

         10   respiratory defenses are not fully developed and 

         11   their higher breathing rates increase their 

         12   exposure; people who work or exercise outdoors, 

         13   senior citizens, otherwise healthy individuals who 

         14   respond to lower levels of exposure than the 

         15   average person.  

         16        Some studies show that African-Americans, 

         17   which I am, may be at higher risk of early death 

         18   from ozone pollution than the general population.  

         19   That may be partly because they tend to live in 

         20   high ozone urban areas or because asthma rates are 

         21   higher in this population.  To this point I would 

         22   like to stress that the National Council of Black 

         23   Mayors evidently is not speaking for the population 

         24   that they represent.  Their response sounded as if 

         25   it was written directly by industry and as soon as 




                                                                       49



          1   I get back to New Orleans, I intend to contact my 

          2   office to find out if my mayor signed on to that 

          3   particular statement.  It was abominable and really 

          4   very depressing to hear African-American men make 

          5   such a statement.  And I would like to say here and 

          6   now as an African-American who has worked with 

          7   communities in Louisiana for the last 15 years, you 

          8   will never hear one African-American make the 

          9   statement that we are afraid of the stigma of 

         10   ambient air non-attainment communities.  Thank you.  

         11   I got a bit emotional about this.  I could barely 

         12   sit in my seat what I heard them speaking, but that 

         13   is not the stigma that we worry about.  The stigma 

         14   that we worry about is that African-Americans have 

         15   higher rates of asthma and dying from respiratory 

         16   diseases, this is what they should be concerned 

         17   about, but it says that industry still has a strong 

         18   hold in states like Louisiana, Mississippi and 

         19   Alabama who, by the way, represent the poorest 

         20   states in the country and there isn't any inverse 

         21   relationship between propriety and pollution, which 

         22   means the poorer the State, the more polluted it is 

         23   and so we have Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama 

         24   meeting that particular criteria.  

         25        Cleaning up air pollution will save thousands 




                                                                       50



          1   of lives.  To get back on point, people die from 

          2   ozone exposure even when concentrations are well 

          3   below the current standard.  The World Health 

          4   Organization recently tightened its air quality 

          5   guidelines for ozone because of its concerns about 

          6   deaths from exposure to low concentration.  EPA's 

          7   independent (inaudible) advisors unanimously 

          8   recommended that EPA lower the ozone quality 

          9   standards due to evidence of death and disease at 

         10   levels below standard.  EPA is required by law to 

         11   set the standard solely on the basis of health 

         12   consideration.  EPA is not allowed the consider 

         13   cost.  Almost all of the industry arguments focus 

         14   on the cost of lowering the standard.  EPA should 

         15   ignore these comments.  Thank you. 

         16        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both very much for coming 

         17   today.   

         18        MR. LEFOHN:  My name is Allen Lefohn.  The 

         19   spelling is up here and it's a pleasure to be here.  

         20   Two days ago my wife and I were celebrating our 

         21   40th anniversary in Montana hiking in bear country, 

         22   so it very nice to be here.  

         23        I'm a Ph.D. in 1969 from University of 

         24   California at Berkeley.  I perform active research 

         25   in air quality characterization and exposure and 




                                                                       51



          1   dose response on both human health and vegetation 

          2   effects.  I've published over 100 pages in the 

          3   peer-review literature and I was a senior author in 

          4   1996 and 2006 for the EPA ozone criteria document 

          5   and I am the person who developed the W126 exposure 

          6   index which is proposed as secondary ozone 

          7   standard.  

          8        I would like to read first my conclusions.  

          9   The unfortunate decision by the EPA not to utilize 

         10   the available background monitoring data has 

         11   resulted in large overestimates of the number of 

         12   individuals who suffer sickness and even premature 

         13   deaths from ozone exposures.  EPA sets a dangerous 

         14   precedent by attempting to assign significance to a 

         15   statistically insignificant result  involving the 

         16   responses of three subjects at the 0.060 ppm 

         17   levels.  

         18        At this time there is insufficient evidence to 

         19   draw any conclusions about the estimates of effects 

         20   below 0.08 ppm using the human laboratory 

         21   experiments and it is my opinion that the EPA 

         22   should not rely on either the community time 

         23   searched results or the human laboratory 

         24   experimental studies for assessing the effects of 

         25   ozone on human health below 0.08 ppm.  




                                                                       52



          1        You heard and continue to hear in the news 

          2   about the number of individuals who suffer sickness 

          3   and premature deaths from ozone exposure.  The 

          4   generation of the numbers is mostly associated with 

          5   health risk analysis to utilize community 

          6   (inaudible) time series in human laboratory 

          7   experimental studies.  

          8        One of the key inputs in the risk analysis is 

          9   the range of background ozone concentrations.  The 

         10   EPA underestimates background ozone and ozone 

         11   really is available at background levels.  It is 

         12   not zero.  Then the Agency overestimates sickness 

         13   and premature deaths.

         14        If background ozone is higher than the EPA 

         15   predicted, there is a decrease in predictions of 

         16   sickness and premature deaths.  One goes up the 

         17   other goes down.  

         18        Evidence was presented in 2005 to the Clean 

         19   Air Scientific Advisory Committee with monitoring 

         20   data existing for identifying background and that 

         21   that EPA estimates were just too low.  In 2006 

         22   EPA's ozone criteria document concluded that no 

         23   background monitoring sites existed in North 

         24   America and, therefore, the Agency had no choice 

         25   but to use a model testing it's background.  




                                                                       53



          1   However, in 2007 EPA changed its opinion and 

          2   reported in a staff paper that background ozone 

          3   monitoring sites do exist.  

          4        March 26th letter to the Administrator, CASAC 

          5   concluded with respect policy relevant background 

          6   the ozone panel wishes to point out that the claim 

          7   of ozone staff paper does not provide a sufficient 

          8   base of evidence from the peer-reviewed literature 

          9   to suggest that the current approach to the 

         10   trimming of (inaudible) relevant background is the 

         11   best method to make this estimation.  

         12        The top curve is background, the real 

         13   background, the middle part of the curves are the 

         14   12 cities that EPA used in its risk analysis EPA 

         15   underestimated actual background.  Modifying EPA's 

         16   estimated ozone background level by five ppb for L.  

         17   A. would make the risk by as much as 80 percent 

         18   lower for non-accidental mortality.  If the Agency 

         19   had used actual background, I believe, in my 

         20   opinion, that the 86 percent reduction for L.A. for 

         21   non-accidental mortality would have been even 

         22   greater.  This is the curve that is used in the 

         23   clinical health studies for lung function.  Please 

         24   look at the green line.  There are two points below 

         25   0.08, 0.06 and 0.04.  Research results published by 




                                                                       54



          1   Bill Adams formed the basis for these data points.  

          2   By the way I designed his experiments and 

          3   exposures.  Adams 2002 and 2006 reported no 

          4   statistical significant effects at 0.04 and 0.06.  

          5   At the 0.06 level there were two subjects that 

          6   responded one set of exposures and one for another 

          7   set of exposures at the 0.06 level.  One of the 

          8   subjects experienced a lung function decrement at 5 

          9   percent in clean air while exercising.  

         10        In his 2002 experiment, Adams reported there 

         11   was one subject who responded at the 0.04 level.  

         12   The use of one subject out of 30 to define a data 

         13   point on a response curve is inappropriate.  And 

         14   finally, this is a member of CASAC and what he said 

         15   was other cases such as specific case of 0.06 or 

         16   0.04 exposures, this approach amounts to attempting 

         17   to find effects in a very few individuals when the 

         18   statistical tests are not significant, which is a 

         19   dangerous precedent, especially in this case where 

         20   we're looking at small effects of 330 versus 130, a 

         21   pitiful number in which to attempt to base policy.  

         22   Thank you.  

         23        MR. FELDMAN:  I'm Howard Feldman, Director of 

         24   Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at API.  API 

         25   represents more than 400 members in all aspects of 




                                                                       55



          1   the oil industry.  We're a stakeholder in this 

          2   issue.  We have been involved with this before and 

          3   we'll continue to be involved with the ozone 

          4   setting standards.  

          5        I want to make three points today, please.  

          6   First, oil and gas industry try is working to make 

          7   the air cleaner right now; second, it is actually 

          8   much more science debate on the science than EPA 

          9   let on in the rulemaking; and third, it will be 

         10   real costs on real people without commensurate 

         11   benefits.  

         12        API acknowledges EPA is making a lot of 

         13   progress.  Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has 

         14   invested more than $148 billion, that's billion 

         15   with a B, towards improving environmental 

         16   performance of its products and its facilities, so 

         17   we see nations putting in clean diesel, clean 

         18   gasoline and going into cleaner vehicles.  We have 

         19   also worked on cleaning up our stationary sources.  

         20   Specifically, as you can see from EPA's figure, he 

         21   has EPA figure handy, we see a 54 percent drop in 

         22   criteria air pollutants between 1970 and 2006, 

         23   while BMT has increased 177 percent.  All right.  

         24   We also know that TRI emissions from the industry 

         25   have dropped dramatically in the meantime and all 




                                                                       56



          1   this progress will continue.  Cleaner gasoline will 

          2   be used in cars and trucks.  It must be 77 to 95 

          3   percent cleaner than those produced in 2004 and 

          4   Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel will lead the truck 

          5   emissions and bus emissions will be 90 percent 

          6   reduced by 2030, so clearly progress will continue.  

          7        Moving on to my second point, the science 

          8   behind changing these standards is uncertain and 

          9   variable.  There are a lot of questions still in 

         10   the science.  Dr. Allen Lefohn already addressed 

         11   the background issue, so I'm not going to go on in 

         12   that.  Looking at the setting of the standard, in 

         13   the only toxicological evidence of the human health 

         14   effects, a peer-reviewed public study found no 

         15   statistically lung function impairment at levels 

         16   below the existing standard.  Nonetheless, EPA 

         17   staff statistically reanalyzed selected portions of 

         18   the data and reported finding significant lung 

         19   function impairment at ozone levels below the 

         20   current standard.  EPA appears to be relying on 

         21   this unpublished, unreviewed staff analysis, one 

         22   that contradicts the author's original 

         23   peer-reviewed results that support a call for a 

         24   tighter standard.  

         25        There are also inconsistent findings the case 




                                                                       57



          1   of new acute mortality.  The Bell, et al. 2004 

          2   study found statistically significant associations 

          3   between ozone and mortality in only 6 of 95 cities 

          4   studied.  

          5        Further, the statistically signal identified 

          6   in Bell et al. is significantly less than the level 

          7   of uncertainty results.  This is analogous to an 

          8   election night exit poll that shows a candidate 

          9   with a 50 percent to 49 percent lead, with a 

         10   statistically margin of error of plus or minus 5 

         11   percent.  In such a case, no media outlet would 

         12   project a winner, yet in this Ozone NAAQS context, 

         13   EPA is professing to have sufficient scientific 

         14   certainty to establish the ozone-mortality link.

         15        Moving onto my third point, a more stringent 

         16   ozone standard will burden the States with a new 

         17   and more difficult target before they complete work 

         18   and implement the attainment plans for the current 

         19   standard.  We heard a lot of talk about people who 

         20   are concerned about air quality today, well, we're 

         21   not meeting the current standard yet.  We need to 

         22   work toward the current standard.  Many local 

         23   communities will be saddled with new costs if we 

         24   change the standard or hurt both large and small 

         25   businesses and prevent expansion and growth.  




                                                                       58



          1   Hurting local economy and citizens without a clear 

          2   scientific basis for selecting a different numeric 

          3   standard is not a prudent use of resources. 

          4        Looking forward, further improvements will 

          5   come through current regulations designed to meet 

          6   the existing standards, such as the cleaner fuels 

          7   described above.  Of course, we all know that the 

          8   Clean Air Act mandates the Ozone NAAQS be 

          9   established based solely on science and that 

         10   changes then must be requisite to protect the 

         11   public health and welfare and based on substantial 

         12   improvements in scientific information.  

         13   Nevertheless, the significant economic impact of 

         14   tightening the standard should highlight the 

         15   importance of getting the science right and the 

         16   inherent uncertainty of the current science does 

         17   not support imposing further costs for the 

         18   uncertain benefits proposed.  Chilling local 

         19   economies with compelling changes in the science 

         20   makes no sense.  Thank you.

         21        MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are Flora Tommie 

         22   and Ben Dunham.  Welcome to both of you.  

         23        MS. TOMMIE:  Good morning, everyone.  My name 

         24   is Flora Tommie and I am of the Murphy Alliance for 

         25   Maytech and I also serve as secretary for the 




                                                                       59



          1   purposes Civic Association of Community in 

          2   Southwest Atlanta.  A community that is actually is 

          3   surrounded by the expressways, highways, I-75, 

          4   I-85, Highway 166, North-South Connectors from the 

          5   airport, everything.  I also have a trucking center 

          6   that is right at these pointline boundaries of my 

          7   community.  Everyone talks about there no 

          8   significant scientific data, I told them I go by 

          9   the human data.  There is no such thing as human 

         10   safe when people are actually sick.  I also suffer 

         11   from asthma.  I testified before in regards to the 

         12   transportation problems that we have and the people 

         13   who have asthma needed to walk to get mass transit 

         14   and, therefore, the effects that they suffer from 

         15   the diesel pollution.  Also my community we have 

         16   one stretch that suffers from 60,000 vehicles a day 

         17   plus travel from I-75/85 to Highway 166, yet 

         18   everybody say they monitor everything, there has 

         19   never been my monitoring in my community at all as 

         20   to the truck traffic and diesel (inaudible).  

         21   Everything that is growing involve in the 

         22   commercial freight (inaudible), therefore, I have 

         23   to say that we have to stop saying everything is 

         24   okay at the levels that they are when we already 

         25   have data, the human data, that is showing the cost 




                                                                       60



          1   that people suffer.  I have looked at the children 

          2   in the community who suffered from asthma for years 

          3   but nobody had been out to test them even as a part 

          4   of the Federal Highways Transportation Plan. Nobody 

          5   has looked at any environmental impacts of the 

          6   diesel air on their quality of life.  Nobody looked 

          7   a bus depot of the Atlanta Public School System 

          8   which is functioning on the old gasoline system.  

          9   Nobody looked at the effect at the beginning part 

         10   of a neighborhood where children and people those 

         11   are now.  These are predominantly African-Americans 

         12   who have no concept of a test for ozone, who have 

         13   not been educated as to how they need to be 

         14   monitoring for those days.  They only know when we 

         15   call out sick and have to go to the hospital, then 

         16   you start your documentation, but nobody documents 

         17   us when we are talking around sick because you 

         18   can't go to the hospital because don't have 

         19   healthcare.  

         20        And the reason I get slow is because I have 

         21   problem catching my breath.  I also suffer from 

         22   fibromyalgia and (inaudible) from the bones, so I 

         23   have overcome a lot.  I have also been the person 

         24   who passed out and challenged the State of its 

         25   Clean Air laws.  As a citizen I demand the right to 




                                                                       61



          1   clean air as a quality of life for us.  

          2        The oil industry has to also stop saying that 

          3   our communities will suffer economically if we 

          4   don't do something, our communities are suffering 

          5   for oil right now.  My family is suffering in Iraq 

          6   for oil.  There has always been the fight to try to 

          7   get oil.

          8        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Dunham, you 

          9   ready.

         10        MR. DUNHAM:  Good afternoon, and thank you for 

         11   holding this hearing today on strengthening the 

         12   national standard for ozone pollution.  My name is 

         13   Ben Dunham, I'm the associate legislative counsel 

         14   for Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law 

         15   firm founded in 1971 as the Sierra Club People 

         16   Defense Fund.  Earthjustice represents, without 

         17   charge, hundreds of clients, large and small, in 

         18   order to reduce water and air pollution, prevent 

         19   toxic contamination, safeguard public lands and 

         20   preserve endangered species and wildlife habitat. 

         21        I'm here today to (inaudible) and build the 

         22   mandate of the Clean Air Act of public health with 

         23   an adequate margin of safety by strengthening the 

         24   8-hour ozone standards no greater than 0.06 ppm.  

         25   Breathing ozone polluted air has been compared to 




                                                                       62



          1   rubbing sandpaper in the lungs.  Ozone is a 

          2   powerful respiratory irritant associated with 

          3   increased risks of asthma attacks, inflammation of 

          4   the lung lining, wheezing, coughing, shortness of 

          5   breath and chest pains.  There is now even evidence 

          6   that ozone pollution can kill.  A 14-year study of 

          7   95 U.S. cities linked short-termed increase in 

          8   ozone pollution to increased death from heart and 

          9   lung problems.  Even at levels below the current 

         10   standard, the relationship between smog and early 

         11   death was evident.  Ozone also contributes to 

         12   global warming.  EPA has concluded that those under 

         13   the potent greenhouse gas and new research shows by 

         14   (inaudible) leaves and reducing the rate of 

         15   photosynthesis, ozone can stunt plant growth, thus 

         16   reducing plants ability to act as a sink for 

         17   greenhouse gases.  

         18        The Clean Air Act, when used as it was 

         19   intended is one of the most effective environmental 

         20   laws ever written.  Each year the Clean Air Act 

         21   prevents well over 200,000 premature deaths, more 

         22   than 650,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, over 

         23   200,000 hospital admissions and more than 200 

         24   million respiratory illnesses.  

         25        Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible 




                                                                       63



          1   for promulgating the primary National Ambient 

          2   Quality Standards that protect public health with 

          3   an adequate margin of safety.  Every five years EPA 

          4   must revise those standards taking into account the 

          5   latest science of the effects ozone pollution on 

          6   public health and the environment.  The Supreme 

          7   Court has held that in setting or revising ozone 

          8   pollution standards, the EPA cannot consider 

          9   implementation of cost, only health impacts.  

         10   Courts have also found that maximum must be set at 

         11   levels that protects,not just healthy adults, but 

         12   also sensitive populations, like the elderly and 

         13   children.  People with asthma are also considered 

         14   sensitive population and Courts have repeatedly 

         15   found that health effect in even a small portion of 

         16   the population is enough.  

         17        In short, the Clean Air Act was intended to 

         18   provide safe breathing air for all Americans.  The 

         19   current standard of 0.80 ppm does fill that 

         20   mandate, nor would the proposed standard of 0.07 

         21   and 0.075 ppm.  The most recent science shows that 

         22   a standard of 0.06 ppm is necessary to protect 

         23   public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

         24        EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 

         25   an independent board of 23 scientists, found that 




                                                                       64



          1   the current standard for ozone is not strong enough 

          2   to protect the public health.  The Committee 

          3   specifically found that "retaining this current 

          4   standard would continue to put large numbers of 

          5   individuals at risk for mortality or death."   

          6        The scientists cited a broader (inaudible) and 

          7   found an increase in mortality reported at exposure 

          8   levels well below the current standard.  As a 

          9   result, the Committee unanimously recommended that 

         10   EPA set the ozone standard at 0.06 to 0.70 ppm.  

         11        EPA's Children's Health Advisory Committee 

         12   went a step further and recommended setting the 

         13   standard at 0.06 ppm, citing children's sensitivity 

         14   to ozone.  Experts on public health, including the 

         15   American Thoracic Society, the American Lung 

         16   Association and the American Public Health 

         17   Association have also called for standards of 0.06 

         18   ppm.  

         19        In this day and in this country we should be 

         20   able to provide an environment where it's safe for 

         21   our kids to play outside without their parents 

         22   having to worry that they will end up in the 

         23   hospital just from breathing the air.  The same 

         24   goes for senior citizens who want to take a walk in 

         25   the park. 




                                                                       65



          1        The Clean Air Act provides all of us with the 

          2   right to have air that's safe to breathe.  It's 

          3   EPA's job to make sure that standards are adopted 

          4   that make that right a reality.  In light of the 

          5   recommendations of dozens of public experts and 

          6   scientific studies showing adverse health effects 

          7   with levels as low as 0.06 ppm, Earthjustice urges 

          8   EPA to set an 8-hour ozone standard at no greater 

          9   than 0.06 ppm. 

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you both or 

         11   coming today.  We're going to take two more 

         12   speakers and take a break after this. 

         13        Mike Wilder and Marie Green are our next 

         14   speakers.  Welcome to both of you.  Mr. Wilder, you 

         15   are our next speaker.  

         16        MR. WILDER:  I'm Mike Wilder.  I'm the 

         17   Environmental Manager for Georgia Power Company.  

         18   At Georgia Power Company we think this is the best 

         19   process for setting environmental standards.  It's 

         20   a good public process and we applaud you for taking 

         21   this action today.  We support good science and 

         22   good sense in setting environmental standards.  

         23   Without good science there is just really nothing 

         24   but chaos, so we really think that the science 

         25   needs to be driving factor in setting new 




                                                                       66



          1   standards.  

          2        We think that EPA should take full note of the 

          3   efforts of the various States to implement cleaner 

          4   air interstate rules to bring about significant 

          5   reductions in ozone causing of pollutants across 

          6   the nation.  That rule will be fully implemented in 

          7   2015.  

          8          In Georgia we hope that you will take 

          9   particular note on what the State of Georgia has 

         10   done under the leadership of the Air Branch of 

         11   Environmental Protection Division, a new rule 

         12   called the Georgia Multi-Pollutant Rule has been 

         13   passed and placed into law.  That rule will bring 

         14   about significant reductions in emissions from 

         15   (inaudible) generating plants that are far in 

         16   excess, far in excess, of federal requirements, so 

         17   we hope that no new counties will be designated in 

         18   non-attainment in Georgia until the full effects of 

         19   that rule have been implemented and that will be in 

         20   2015.  Thank you.

         21        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

         22        MS. GREEN:  Good morning everyone.  My name is 

         23   Marie Green and I'm just here today to relate my 

         24   experience.  I have asthma.  I've suffered with 

         25   asthma most of my life and I would say in the 




                                                                       67



          1   within the last ten years it's has gotten 

          2   progressively worse.  My doctor tells me I have 

          3   severe asthma and he describes my airways as being 

          4   hyper-sensitive and really can't tell me why.  He 

          5   just says that there are more than one cell-layer 

          6   type involved in this, so what they do, basically, 

          7   is they treat me with steroid.  I'm on what's 

          8   called Advair.  I'm sure you all have seen the 

          9   commercials about that.  I take Albuterol and I 

         10   take oral Prednisone, which that is a really bad 

         11   medication to be on because of all of the side 

         12   effects.  When the Advair and the Albuterol don't 

         13   work, basically, the oral steroids kick in and this 

         14   is what brings me out of trouble.  I have had two 

         15   hospitalizations in 2005 that were basically six 

         16   months apart.  And the only thing that keeps out of 

         17   hospital and the emergency room now are the 

         18   steroids.  I, basically, think of myself as being 

         19   health conscious.  I do minimal exercise.  I need 

         20   to do more, but I eat very well.  I take 

         21   anti-oxidants.  I do everything I can do to fight 

         22   this and I still wheeze everyday.  And I'm wheezing 

         23   now, it's just a little low wheezing.  It's 

         24   something that's managed with medication.  So it 

         25   make sense to me to have clean air because I can't 




                                                                       68



          1   see -- It would only help me to be able to breathe 

          2   clean, fresh air every day and it's beyond you know 

          3   anything that I'm doing wrong.  It's just something 

          4   that's in the air.  I can't explain it.  I just 

          5   know every day that I wake up, it's a struggle for 

          6   me to breathe, so I would like to see something 

          7   done to make the air cleaner and better for 

          8   everybody.  If that means, you know, if it just 

          9   means major adjustments on the part of businesses 

         10   and industries to make the air cleaner then that's 

         11   what need to be done because your health is your 

         12   weather.  If you don't have your health then really 

         13   not much else matters.  So that's pretty much it 

         14   for me.

         15        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both or coming today.  We 

         16   appreciate it.  

         17        All right.  We will take a ten-minute break 

         18   and reconvene at about five minutes till 11:00.     

         19                          - - -

         20             (Whereupon, a brief break was taken)

         21                          - - -

         22        MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are Diane Shockey 

         23   and Angel Torres and anybody is free to correct my 

         24   pronunciation of their name.  

         25        Welcome to both of you.  Thank you for coming 




                                                                       69



          1   today. 

          2        MS. SHOCKEY:  I am Diane Shockey.  I live in 

          3   one of the non-attainment counties, Walton County.  

          4   I'm hear today because of my daughter, who is a 

          5   15-year-old and she goes to school at Loganville 

          6   High School and she has asthma.  It's awkward and I 

          7   feel uncomfortable being here so please bear with 

          8   me if I stutter and stumble but I felt like I 

          9   should come down and give my two cents.

         10        MR. PAGE:  We're glad you are here.  

         11        MS. SHOCKEY:  I am not an expert and I heard a 

         12   lot of the experts speak and I'll just give you 

         13   antidotal information, yet to me it's very specific 

         14   antidotal information.  

         15        I'm going to talk about two issues today and 

         16   that is getting to school and then after school 

         17   with my daughter.  Getting to school is a problem 

         18   for my daughter because if she rides the bus, she 

         19   has to ride the bus for an hour and they are diesel 

         20   buses and that is a trigger for her.  There is 

         21   probably 35 buses that are at Loganville High 

         22   School so that is a lot of diesel being put out.  

         23   Our county has just exploded with population as a 

         24   lot of Georgia counties have done so in the last 

         25   few years, so if I drive her, the infra-structure 




                                                                       70



          1   has not caught up with the population in the 

          2   school, so with their bumper-to-bumper traffic 

          3   inching along.  So how my daughter and I both start 

          4   our day, I'm an asthmatic too.  I didn't get asthma 

          5   until I was 42.  We have to load up on our 

          6   medication and take off to school.  

          7        Now, after school she is a musician and she is 

          8   in the marching band.  In order to be in the 

          9   marching band she must practice almost every day 

         10   after school, which is the ozone levels are the 

         11   worse in the afternoon.  I counted today and I 

         12   maybe wrong, but there was 18 days in August that 

         13   it was unadvisable for kids to be out after school 

         14   if you had asthma.  Some days they were for 

         15   everybody, some days they were for sensitive 

         16   groups.  Because of that and because my daughter is 

         17   in the marching band she has been sick most of the 

         18   time because she has had asthma-related conditions 

         19   because she is trying to have fun, trying to do the 

         20   right thing.  We tell our kids to go outside and 

         21   get some exercise and the next thing I know, it's 

         22   not just my daughter, I see all these the kids 

         23   whipping out their Albuterol, whipping out their 

         24   drugs to get them through the afternoon because of 

         25   the problems we have with the pollution here in the 




                                                                       71



          1   area.  

          2        I know that people in Georgia are trying to do 

          3   the right thing and trying to meet the standards 

          4   that you have already put in place, but it's too 

          5   little, too late.  And to me it's like nibbling 

          6   around the edges.  Our kids wouldn't be out there 

          7   if the schools knew that maybe their damaging those 

          8   kids's lungs long-term.  I feel guilty because I 

          9   think maybe I'm even damaging my daughter's lung 

         10   just by letting her out.  

         11        So there is not the education on the level 

         12   that maybe we're doing the big picture, but the 

         13   small picture is all these kids are out there, a 

         14   lot of them have got asthma and it doesn't seem to 

         15   be reaching an educational level to any of the 

         16   parents and even if we do know, like myself, we 

         17   still let them go.  

         18        So the State, for whatever they're doing, and 

         19   I'm sure they are trying to do the right thing, I 

         20   hope I'm looking to EPA to help us out, try to do 

         21   the right thing for everybody.  And I know that 

         22   there is a lot of economic issues, but if we are 

         23   all going to be sick, I don't know if it's going to 

         24   help us too much to have a job if we're going to be 

         25   doing this to and our future generations.  I know 




                                                                       72



          1   you guys are professionals and I even have 

          2   relatives in the EPA and I know how hard you guys 

          3   work, but I really hope that you step up to the 

          4   bar, but whatever you do, whether you raise the 

          5   standard, you hold Georgia's officials feet to the 

          6   fire and get them -- keep them focused on obtaining 

          7   and maintaining to clean air so that there will be 

          8   a better future for our kids than we're giving them 

          9   right now.  Thank you.

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

         11        MR. TORRES:  Good morning.  I would like to 

         12   thank you for the opportunity to be here today.  My 

         13   name is Angel Torres.  Actually, I have worked for 

         14   the Environmental Justice Research Center at the 

         15   Clark Atlanta university for more than 11 years, 

         16   but today I'm here as a private citizen.  Because 

         17   of my work there as GI Specialist I have been able 

         18   to see first-hand the effect of air pollutants in 

         19   the general public and populations.  Early on I 

         20   realized that asthma was a major problem.  It was a 

         21   persistent issue in the communities that I have 

         22   been visiting for many, many years.  Never did I 

         23   think that I would have to be facing the same 

         24   issues that I was seeing people going through 

         25   during that time. 




                                                                       73



          1        Today I'm the proud father of a child with 

          2   asthma, a four-year-old, asthma and allergies.  And 

          3   I never understood what people had to do to, you 

          4   know, I was going to this communities looking at 

          5   the people working hard and they doing everything 

          6   that they could to keep their children healthy and 

          7   I never understood the process.  I won't want to be 

          8   in that community.  I'm glad I'm leaving, you know, 

          9   kind of thinking to myself and now that I have a 

         10   kid with asthma, it's a completely different 

         11   perspective.  

         12        One of the main problems is when a kid has 

         13   asthma, it's like a lot of times they have to stay 

         14   indoors.  That's a clear thing.  Well, that's 

         15   really hard for a four-year-old kid.  His little 

         16   friends are in the soccer field running around, 

         17   doing their thing and he is locking out of the 

         18   window, you know, and you tell him one of these 

         19   days you will.  Now, I'm sitting next to her, you 

         20   know, now I'm more concerned because her daughter 

         21   is grown.  She is going to grow out of it all this 

         22   stuff, so it pretty concerning.  

         23        I had a speech here written and I got 

         24   completely out of it, so I'm going to keep going.  

         25   So, obviously, asthma interferes with activity 




                                                                       74



          1   greatly during that time.  For the last couple of 

          2   weeks, we have had extremely hot days.  And, 

          3   obviously, they have been most of the unhealthiest 

          4   days.  So right now, you know, we are dealing with 

          5   one of those asthmatic episodes that you go for 

          6   like a couple of weeks the asthma gets pretty bad, 

          7   so I really couldn't finish what I was doing.  But, 

          8   you know, I was going to come in here and tell you 

          9   17 million people have asthma, you know, and 43 

         10   percent are children and blah, blah, blah, blah, 

         11   blah, you know, it costs $4 billion a year for 

         12   people not making it to work, but I'm pretty sure 

         13   that you will have heard all of these by the end of 

         14   the day and you can read your own studies and you 

         15   can do your own decision, but I'm here today to ask 

         16   you not to bring these standards down to 0.07 but 

         17   consider the lower standard of 0.06.  0.07 will 

         18   help everybody, obviously, even the healthy people, 

         19   but 0.06 standard would actually help my son, so 

         20   I'm thinking for my own well-being.  He will be 

         21   able to get out of his little prison, you know, he 

         22   can be able to run play in the afternoon and he can 

         23   be normal again.

         24        We all know that there is a great deal of 

         25   assistance is going to come from corporations and 




                                                                       75



          1   what have you, people that are going to have to 

          2   change their ways, but for many years they have 

          3   been changing their ways and everything, they are 

          4   still here, so I'm not sure that changing the 

          5   standard is going to help the incredible 

          6   precautions that they are talking about.  When I 

          7   was down to do the research on it, I run into your 

          8   web page on Myths & Facts about Non-attainment and 

          9   I thought the first one was really telling.  The 

         10   first one states:  "A destination of non-attainment 

         11   will significantly limit economic growth."  That's 

         12   a myth.  The fact is that history shows that is not 

         13   true.  Non-attainment emissions controls are 

         14   designed to help areas improve air quality even as 

         15   they grow.  And counts around Atlanta, for example, 

         16   have grown as much as 123 percent, so I'm not sure 

         17   that these economic repercussions are there as 

         18   today.  I just hope you guys look at your standard, 

         19   go ahead and follow what the Supreme Court mandated 

         20   from you guys, which is not to consider the cost, 

         21   but consider the health implications of your 

         22   actions.  I appreciate your time.  Thank you.

         23        MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much for coming.  

         24   Appreciate you being here today.  Our next speakers 

         25   are Mr. Russell Cunningham and Ms. Jennifer Downs.  




                                                                       76



          1   Welcome to both of you.  Thank you for being here 

          2   today.  Mr. Cunningham, you are our next speaker. 

          3        MR. CUNNINGHAM:  Thank you.  I'm Russell 

          4   Cunningham, President of the Birmingham Regional 

          5   Chamber of Commence.  Chamber serves as the key 

          6   business economics development and public policy 

          7   organization for Central Alabama.  The Chamber and 

          8   it's Environmental Committee are involved with the 

          9   Alabama Partners for clean air and actively 

         10   participate in governmental actions associated with 

         11   the 8-hour ozone and particulate parts per million 

         12   standard current today.  Why is changing the EPA's 

         13   current National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

         14   Ground-level Ozone necessary?  The Clean Air Act is 

         15   working and the nation's air quality is improving.  

         16   Since 1990, the Birmingham area has been classified 

         17   by the EPA As an ozone non-attainment area.  

         18        Hard work, however, has worked to improve 

         19   Alabama's air quality and that has resulted in the 

         20   redesignation of the Birmingham area and the ozone 

         21   attainment as of May 2006.  That is a remarkable 

         22   achievement, if you recall, the Birmingham area's 

         23   industrial heritage.  All of Alabama's 67 counties 

         24   are also in attainment for ozone now.  And EPA has 

         25   endorsed redorsed revisions to Alabama's State 




                                                                       77



          1   Implementation Plan, but it is intended to insure 

          2   that Birmingham, Alabama is at least an ozone 

          3   attainment to at least 2017.  Under the State's 

          4   oversight, Jefferson County alone has reduced point 

          5   source emissions and nitrous oxide by significant 

          6   amounts.  Nitrous oxide emitting sources in Alabama 

          7   have invested and are continuing to invest 

          8   millions, even billions of dollars in improved 

          9   air-quality measures.  The Birmingham area ozone 

         10   attainment redesignation is by no means the end of 

         11   the story for improving air quality in Alabama.  

         12   The existing regulations and/or the rules will have 

         13   the effect of continuing to improve Alabama's air 

         14   quality.  As this air quality improves, it's impact 

         15   on public health improves.  The existing ozone 

         16   standard is at a level that is protective of public 

         17   health and includes a margin of safety.  

         18   Recognizing that Alabama's air quality continues to 

         19   improve, why is a change in the old ozone standard 

         20   unnecessary?  First, the science supporting the 

         21   change in the standard has been called into 

         22   question visa vie Dr. Lefohn's testimony.  Even the 

         23   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee during 

         24   recent Congressional testimony has indicated that 

         25   EPA has "did not provide a sufficient base of 




                                                                       78



          1   evidence" to prove that the proposed change is 

          2   appropriate and that is according to a past 

          3   chairman of that committee, Dr. Roger McClellan. 

          4        When an area is classified as non-attainment 

          5   severe competitive penalties are imposed.  That 

          6   means fewer jobs and stagnant communities' 

          7   financial health.  For example, our recruiting 

          8   agency, Metropolitan Development Board reports that 

          9   during the '90s Birmingham could not compete for at 

         10   least 17 new projects including Mercedes-Benz and 

         11   Honda from a total of 14,000 jobs and a 

         12   five-and-a-half billion dollar investment. Another 

         13   disadvantage for non-attainment relates to highway 

         14   development.  All ozone non-attainment areas have 

         15   restricted access to federal transportation funds.  

         16   In addition, but not finally, as soon as an area is 

         17   identified as being projected as being a 

         18   non-attainment area, it has the same competitive 

         19   disadvantage as though the sanction had been 

         20   imposed.  We propose that EPA should give 

         21   additional scrutiny to policy decisions like the 

         22   one in question that are based on questionable 

         23   science and their resulting adverse effects on 

         24   communities and their economic health.  

         25        To conclude, air quality is improving.  The 




                                                                       79



          1   current ozone standard protects public health.  The 

          2   science behind lowering the standard is suspect, 

          3   and the economic costs associated with reducing the 

          4   standard do not justify changing the current 

          5   standard, therefore, the Birmingham Regional 

          6   Chamber of Commerce urges EPA to focus on helping 

          7   communities to meet and maintain current standards 

          8   before imposing new ones.  Thank you very much. 

          9        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Ms. 

         10   Downs.

         11        MS. DOWNS:  Hi, my name is Jennifer Downs and 

         12   I'm the Outreach Director for Georgia Interfaith 

         13   Power & Light.  Georgia Interfaith Power & Light is 

         14   a non-profit organization whose mission is to 

         15   engage and support faith communities in caring for 

         16   the earth.  Thank you for this opportunity to 

         17   testify on EPA's proposal to revise the National 

         18   Ambient Air Quality Standards.  

         19        Georgia Interfaith Power & Light has 

         20   (inaudible) of over 130 interfaith communities 

         21   around the State who are concerned about 

         22   environmental issues such as air quality and ozone 

         23   and their connection to global planet change.  We 

         24   are pleased that EPA has proposed strengthening the 

         25   national air quality standards for ozone, however, 




                                                                       80



          1   the proposed revision still falls short of the 

          2   standards EPA's own advisors have recommended to 

          3   protect public health.  Worse yet, the possibility 

          4   of not changing the standard at all has remained on 

          5   the table.  The faith communities I represent work 

          6   on environmental or creation care issues as matters 

          7   of faith.  Every major religion has an ethic of 

          8   environmental care as well as caring for one's 

          9   neighbor.  We often say if you love your neighbor, 

         10   you don't dirty your neighbor's air.

         11        Ozone pollution is a serious threat, both to 

         12   our environment and to our neighbor's health.  In 

         13   the case of ozone pollution, the law is clear that 

         14   the standard that EPA sets must be one that 

         15   protects the public health within an adequate 

         16   margin of safety.  The science is also clear, the 

         17   standard must be considerably strengthened to 

         18   adequately protect public health.  Leaving the 

         19   standard as is not acceptable and strengthening the 

         20   standard to between 0.07 and 0.05 ppm does not go 

         21   far enough.  The standard should be set at 0.06 ppm 

         22   which will protect the vulnerable populations, the 

         23   children, senior citizens and those with 

         24   respiratory disease.  

         25        For those whose environmental concern comes 




                                                                       81



          1   from a place of faithfulness, it is imperative that 

          2   we protect the vulnerable as best we can.  Georgia 

          3   Interfaith Power & Light is also concerned with the 

          4   link between ozone pollution and climate change.  

          5   The harmful emissions that release all of the 

          6   ozone in the lower atmosphere primarily come from 

          7   the burning of fossil fuels which also creates 

          8   greenhouse (inaudible) that contribute to the 

          9   warming of our earth.  In fact, ozone functions as 

         10   a proponent of greenhouse gas.  

         11        The Journal of Nature recently published and 

         12   article that found that rising levels of ozone near 

         13   the ground are damaging the ability of plants to 

         14   take up this carbon dioxide, thus reducing the 

         15   plants potential by a third to act as a 

         16   counterbalance to greenhouse gas accumulation.  

         17   This new finding will have to be factored into 

         18   climate models to effect the future on effective 

         19   climate change.  

         20        And then last, personally, as a recent 

         21   graduate of Divinity School and a new mom, I'm 

         22   concerned not only for my neighbors, which includes 

         23   all of life on this earth, but also for my unborn 

         24   child.  In Atlanta we have had red and orange smog 

         25   alerts levels all summer long since May of this 




                                                                       82



          1   year.  And being pregnant there are many days that 

          2   I have a hard time breathing, which has never 

          3   happened to me before.  I don't have asthma.  I was 

          4   just needing to take in a little bit more air than 

          5   I could get in.  That was a wake-up call.  

          6        I know that because I live in a city that has 

          7   unsafe levels of ozone, it's a likelihood that my 

          8   child will develop asthma is pretty good and that's 

          9   unacceptable.  The EPA must do the right thing and 

         10   set a strong standard of 0.06 ppm to protect the 

         11   public health.  Tougher limits are necessary to 

         12   force heavily polluted cities like Atlanta to 

         13   address this problem.  The cost is great no matter 

         14   what.  It just depends on who is expected to bear 

         15   the burden of the cost.  Is it the public who will 

         16   pay the cost in their health?  Is it the healthcare 

         17   industry who will treat numerous cases of 

         18   respiratory disease and asthma or should it be the 

         19   polluting companies that they should pay to clean 

         20   up their act.  I would vote for the latter that the 

         21   cost should follow the companies that are 

         22   contributing to the problem.  Thanks again for the 

         23   opportunity to view that. 

         24        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both for being here 

         25   today.  The next speakers are Ms. Melanie Boltax 




                                                                       83



          1   and J.K. Chaney.

          2        Welcome to both of you, Ms. Boltax.  

          3        MS. BOLTAX:  Hi, I'm Melanie Boltax.  I have 

          4   lived in Atlanta for 24 years and without any 

          5   statistics at all I can tell you that the quality 

          6   of air has changed greatly in the time that I have 

          7   been here.  I have two young children and, knock on 

          8   wood, my kids don't have any health problems at all 

          9   and no asthma, but that doesn't mean that they 

         10   can't and it doesn't mean that I haven't had major 

         11   sinus problems and all kind of allergies as I watch 

         12   everybody in this city continue to complain year 

         13   after year as these problems get greater and 

         14   greater.  

         15        I really do believe that we do not inherit the 

         16   earth from our parents, that we are borrowing it 

         17   from our children.  I believe that we are all 

         18   entitled to the pursuit of happiness.  Now, in that 

         19   happiness are we also not entitled to the pursuit 

         20   of health and how great is it that if we have a 

         21   community that are thriving financially, but are 

         22   not thriving in health issues.  If we have all the 

         23   money in the world, it will do us no good if we're 

         24   not healthy, if our children are not healthy.  We 

         25   need to be as aggressive as we possibly can about 




                                                                       84



          1   this problem.  You know, the wake-up call is long 

          2   overdue.  Everyone needs to be active and don't buy 

          3   gas guzzling cars.  All of us need to make a stance 

          4   everyday how we live that we want a world that our 

          5   children with be proud of and we have to 

          6   demonstrate to them that we care, that the earth is 

          7   important, that we're grateful for the time that we 

          8   have on it and that we want to live a healthy 

          9   lifestyle.  If we don't take an aggressive stance, 

         10   our kids are going to go, let's just push it onto 

         11   next generation and push it onto the next 

         12   generation.  That's just about the stupidest thing 

         13   that any of us could possibly do.  

         14        I don't want to be one of those people.  I 

         15   don't even want to give you statistics.  All I want 

         16   to say to you is that I love being alive and I love 

         17   being healthy and I love seeing by kids go outside 

         18   and play and climb trees.  And I hate it when I get 

         19   stuff in traffic all that smog chokes me.  That's 

         20   no way to live and we can do better.  This nation 

         21   particularly, with all the education and 

         22   intelligent people that we have, there are 

         23   solutions out there.  The world has changed so 

         24   drastically in the last ten years with what 

         25   computers have done, you tell me that we can't 




                                                                       85



          1   clean up our air.  I don't believe that.  I don't.  

          2   And I want you to be as aggressive as possible in 

          3   your standards.  Clean up this world for everybody.  

          4   Thank you. 

          5        MR. CHANEY:  Hi, my name is J.K. Chaney.  I'm 

          6   with the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public 

          7   Policy.  Chaney, C-H-A-N-E-Y.  We're a 501(c)(3) 

          8   non-profit organization and we promote 

          9   peer-reviewed science and public-policy decision 

         10   making.  What we do is we put together reports that 

         11   are scientific in nature and present them to policy 

         12   makers to make their own decision, but make sure 

         13   that they have the correct information from 

         14   scientists.  I'm here representing our board today.  

         15   Unfortunately, one of our board members couldn't 

         16   make it due to travel, we have submitted our full 

         17   report to you.  It's called the Science & Health 

         18   effects of Ground-level Ozone and we've also 

         19   submitted the full testimony.  It's fairly 

         20   technical and I'm not a scientist myself.  Our 

         21   report is in there.  This report was peer-reviewed 

         22   and it is also put together by our board which does 

         23   feature -- on our board we have three former 

         24   surgeon generals from the Navy, Air Force and Army 

         25   as well as scientists, mainly health experts in 




                                                                       86



          1   different fields.  I encourage you to look at it.  

          2   These are real health experts who have a deep 

          3   background and reputations, on this report as well 

          4   as all of the reports.  

          5        I won't go through too many details on it, but 

          6   we go through and do the background science of 

          7   ozone and how it affects public health for 

          8   documents for policy makers and also technical 

          9   documents.  We did find that the report did find 

         10   that the EPA may have misinterpreted the Adams 2006 

         11   clinical study.  In looking at it it was the only 

         12   controlled study that was looked at and we just 

         13   would recommend that they look at some of our 

         14   information, take our report, look at some other 

         15   things as well.  Looking at one study, you only 

         16   have one controlled situation to look at and 

         17   results.  Look at the Adam's, but look at other 

         18   studies as well.  

         19        And we also look at the fact that since 1997's 

         20   review there has been not many changes in the 

         21   actual science in that they haven't been developed, 

         22   so we're just asking that you not only review the 

         23   science in our report, but other reports and just 

         24   consider the findings when making a decision. A 

         25   hasty decision that is going to impose more 




                                                                       87



          1   stringent or more lenient standards are not going 

          2   to be good for anyone.  It's just the board review.  

          3   It has what unforeseen implications on health, 

          4   infrastructure and costs.  I know you guys don't 

          5   consider cost, but it is something that will effect 

          6   everyone.  

          7        I just want to thank everyone for your time.  

          8   The report is included in full-printed format as 

          9   well as PDF for you all's review and a full copy of 

         10   testimony is there as well and I thank you very 

         11   much.  

         12        MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are Mr. Eddie 

         13   Ehlert and Sherian Wilburn.  Welcome to both of 

         14   you.  Thank you for coming today.  

         15        Mr. Ehlert, you are our next speaker.

         16        MR. EHLERT:  Good morning.  My name is Eddie 

         17   Ehlert.  I'm a small business owner here in metro 

         18   Atlanta.  I'm here with some suggestions that 

         19   relate to the reduction of mobile source 

         20   contributions to ozone through existing systems 

         21   with minimal costs and minimal inconvenience to 

         22   consumers.  As you are well aware, all passenger 

         23   vehicles manufactured since 1996 are equipped or 

         24   actually built around the onboard diagnostic system 

         25   known as OBD-II.  OBD-II provides substantial 




                                                                       88



          1   increases in fuel economy, reduction of all vehicle 

          2   emissions in comparison to previous vehicle engine 

          3   management systems.  That stated, OBD-2 is not 

          4   self-healing, nor self-repairing.  A reasonable 

          5   degree of oversight by consumers and their selected 

          6   automotive service professionals is required to 

          7   insure proper system function, maximum fuel economy 

          8   and emissions.

          9        The metropolitan Atlanta area has managed to 

         10   improve our air quality and reduce the average 

         11   number of days requiring air quality advisories by 

         12   implementing an emission's inspection and 

         13   maintenance system that is required before each 

         14   year's annual registration.  Unfortunately most of 

         15   the vehicles passing through the Atlanta area on a 

         16   daily basis are not following any sort of emissions 

         17   inspection regimen and are often producing 

         18   emissions far in excess of acceptable limits and 

         19   leaving those emissions here with us.

         20        Air following those vehicles from the west is 

         21   effected by emissions that haven't been tested 

         22   since Arizona.  Lacking emission inspections and 

         23   required maintains, vehicles can produce 

         24   substantially increased levels of oxides of 

         25   nitrogen and evaporative emissions.  Attending to 




                                                                       89



          1   minor OBD-II problems, such as evidenced by the 

          2   malfunction indicator light, reduce overall 

          3   emissions while reducing the vehicle operating 

          4   costs.  Keeping minor problems minor prevents 

          5   damage to the catalytic converter systems and 

          6   inevitable decreases in fuel economy, increased 

          7   oxides of nitrogen and increased carbon dioxide 

          8   caused by increased throttle opening to compensate 

          9   the occlusion to the catalytic converter.  

         10        Failure to monitor the system as it was 

         11   intended from the point of manufacture will 

         12   inevitably lead to systems deterioration and 

         13   unnecessary repair costs.  This deterioration is 

         14   entirely preventable, but requires a system of 

         15   oversight as is provided through an annual 

         16   emissions inspection and maintenance.

         17        In metro Atlanta, we are doubly impacted by 

         18   the ozone production that results from these 

         19   unnecessary additional emissions as our daily brown 

         20   air plume migrates north along the Chattahoochee 

         21   River and dissipates over Lake Lanier, our water 

         22   source.  Over a lifetime of a baby born today, what 

         23   additional water borne contaminants would they 

         24   likely absorb simply through breathing the air and 

         25   then drinking the water.




                                                                       90



          1        With changes in Congress last year we have an 

          2   opportunity for the long envisioned concept of 

          3   national emission inspection and maintenance that 

          4   can make necessary reduction in mobile source 

          5   contaminants.

          6        I ask you to consider the responsibility of 

          7   each consumer driving an automobile to insure that 

          8   they are not creating downwind emissions problems 

          9   for their fellow citizens.  Expand existing OBD-II 

         10   emissions inspection and maintenance programs to 

         11   all of the United States to improve air quality to 

         12   all of our citizens.  

         13        The Automotive Service Association has called 

         14   upon a national emissions inspection and 

         15   maintenance testing mandate.  Now would be an 

         16   excellent time to include such a mandate to help 

         17   meet our current and potential future ozone 

         18   reduction goal.  Thank you.

         19        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

         20        MS. WILBURN:  Good afternoon.  My name is 

         21   Sherian Wilburn, W-I-L-B-U-R-N, Executive Director 

         22   of the Georgia Industry Association speaking on 

         23   behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers 

         24   and the Georgia Industry Association, GIA.  Thank 

         25   you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's 




                                                                       91



          1   proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air 

          2   Quality Standard for ozone.  The NAM is the 

          3   nation's largest industrial trade association 

          4   representing approximately 11,000 manufacturers in 

          5   every industrial sector in all 50 states.  GIA's 

          6   members represent diverse industry mix in the 

          7   State.  The manufacturing sector in Georgia employs 

          8   almost 450,000 people.  

          9        After analyzing the EPA's latest proposal, GIA 

         10   and the NAM have concluded that any recommendations 

         11   to revise the current ozone standard will provide 

         12   uncertain benefits while burdening the nation's 

         13   economy.  We, therefore, support preservation of 

         14   the existing ozone standard.  

         15        The current ozone standard is working.  The 

         16   current standard is clearly reducing emissions even 

         17   though it has yet to be fully implemented making 

         18   changes to EPA's ground-level unjustified.  Many 

         19   States have until June of 2013 to attain current 

         20   standards and, therefore, improve the regional air 

         21   quality.  

         22        EPA's own study indicate that the average 

         23   ozone concentrations nationwide decreased by 21 

         24   percent from 1980 to 2006.  Furthermore, total 

         25   emissions from the six key air pollutants regulated 




                                                                       92



          1   by the Clean Air Act climbed by 54 percent between 

          2   1970 and 2006.  According to EPA Clean Air Trends 

          3   Report current regulations will significantly 

          4   reduce ground-level ozone causing emissions to 

          5   continue to drop over the next two decades.  This 

          6   environmental progress has taken place within a 

          7   growing economy with energy consumption in the U.S. 

          8   having increased by more than 176 percent since 

          9   passage of the Clean Air Act during the 1970s. 

         10        Considerable uncertainties surround the 

         11   scientific methodologies EPA used to recommend a 

         12   more stringent standard.  There are many questions 

         13   regarding the state of the science and especially 

         14   whether there have been any significant 

         15   developments during the past decade that would 

         16   warrant a stricter standard.  Recent studies 

         17   present inconsistent data and do not point to a 

         18   particular numeric change to the current standard. 

         19        In developing the proposed revisions to the 

         20   proposed standard, EPA changed the way it 

         21   calculated naturally occurring and other existing 

         22   ground-level ozone to inflate the benefits of a new 

         23   standard by as much as 90 percent.  Even EPA's 

         24   Scientific Advisory Board known as CASAC, states 

         25   that EPA did not provide a sufficient base of 




                                                                       93



          1   evidence to provide that this new method was the 

          2   best choice.  

          3        Of additional concern is the fact that EPA's 

          4   own analysis showed huge costs without 

          5   corresponding benefits.  The great uncertainty 

          6   regarding the benefits and the costs of tightening 

          7   the standard resulted in the Agency being unable to 

          8   draw any conclusions about whether the nation would 

          9   gain or lose as a result of the proposed 

         10   regulation.  EPA's estimated cost for the proposed 

         11   rule ranging from $10 to $22 billion a year above 

         12   current standards are so high as to make it among 

         13   to most expensive federal rules ever issued.  And, 

         14   EPA Admits existing technologies are insufficient 

         15   to meet the proposed standard and simply assume 

         16   that new technologies will become available that 

         17   can double emission reductions.  

         18        The adverse economic impact of redundant 

         19   regulations are well documented.  A 2006 study 

         20   conducted by the NAM shows that U.S. industry pays 

         21   the equivalent of a 5.2 percent tax on structural 

         22   cost in order to comply with existing pollution 

         23   abatement regulations.  This cost differential 

         24   undermines U.S. competitiveness and has contributed 

         25   to the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing 




                                                                       94



          1   jobs between 2000 and 2004, according to the 

          2   Congressional Budget Office.  In Georgia alone, 

          3   more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost 

          4   over the past seven years.  

          5        In conclusion there is no sound policy 

          6   justification for changing the current standards.  

          7   The Agency's own studies indicate that EPA's 

          8   current ozone standards have improved air quality 

          9   nationwide and will continue to do so.  

         10   Disagreement surrounds the methodologies EPA used 

         11   to justify supporting consideration of a more 

         12   stringent standard, and the EPA concedes that a 

         13   high degree of uncertainty surrounds the estimated 

         14   costs and benefits of a more stringent standard.

         15        As there is less doubt that a more stringent 

         16   standard will further undermine the competitiveness 

         17   of the nation's most dynamic and innovative 

         18   economic sector, the EPA should preserve the 

         19   existing standard.  Thank you for the opportunity 

         20   to speak on this issue.

         21        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Our next speakers are 

         22   Ms. Patty Durand and Mr. John Paul.  Thank you both 

         23   for coming.

         24        MS. DURAND:  Patty Durand and I'm the Director 

         25   of the Georgia Chapter of the Sierra Club.  We are 




                                                                       95



          1   a statewide grass-roots environmental organization 

          2   representing over 13,000 members in the State of 

          3   Georgia.  Since 1892 the Sierra Clubs principal 

          4   mission is the conservation and protection of our 

          5   natural resources, including air quality.  Thank 

          6   you for giving me the opportunity to testify today 

          7   on EPA's proposal to revise the national air 

          8   quality standards for ozone.  You are here in 

          9   Atlanta as parts of a nationwide tour to ask our 

         10   opinion on a seemingly simple question:  Do we want 

         11   less ozone smog in our air?  Our answer for the 

         12   Agency is equally simple:  Listen to the 

         13   scientists, obey the law and set the most 

         14   protective air quality standards for ozone 

         15   possible.  

         16        Ozone is a powerful pollutant that burns our 

         17   lungs and airways.  Ozone is not emitted directly 

         18   from pollution sources, but rather forms when 

         19   collusions and power plants, cars and industrial 

         20   sources react with heat and sunlight.  Ozone levels 

         21   in the United States typically rise from May to 

         22   October when warmer, sunnier conditions are most 

         23   prevalent.  

         24        The science is clear that you must 

         25   substantially strengthen the ozone standard to 




                                                                       96



          1   protect public health.  Although, your proposal 

          2   calls for lowering the standard somewhere in the 

          3   range of 0.07 to 0.75 ppm, it still falls short of 

          4   the lower range of 0.06 that was recommended by 

          5   your own scientific experts.  

          6        Even more worrisome is that you are 

          7   entertaining industry's perverse proposal to keep 

          8   the current standard, although EPA has said itself 

          9   that is not protective, that's why we're here 

         10   today.  I urge you to reject these weak proposals 

         11   in the name of profit margins and set a standard 

         12   that is truly protective of public health, 0.06 

         13   ppm.  Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must set air 

         14   quality standards at levels that protect public 

         15   health including sensitive populations with an 

         16   adequate margin of safety.  In 2006, independent 

         17   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members 

         18   reviewed 2000 pages of science on the health 

         19   effects of ozone and unanimously concluded there is 

         20   no scientific justification for restraining the 

         21   current non-protective ozone standard that was set 

         22   ten years ago.  The scientific advisors recommended 

         23   significantly increasing the ozone standards to 

         24   protect public health, again, that's why we're here 

         25   today.  If they didn't recommend that, we would not 




                                                                       97



          1   be sitting here, so some of the other commentors 

          2   comments are kind of boggling my mind.  

          3        Ozone and smog pollution can cause a wide 

          4   range of health problems even among the healthiest 

          5   of individuals, including shortness of breath, 

          6   increased of risk of asthma attacks and premature 

          7   deaths.  Since Atlanta already has over 27 days 

          8   that violated air quality standards this summer, 

          9   I'm scared to be outside during the hot parts of 

         10   the day and I can't let my eight-year-old go 

         11   outside.  What have we become when our country 

         12   doesn't let our children outside in the summer.  

         13   That's just disgusting.  

         14        So as you finalize your new ozone standards, I 

         15   urge you to reject industry opposition and instead 

         16   adopt a protective standard of 0.06 ppm as 

         17   supported by the 2000 independent scientists of the 

         18   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and as 

         19   required by the Clean Air Act.  The science is 

         20   clear about what EPA needs to do to protect public 

         21   health and the law is clear about the Agency's 

         22   obligation to do so.  I appreciate the opportunity 

         23   to make comments on the proposed new regulations 

         24   for national air quality standards for ozone.  

         25   Thank you very much.




                                                                       98



          1        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

          2        MR. PAUL:  My name is John Paul and I'm the 

          3   Supervisor of the Regional Air Pollution Control 

          4   Agency in Dayton, Ohio.  I'm also one of the two 

          5   immediate past presidents of the National 

          6   Association of Clean Air Agencies and serve as the 

          7   co-chair of the association's New Source Review 

          8   Subcommittee. 

          9        I'm testifying today on behalf of NACAA, 

         10   which is the association of air pollution control 

         11   agencies in 54 states and territories and over 165 

         12   metropolitan areas across the country.  

         13        NACAA commends EPA for proposing to set a more 

         14   stringent ozone to protect public health.  Ozone 

         15   exposure is linked to a myriad of adverse health 

         16   effects including premature mortality and people 

         17   with heart and lung disease and recent evidence 

         18   shows that the adverse health effects occurred at 

         19   concentration lower than the current standard.  

         20   Although we appreciate EPA's proposal to tighten 

         21   the standard, nevertheless we have some significant 

         22   concerns with the Agency's range of proposal 

         23   levels.  

         24        EPA's Congressional chartered body of 

         25   independent science advisors, the Clean Air 




                                                                       99



          1   Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC, unanimously 

          2   concluded based on several significant 

          3   epidemiological studies and clinical studies that 

          4   the primary ozone standard needs to be 

          5   substantially reduced and they recommend the 

          6   strengthening the primary standard to a level 

          7   within the range of 0.06 to 0.70 ppm, however, EPA 

          8   proposed bringing it's levels to 0.70 to 0.75 ppm 

          9   falls outside that recommended unanimously by CASAC 

         10   coinciding only at CASAC's upper bound.  In 

         11   determining the levels requisite to protect public 

         12   health and welfare, NACAA strongly believes that 

         13   EPA should follow the science, the learned, 

         14   informed advice of CASAC.  Given CASAC's 

         15   statutorily defined role in the nationally reviewed 

         16   process, EPA needs to specifically indicate why it 

         17   chose not to follow the advice of its independent 

         18   scientific advisors.

         19        In addition, we question why EPA is 

         20   considering retaining the current standard of 0.084 

         21   ppm when, as CASAC points out, a large body of 

         22   scientific evidence clearly demonstrates adverse 

         23   health effects at the current standard.  CASAC said 

         24   it best:  "There is no scientific justification for 

         25   retaining the current primary 8-hour standard."




                                                                      100



          1        Turning now to the secondary ozone standard to 

          2   protect public welfare, NACAA is pleased that EPA 

          3   has proposed a distinct cumulative seasonal 

          4   standard.  Ozone inhibits photosynthesis, causes 

          5   visible damage to leaves and reduces agricultural 

          6   crop yields.  A cumulative seasonal standard more 

          7   directly correlates with the exposure to ozone, 

          8   since plants are exposed to this pollutant during 

          9   the entire ozone season.  

         10        As with the primary standard, EPA's proposal 

         11   is a step in the right direction, but falls short 

         12   of what the science indicates is needed.  While EPA 

         13   did propose a promulgating a distinct, cumulative 

         14   seasonal secondary standard called W126, the 

         15   Agency's proposed range for level extends outside 

         16   of CASAC's range.  In addition, we are troubled 

         17   that EPA proposed as an alternative making the 

         18   secondary standard identical to the primary 

         19   standard despite agreement among CASAC, the 

         20   ecological experts convened at the 1997 workshop 

         21   and EPA's on the need for a seasonal secondary 

         22   standard to protect vegetation.

         23        Finally, with respect to both the primary and 

         24   secondary standards, to the extent that new 

         25   peer-reviewed scientific studies have been 




                                                                      101



          1   published in scientific journals proposed this 

          2   rule, we encourage the Agency, time permitting, 

          3   under the court-ordered deadline to review these 

          4   studies during its deliberation of a final rule.

          5        A few comments on implementation.  We are 

          6   further concerned that EPA in this proposal, as in 

          7   the particulate matter standard is missing in 

          8   implementation issues in a rule setting a 

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

         10   firewall between standard-setting and 

         11   implementation issues.  The Supreme Court in 

         12   Whitman versus American Trucking Associations it 

         13   was very clear that EPA may not consider the cost 

         14   of implementation in setting the standard.  In 

         15   addition, for policy reasons, EPA should not let 

         16   considerations of other implementation issues bleed 

         17   into standard-setting.

         18        The benefits of setting a strong standard are 

         19   harder to measure in that one cannot precisely 

         20   identify whose life we'll save, whose child will 

         21   had fewer asthma attacks and which trees grew 

         22   faster.  Let close by saying that while EPA should 

         23   not mix implementation and standard-setting issues, 

         24   whatever decision EPA makes on the level and form 

         25   of the standard will have a profound impact on the 




                                                                      102



          1   work of state and local agencies.  Thank you.

          2        MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming today.  I 

          3   think we need to take a short ten-minute break and 

          4   we'll resume after the break.

          5                            - - -

          6             (Whereupon, a brief break was taken)

          7                            - - -

          8        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  We're going to resume 

          9   the hearing now.  We have two speakers scheduled, 

         10   Mr. John Caruso and Mr. Cliff Oliver.  Both of you 

         11   come up now, please.  Welcome gentlemen.  Thank you 

         12   for coming today.  Mr. Caruso, you are our next 

         13   speaker.

         14        MR. CARUSO:  Thank you.  Thank you for 

         15   providing this forum.  Thank you for taking your 

         16   time and thank you for your endurance.  

         17        I will try to speak, hopefully, for the 

         18   invisible people.  They are never heard from and 

         19   when these issues arrive, they are rarely, if ever, 

         20   spoken to.  Many are children who have had a hard 

         21   time breathing even without pollution.  Some are 

         22   elderly and have lost normal lung function.  You 

         23   cannot pigeonhole those people in any particularly 

         24   social economic class.  They range from those that 

         25   live in million dollar homes all the way down to 




                                                                      103



          1   the homeless.  They are never in view when powerful 

          2   debates ever occur over the meaning of a 

          3   three-place decimal in the third or fourth place.  

          4   If you are from Atlanta, you will see on the 

          5   freeways overhead signs that say:  "Today there is 

          6   a smog alert.  Avoid the outside.  Try not to fuel 

          7   up your car and carpool as much as possible."  

          8        For some strange reason when this issue is 

          9   surrounds the common good, the benefit for mankind 

         10   is lost or set aside, tens of millions of dollars 

         11   are being spent to enact a standard that no thought 

         12   whatever this is an impact to society.  If the 

         13   standard enhances profitability then it must be 

         14   valid.  

         15        When the head of EPA testifies that the 

         16   Department's scientists were pressured to change 

         17   data, no matter.  The bottom line is what we're 

         18   concerned with.  When EPA will not listen to 

         19   independent panels of scientists and suppresses 

         20   data that corrects the miscalculations, no problem.  

         21   Debt to equity is unchanged.  

         22        The good of mankind should be a given, a moral 

         23   absolute.  Shouldn't things that impair all of us 

         24   or threaten us at least be avoided.  If mankind was 

         25   in focus would this ridiculous have occurred in the 




                                                                      104



          1   first place.  Change the equation.  Multiply it by 

          2   10,000 or by 10 billion, get the rounding effects 

          3   out of it.  How about 6,400,386.8.  Should we round 

          4   up?  Does anybody want to round up.  Take this 

          5   cheap and disingenuous tool away from those who 

          6   cannot see who they impact.  

          7        It is time to work for what is right and 

          8   beneficial to the citizens.  The science is clear, 

          9   close the loophole.  Set the standard for ozone 

         10   that will benefit everyone.  The science is clear.  

         11   You will know if you have made the right decision 

         12   if at the end of this, each one of you can go to 

         13   the desperate child and the grandparent that 

         14   probably has compromised lung function.  If can you 

         15   look at them in the eye and say, you can go outside 

         16   today and take your walk, everything is fine.  

         17   Thank you.  

         18        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

         19        MR. OLIVER:  My name is Cliff Oliver and I'm 

         20   here as a representative being a citizen of Cobb 

         21   County and I have been since 1989.  I want to 

         22   prepuce my testimony with a small story.  I 

         23   recently visited my aunt and she is 90-years-old.  

         24   She lives in the westside of Atlanta.  She pulled 

         25   out some documents and I went and took a look at 




                                                                      105



          1   some of those documents and she had a map from a 

          2   meeting she attended from a meeting of 1968 for the 

          3   proposed MARTA line.  I looked at that map and it 

          4   was pretty much identical to what was built.  It is 

          5   pretty much the way it is today.  

          6        In contrast, as a child, I remember coming 

          7   through Atlanta when I-285 was three lanes on each 

          8   director, when the downtown connector was three 

          9   lanes in one direction, when you had to get on old 

         10   41 to go up I-75 to Chattanooga it didn't exist.  

         11   In 40 years the State of Georgia has pumped 

         12   billions of dollars into more roads.  

         13        Now, the downtown connector is 14 lanes wide,  

         14   285 on the top end is 10 lanes wide, 75 on the 

         15   outside is 10 lanes wide at its smallest and inside 

         16   the perimeter it is 12 lanes wide.  The road 

         17   building just doesn't seem to stop in Atlanta which 

         18   has created more pollution.

         19        Now, 40 years later, MARTA is now pretty much 

         20   the same as it was proposed in 1968, so has the 

         21   State of Georgia a fraction of the billions of 

         22   dollars it put into roads, we may not be here today 

         23   because maybe the air in Atlanta would be 

         24   breathable and healthy.  

         25        Now, you are the experts on what dirty air 




                                                                      106



          1   does to people, but I looked at a program last 

          2   night which really was a little bit scary talking 

          3   about global warming.  First of all, what we're 

          4   doing here today may be contributing to global 

          5   warming by reducing the particulate matter which 

          6   this programs said resulted in global dimming which 

          7   was actually offsetting some of the effects of CO2 

          8   we're pumping into the atmosphere now.  Right now 

          9   the EPA does not regulate CO2, but in the future I 

         10   do believe that the EPA will be regulating CO2. 

         11        What is Atlanta going to do with millions of 

         12   cars on the road every single day with 

         13   single-occupancy vehicles.  I mean, I just don't 

         14   understand why we're having this conversation in a 

         15   Metropolitan area like this.  But what has happened 

         16   since that time is that the EPA restrictions on 

         17   road building in Georgia led to one road being 

         18   built that could not be built unless it had transit 

         19   in it.  The only addition of MARTA's line was the 

         20   north line going up to perimeter in 400.  The EPA 

         21   said, from my understanding, you are not going to 

         22   build this road unless there is a transit 

         23   component.  Unfortunately, you have given the State 

         24   of Georgia their reason to usurp, to get around and 

         25   to violate the EPA's currents restrictions.  Right 




                                                                      107



          1   now I hold this is a map of what I-75 is going to 

          2   look like.  This is on the State of Georgia's Fast 

          3   Track Program, 23 lanes wide from I-75 all the way 

          4   up to I-575 and on up to the tune of over $5 

          5   billion and they are justifying this by saying 

          6   their putting BRT stations in it.  That's the 

          7   transit component to get around it.  The EPA's 

          8   restriction cannot be strong enough, cannot be 

          9   stringent enough for the State of Georgia to stop 

         10   this lunacy.  Once this is done, the traffic will 

         11   back up at I-285, it will necessitate the widening 

         12   of I-285 to 23 lanes on the north and then on the 

         13   south end as well.  The EPA, you're our only hope.  

         14   You spoke and we got transit on Georgia 400.  

         15   Without you, the State of Georgia is going to pave 

         16   this city and this state over.  I have no doubt in 

         17   my mind, had it not been for the EPA's restrictions 

         18   on building we would be looking at double-deck 

         19   downtown connector with 14 lanes on top and 14 on 

         20   the bottom.  The insanity has got to stop.  We've 

         21   got to send a message to the State of Georgia, the 

         22   only way we are going to reduce pollution is to 

         23   build transit and that is rail and that is not 

         24   buses because people are not going to ride this BRT 

         25   boondoggle they got up on I-75.  I've been to many 




                                                                      108



          1   of the meetings.  People are like, my biggest 

          2   problem is getting to the expressway, once I get 

          3   there, why am I going to park and take a bus that's 

          4   going to sit in the same traffic that I would have 

          5   been in ten minutes ago and been at my designation. 

          6        So, basically, I'm here to say don't allow the 

          7   State of Georgia to usurp and, basically, just deny 

          8   any type of culpability for our clean air by saying 

          9   that they are putting a transit component in an 

         10   expressway that goes over 130 percent longer than 

         11   what it is today.  Thank you.  

         12        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Our next speakers are 

         13   Mr. Steve Lomax and Mr. Jeffrey Shumaker.  

         14        MR. LOMAX:  Good afternoon.  My name is Steve 

         15   Lomax.  I'm with the Edison Electric Institute, 

         16   EEI.  We're an association of shareholder-owned 

         17   electric companies.  Our members comprise of 

         18   approximately 70 percent of the U.S. electric power 

         19   industry.  Our members own and operate electric 

         20   generating units or EGUs, which are subject to 

         21   extensive regulation under the federal Clean Air 

         22   Act as well as numerous state and local 

         23   regulations.  The electric power sector emits 

         24   approximately 10 percent of the nation's total 

         25   combined emissions of nitrogen oxides or NOx and 




                                                                      109



          1   volatile organic compounds.  Those are the two 

          2   primary precursors to the formation of ozone. 

          3        Numerous programs have dramatically reduced 

          4   NOx emissions from EGUs.  The Acid Rain Program and 

          5   the NOx SIP Call have reduced annual EGU NOx 

          6   emissions by 47 percent since 1980 and eastern U.S. 

          7   ozone season NOx emissions by 70 percent just since 

          8   1990.  These reductions have required significant 

          9   investments.  The annual cost to utilities of the 

         10   Acid Rain Program exceeds $1 billion.  The NOx SIP 

         11   Call has required a commitment of approximately $10 

         12   billion, plus hundreds of millions of dollars every 

         13   year to operate and maintain equipment.  EPA's 

         14   Clean Air Interstate Air Rule will require an 

         15   investment of nearly $50 billion and, in addition 

         16   to significant reductions in sulfur dioxide 

         17   emissions, will reduce annual EGU NOx emissions 

         18   further in 2009 and in 2015.  Altogether, under 

         19   current regulations, annual U.S. emissions of NOx 

         20   from power generators will be reduced by more than 

         21   70 percent from 1980 levels.  

         22        The electric power sector has achieved this 

         23   success despite a steady climb and demand for 

         24   electricity.  Everybody has more computers, bigger 

         25   TVs that require a lot more electricity to be 




                                                                      110



          1   generated.  Between 1980 and 2005, electric 

          2   generation increased 77 percent.  That transits to 

          3   emissions going down dramatically despite that 

          4   trend.  So when we examine our emissions on pounds 

          5   per output basis of electricity, so pounds per 

          6   megawatt-hour, which, I think, is a better measure 

          7   than gross reductions, we find those NOx emission 

          8   rates have been reduced by already more than 70 

          9   percent since 1980 and under existing regulations 

         10   will be reduced by more than 90 percent since 

         11   1980.  

         12        As a result of these investments from the 

         13   electric power sector and other industries, air 

         14   quality has improved dramatically.  Since 1980 the 

         15   average national ambient concentrations of nitrogen 

         16   dioxide and ozone have fallen 41 percent and 29 

         17   percent, respectively.  

         18        While public health concerns are paramount, 

         19   EPA needs to be sure that any additional costly 

         20   regulations will produce real public benefits.  

         21   However, the Agency's interpretation of the science 

         22   related to ozone exposure is problematic.  Just 

         23   this July, Dr. Roger McClellan, the former Chairman 

         24   of EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

         25   Committee testified before the U.S. Senate that in 




                                                                      111



          1   his professional judgment, EPA's proposed decision 

          2   to revise existing ozone standard is based on a 

          3   flawed and inaccurate presentation of the science 

          4   that should inform the policy decision.

          5        Even EPA's concludes that most of the 

          6   protected benefits associated with a tighter ozone 

          7   standard actually are attributable to producing 

          8   fine particle levels.  This is a separate 

          9   air-quality issue which is being addressed under a 

         10   separate standard.  

         11        The impact of tightening the ozone standard 

         12   would be dramatic.  Currently over had 400 counties 

         13   have failed the standard.  Under a new standard 

         14   hundred mores will receive a non-attainment 

         15   designation for the first time ever.  State and 

         16   local officials in non-attainment areas will have 

         17   to seek additional emission cuts, not just from 

         18   large industrial sources, but from a very wide 

         19   range of small sources all across the county.  

         20   Annual costs will be in the billions to tens of 

         21   billions of dollars.  EPA's own analysis finds that 

         22   annual costs may outweigh benefits by as much as 

         23   $20 billion in the year 2020 alone.  

         24        In conclusion, regardless of whether EPA 

         25   revises the ozone standard, air quality will 




                                                                      112



          1   continue to improve under existing regulations and 

          2   under the existing Clean Air Act.  In light of this 

          3   fact, EPA should more carefully address the 

          4   considerable limitations of the studies it has 

          5   cited as justification for tightening the standard.  

          6   U.S. consumers who would shoulder the cost of any 

          7   new regulations deserve greater assurance that they 

          8   will receive the purported health benefits for 

          9   which they would be paying.  Thank you.

         10        MR. SHUMAKER:  Good morning.  My name is Jeff 

         11   Shumaker.  I'm a professional engineer and I've 

         12   been an environmental and health professional for 

         13   over 30 years.  I have worked for the Environmental 

         14   Protection Agency, for consulting firms and I 

         15   currently work for International Paper.  My life 

         16   has essentially -- my career has been devoted to 

         17   protecting the environment and the people that 

         18   enjoy it.  With this background, my considered 

         19   opinion is change to EPA's current ground-level 

         20   ozone standard is unjustified, unnecessary and not 

         21   in the best interest of the country or its 

         22   citizens, of which I am proud to be one.

         23        The analysis presented by EPA does not justify 

         24   lowering the standard below the current 0.08 ppm 

         25   level.  It is inadequate at best, contrived at 




                                                                      113



          1   worst.  Health risk data are inconclusive as to the 

          2   benefits of ozone concentrations below 0.08 and 

          3   aspects of the methodology presented in the EPA 

          4   staff paper supporting lowering the standard, to my 

          5   understanding, has not undergone peer review.  

          6   Moreover, the assume background ozone 

          7   concentrations in the analysis are inappropriately 

          8   low, thereby overstating the dubious benefits from 

          9   a lower standard.  

         10        As a matter of policy, the standard setting 

         11   process is getting far ahead of the country as it 

         12   is the health science.  States have not yet 

         13   implemented the current standard, so EPA should 

         14   focus on helping communities meet the current 

         15   standard before imposing new standards.  Moreover, 

         16   the current standard continues to protect public 

         17   health.  In 30 years we will have accomplished 

         18   phenomenal improvement in air quality and that 

         19   process is continuing.  

         20        For time sake, I will stick to the highlights 

         21   from my written testimony and I've offered the 

         22   written testimony.  The current standard is working 

         23   and air quality is improving.  Between 1970 and 

         24   2006, total emissions of the six principal air 

         25   pollutants dropped by 54 percent.  Emissions from 




                                                                      114



          1   power plants will be cut in half by 2015 and 

          2   emissions from cars and trucks will be reduced by 

          3   more than 70 percent by 2030.  These points are 

          4   referenced in my written testimony.

          5        The current standard is working.  The National 

          6   Average for ozone levels have already been 

          7   decreased by 21 percent.  States are still 

          8   responding to the dictates of the current standard 

          9   and any health benefits are continuing to accrue.  

         10   EPA should focus on supporting that process.  There 

         11   is no need for a more stringent ozone standard at 

         12   this time.  

         13        A lower standard will come with economic 

         14   hardship.  New non-attainment area designations 

         15   will be widespread, will hurt both large and small 

         16   businesses and will prevent expansion and growth 

         17   and growth in many urban, suburban and rural 

         18   counties.  Hurting local economies without a clear 

         19   scientific basis for selecting a different numeric 

         20   standard makes no sense.  

         21        The science behind lowering the standard is 

         22   uncertain and variable.  EPA's changes in the way 

         23   it calculated naturally occurring and other 

         24   existing ground level ozone inflates the benefits 

         25   of a new standard by as much as 90 percent.  Even 




                                                                      115



          1   CASAC indicated that EPA did not provide a 

          2   sufficient basis of evidence regarding the new 

          3   calculation method.  EPA is relying on highly 

          4   uncertain epidemiological studies and 

          5   information.

          6        EPA's own analysis shows huge costs without 

          7   corresponding benefits.  EPA's benefits estimates 

          8   range from $2.5 to $33 billion per year and the 

          9   cost estimates range from $10 to $22 billion per 

         10   year.  The uncertainty I mentioned earlier reflects 

         11   most heavily on the benefits side of that equation.  

         12   There are great uncertainties in these numbers and 

         13   a benefit is not clear even given the questioned 

         14   methodology and assumption.  EPA's estimated costs 

         15   for the proposed rule are so high to make it 

         16   amongst the most expensive Federal regulation ever 

         17   issued or otherwise.  EPA admits existing 

         18   technologies are insufficient to meet the proposed 

         19   standard and simply assumes that new technologies 

         20   will become available that can double the emission 

         21   reductions.  

         22        Understand that the economic impacts are real 

         23   and that health, welfare and quality of life 

         24   depends as heavily on the strength of the economy 

         25   as it does polishing air quality.  If EPA tightens 




                                                                      116



          1   the ground-level ozone standard, the cost of 

          2   gasoline and natural gas will increase.  America 

          3   lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 

          4   and 2004.  EPA regulations would fall on poor 

          5   families the hardest because they use more of their 

          6   income to pay for basics like energy and 

          7   transportation.

          8        Wisdom dictates prudence in not lowering the 

          9   ozone standard without better science indicating it 

         10   is the right thing to do.  Thank you.  

         11        MR. PAGE:  Those are all of our registered 

         12   speakers before the lunch break, so if you would 

         13   like to speak and you were registered to do after 

         14   to do so after lunch, we welcome you to come up now 

         15   or if you would like to speak and you haven't 

         16   registered and we can take you before the lunch 

         17   break or even after.  For anybody who is interested 

         18   in speaking, check in with the front table out 

         19   there and we'll be glad to hear from you.

         20                            - - -

         21             (Whereupon, a lunch break was taken)

         22                            - - -

         23        MR. PAGE:  Good afternoon.  We're going to 

         24   reconvene the public hearing.  This is just make 

         25   sure everybody is in the right room, this is the 




                                                                      117



          1   EPA's public hearing on the proposed revisions to 

          2   the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

          3   Ozone.  This morning we had a pretty full morning 

          4   of speakers and I started off by reading a summary 

          5   of the proposal and then kind of the ground rules, 

          6   if you will, for the hearing.  What I will do, 

          7   since we have a smaller crowd at this point is do 

          8   an abbreviated version of that.  I assume when you 

          9   all checked in, for those of you who want speak, 

         10   you learned about the procedures with the lights 

         11   and the five minutes.  If you are nodding your head 

         12   this way, then I will elaborate, but just to make 

         13   sure everybody is familiar with the groundrules, 

         14   each speaker will have five minutes to talk.  We 

         15   are not hear to debate or argue.  We got our 

         16   proposal out there.  We got the justification for 

         17   what we propose and why we propose it.  This is our 

         18   chance to listen to the public and hear your views 

         19   on what you think that we should consider in 

         20   developing the standard or if you have a different 

         21   idea of what the standard should be, we certainly 

         22   welcome that as well.  

         23        By way of summary, we have a proposal to 

         24   changed the current ozone standard which now is 

         25   effectively 0.084 ppm and if you round you can get 




                                                                      118



          1   up to point 0.084 it's really 0.080.  The 

          2   Administrator found in July when we proposed a 

          3   revision to that standard that that standard was no 

          4   longer scientifically defensible on health grounds, 

          5   that the proposal is now in a range from 0.07 ppm 

          6   to 0.075 ppm.  He also proposed, for the first 

          7   time, a secondary standard for ozone.  Currently 

          8   the standard covers vegetation, the ecosystem, if 

          9   you will, crops, things like that.  That standard 

         10   currently is identical to the primary standard.  

         11   The thinking back several years ago when the 

         12   primary standard was set for ozone, that if you are 

         13   protecting public health at that level, you are 

         14   certainly doing a lot of good for the ecosystem.  

         15   The sciences developed, since then more studies 

         16   have been done and the EPA is proposing now a 

         17   second secondary standard, which by way of summary, 

         18   I won't go into all the parts per million and that 

         19   kind of thing on that, unless you want me to, but 

         20   it, basically, captures the ozone concentrations 

         21   when they are the highest during the year, summer 

         22   time from 12 hours a day, 8:00 in the morning to 

         23   8:00 p.m. and so what we're looking at is when the 

         24   ecosystem gets its strongest dose of ozone and 

         25   trying set then standards that would control that.  




                                                                      119



          1   And there is also, again, a range there, I think 

          2   it's, from 0.07 to 0.21 ppm hours which basically 

          3   captures that high time for ozone.  

          4        I'd like to introduce my fellow panel members.  

          5   To my right or left is Carol Kemker, who is the 

          6   Deputy Division Director for all things air, toxic 

          7   and pesticides here in the Atlanta Region and 

          8   anything else that hits her desk.  Carol is well 

          9   known in this area.  She had been working here with 

         10   the programs for a long time and she knows not only 

         11   the local and the regional scene, but she also 

         12   works with us on the national program, which is why 

         13   we like her being up here listening to your views 

         14   because she can put the southern filter on things 

         15   that we need.  And to her right so Erika Sasser who 

         16   works with me in North Carolina.  Her division is 

         17   the one that's responsible for actually pulling the 

         18   ozone proposal together, working with the 

         19   scientists and others, economists, lawyers.  It's 

         20   been a hard year working with all those professions 

         21   to try to come up with a proposal.  They presented 

         22   to the Administrator of EPA and, therefore, that is 

         23   what is covered.  I'm Steve Page.  I'm the Director 

         24   of the Office of Air Quality Training and Standards 

         25   and I'm chairing the hearing.  I'm sorry to make 




                                                                      120



          1   you sit through all this.  Hopefully this will be 

          2   the least exiting thing you'll do this afternoon 

          3   and I'm looking forward to hearing your comments.  

          4   Like I said, we had a good variety of comments this 

          5   morning.  

          6        I did want to let you know that this is one of 

          7   five public hearings that we're holding.  We held 

          8   two last week.  I chaired one in Philadelphia and 

          9   we went from nine to nine, 9:00 in the morning to 

         10   9:00 p.m. as did the group in Los Angeles. There 

         11   are hearings underway in Houston, Chicago and 

         12   Atlanta, so that today's activities will conclude 

         13   the hearings.  

         14        We are due to close the comment percent 

         15   October 9th and do a final in March of 2008.  So 

         16   that is my abbreviated version of the statement.  

         17   You can thank your goodness that you didn't have to 

         18   sit through the longer ones this morning.  Those 

         19   are the relevant pieces of it.  So with that, we 

         20   are going to call the first speakers.  If you would 

         21   right to speak and you are not registered, we ask 

         22   that you do register.  All statements will be on 

         23   the record.  Your oral statement will be on the 

         24   record and if you don't finish or choose to submit 

         25   a supplemental statement we will also put that on 




                                                                      121



          1   the record, if it wasn't addressed in your oral 

          2   remarks.  As well, if you leave here inspired to 

          3   say more, again, we will be holding the comment 

          4   period open until October, 9th so you have all 

          5   kinds of options here.  

          6        All right.  Mr. Arnold and Mr. Fletcher.  

          7   We'll ask you to come up two at a time and for the 

          8   sake of logistics.  Thank you all for coming.  We 

          9   appreciate it.  It's easier for the court reporter 

         10   if you put the microphone over close to you, you 

         11   can hold it if you want, so we can make sure we get 

         12   a good clear version of your remarks for the 

         13   transcript.  Which one of you is Mr. Arnold?  

         14   Okay.  You are listed as my first speaker.  

         15   Welcome.  

         16        MR. ARNOLD:  Thank you very much.  Thank you 

         17   for the opportunity to make public comments on this 

         18   issue.  My name is Ed Arnold and I function as the 

         19   Director of the Atlanta Chapter of Physicians for 

         20   Social Responsibility.  We have a little over 400 

         21   members of physicians and other supporters in 

         22   Georgia and Alabama.  We've been looking at air 

         23   quality issues for some time and I'm sure that 

         24   anyone can imagine that plenty of our primary care 

         25   physicians can have personal stories to tell about 




                                                                      122



          1   their patients and because I'm an administrator I 

          2   can't get into that, but I would just like to say 

          3   that our doctors are wanting very much for the 

          4   ambient ozone level to be fully protective of human 

          5   health.  And in that light, what I'd like to do is 

          6   associate ourselves with the testimony provided by 

          7   Dr. Staton this morning from the American Thoracic 

          8   Society and that gets into the detail, I think, 

          9   adequately about our desire that the new standard 

         10   be set at 0.06.  

         11        And what I want to speak with you about for a 

         12   few minutes is the political side of this action.  

         13   A lot of people are doing a lot to reduce their 

         14   impacts on air pollution.  Unfortunately, we 

         15   believe that the people who can provide the 

         16   political sway, the -- and can provide whether at 

         17   the state level or the federal level are 

         18   politicians.  Their contributions for political 

         19   campaigns somehow get more eager on something like 

         20   this.  And I just want to -- One reason that we 

         21   think that, I remember that when that Christine 

         22   Todd Whittman, the former EPA Administrator 

         23   resigned, she said she wanted to spend more time 

         24   with her family.  Well, you know, a year or two 

         25   later she said if front of TV cameras, you know, I 




                                                                      123



          1   resigned because the Administration wouldn't let us 

          2   (inaudible), so she made that statement, so we're 

          3   hoping that, as you would want your doctor to bring 

          4   the whole truth to you about some illness or 

          5   problem medical issue that you have, we're hoping 

          6   that you will bring the whole truth to the American 

          7   people about what influences your decision.  We 

          8   recognize that while EPA proposal is stronger that 

          9   the current ozone standard, it does fail to protect 

         10   all Americans from the harmful effects of air 

         11   pollution.  Big oil, utilities, other powerful 

         12   interests are affecting the decision, we believe, 

         13   and we'd like you to do the best you can to stay 

         14   away from that kind of political influence.  If 

         15   it's strong, let us know it, just bring the 

         16   information to the American people.  I think that 

         17   the health note will help you do the right thing.  

         18   So I have five minutes.  You have a little timer.  

         19   I'm going to turn it over to the other speaker.

         20        MR. PAGE:  Thank you, sir.  Thank you for 

         21   coming today. 

         22        MR. PAGE:  Mr. Fletcher.  

         23        MR. FLETCHER:  Good afternoon.  My name is 

         24   Robert E. Fletcher.  I reside in Marietta, Georgia 

         25   and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this 




                                                                      124



          1   important issue.  The views that I express also 

          2   express the views of my wife, Constance A. 

          3   Fletcher.  I have provided a letter that 

          4   essentially contains the same comments that I have 

          5   included in my oral testimony.

          6        I personally understand the absolute 

          7   imperative to protect Americans from harmful air 

          8   pollution.  In 1954 I came down with severe asthma 

          9   that threatened my service career.  My allergist 

         10   concluded that this sudden affliction was triggered 

         11   by being in Japan for several months and being 

         12   exposed to excessive air pollution.  In 1988 I 

         13   spent a month in Japan including one week in 

         14   central Tokyo.  No problems.  Just today I went to 

         15   the Japanese Ministry of the Environment website 

         16   and discovered that Japan's standard for 

         17   photochemical oxidants, including ozone, is "hourly 

         18   values shall not exceed 0.06 ppm."  This is per 

         19   notification on May 8, 1973.  1973 that was 34 

         20   years ago.

         21        The authors of the Clean Air Act exhibited 

         22   foresight.  They specified that EPA must follow the 

         23   latest scientific evidence to set air quality that 

         24   protect the public health, including the health of 

         25   sensitive populations with an adequate margin of 




                                                                      125



          1   safety.  I recommend that these criteria be 

          2   scrupulously ad explicitly followed in revising the 

          3   existing air quality standards for ozone.

          4        First of all I understand that retaining 

          5   current weak standard of 0.084 ppm is being 

          6   considered.  This idea is totally without 

          7   scientific or practical matter.  I also agree with 

          8   EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that:  

          9   The rounding loophole should be eliminated; the 

         10   ozone standard must explicitly include the "margin 

         11   of safety" required under the Clean Air Act; and 

         12   the 8-hour ozone standard should be set in the 

         13   range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.  I specifically 

         14   recommend and 8-hour primary standard for ozone of 

         15   0.06 ppm.

         16        A new study published online in the Journal 

         17   Nature shows that ozone hampers absorption of 

         18   carbon dioxide by plants.  Affected plants absorb 

         19   one-third less carbon dioxide than healthy one.  

         20   This has serious ramifications with respect to 

         21   global climate change.  Appreciable reliance is 

         22   being placed on forests and other global plant life 

         23   as a major sink to absorb a portion of 

         24   anthropogenic carbon dioxide.  Note that all 

         25   terrestrial plants that utilize photosynthesis will 




                                                                      126



          1   be less effective absorbers of CO2, not just 

          2   agriculture crops and commercially valued timber.

          3        Please take these very recent findings into 

          4   consideration in deciding on the new secondary 

          5   ozone standard.  And I recommend that the standard 

          6   that is most protective overall.  More stringent 

          7   ozone standards are fully justified on the basis of 

          8   public health improvements.  However, related 

          9   co-benefits should also be considered.  

         10   Tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas.  

         11   Specifically, the recently released IPCC Fourth 

         12   Assessment Report estimates that radiative forcing 

         13   of tropospheric ozone averages 0.35 watts per 

         14   square meter of the earth's surface.  For 

         15   comparison this is about the same as a radiated 

         16   forcing of halocarbons, which are extremely 

         17   powerful greenhouse gases.  Therefore, reducing 

         18   ozone levels to protect human health will also 

         19   reduce the effect of tropospheric ozone as 

         20   greenhouse gas and this, in turn, provides another 

         21   important benefit.

         22        To summarize, I urge EPA to set new ozone 

         23   standards that protect public health with an 

         24   adequate margin of safety and which provide the 

         25   other benefits that I have outlined.  Again, thank 




                                                                      127



          1   you for the opportunity to speak about this 

          2   issue.

          3        MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.  Thank 

          4   you.  I'd like to welcome Ms. Laura Seydel and Mr. 

          5   Gordon Draves.  Welcome to both of you for coming 

          6   today.  Ms. Seydel, you are my next speaker.  

          7        MS. SEYDEL:  Thank you so much for what you 

          8   are doing and spending your time on this very 

          9   important issue.  I would -- I want to more or less 

         10   read from my notes here so I can stay within the 

         11   limit.  Thank you so much for the opportunity to 

         12   speak.  I'm Laura Turner Seydel.  I'm the mother of 

         13   three and I have spent my whole life in Atlanta and 

         14   I've chosen to raise my children here.  My husband 

         15   and I started our local liberty book program about 

         16   13 years ago and because we were very worried about 

         17   the qualify of the water and, as you may or may not 

         18   know, because of Federal intervention in winning 

         19   the lawsuit in Federal Courts, Atlanta was mandated 

         20   to get it -- you know, to set a time line to clean 

         21   up our water woes and I think that that's what's 

         22   going to have happen here.  I'm so glad that the 

         23   science that is coming from your advisory 

         24   scientific committee is saying we've got to 

         25   improve, you know, the parts per billion, the ozone 




                                                                      128



          1   standard to protect the environment, but more 

          2   importantly, people who are more vulnerable and 

          3   especially our kids.  I'm fortunate enough to be 

          4   able to, when the air quality gets really bad 

          5   during the summer months, we escape.  You know, I 

          6   take my kids because I really believe that limiting 

          7   their exposure helps to keep them healthy and I'm 

          8   able to do that, but I know that there are a lot of 

          9   other people who live in this State that cannot 

         10   take their kids and leave.  What they can do is 

         11   keep their children indoors in the afternoon. 

         12        There is such a lack of education and 

         13   knowledge, you know, at every level.  Whether it's 

         14   mothers or teachers, or it's just beginning to 

         15   filter.  Obviously, our Governor Sonny Perdue, who 

         16   I have spent some time with and around his 

         17   grandchildren.  He is such a devoted grandfather, 

         18   he must not know the truth of the science, 

         19   otherwise, he would not be putting his 

         20   grandchildren in harm's way, their health now or in 

         21   the future.  

         22        And I'm sure that you've all been privy to 

         23   that letter that's been circulated.  But, you know, 

         24   it's like I have this file of partially treated 

         25   sewage water, which we used to have in Atlanta.  We 




                                                                      129



          1   were sending it downstream to our neighbors all the 

          2   way to Alabama and Florida.  And we're getting 

          3   better.  We're cleaning up our act, but it did 

          4   require that the Feds get involved.  

          5        And I'm hoping that just like I wouldn't want 

          6   my kids to drink filth, I don't want them to have 

          7   to breathe dirty air and not only my children, but 

          8   the rest of the children, the 11 percent of 

          9   Georgia's children that have asthma and actually 15 

         10   percent of the children in Atlanta have asthma.  

         11        We are the only city of our size in the 

         12   country that does not have Federal funding for 

         13   State transit, public transit, so it's really only 

         14   -- there is only a small percentage of Atlantans 

         15   and Georgians that have access.  And, as you know, 

         16   over 50 percent of our ozone problems are coming 

         17   from the tailpipes of our cars.  And we really have 

         18   got to push the EPD in the right direction to get 

         19   them on track and fast track alternative modes of 

         20   transportation.  And that's really going to be 

         21   necessary in helping us clean up our air.  The 

         22   solutions are not coming up with 27-line wide 

         23   highways and more highways, it's getting people out 

         24   of their cars in a smart way.

         25        I know we've made a lot of progress because of 




                                                                      130



          1   the Clean Air Act and because of the work of EPD 

          2   and EPA, but we can do much better and now with the 

          3   new sciences as we need to have a more stringent 

          4   standard to protect our vulnerable, the kids and 

          5   the elderly and what have you.  I'm advocating for 

          6   that.  And I think that's it.  Thank you so much.

          7        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you for coming.

          8        MS. SEYDEL:  And I'm glad I didn't have to 

          9   read from my notes.  I don't do very well at 

         10   that.

         11        MS. SASSER:  You mentioned a letter, would you 

         12   clarify the letter you mentioned?  

         13        MS. SEYDEL:  It was actually from the Governor 

         14   to Steven Johnson, the Administration of EPA.  And 

         15   I did want to also represent that Stephanie Blank, 

         16   a very good friend of mine started Mothers & Others 

         17   for Clean Air about two-and-a-half years ago.  I 

         18   know you are going to be hearing from Rebecca Hall 

         19   on the science in just very shortly.  

         20        MR. PAGE:  Very good.  I think we had somebody 

         21   from Mothers & Others in Philadelphia, is this a 

         22   national?

         23        MS. SEYDEL:  We hope it will be, but we 

         24   started it and it's the first time that we fought 

         25   the health community together with the 




                                                                      131



          1   environmental community and it's just working 

          2   brilliantly, so hopefully we'll be able to, with 

          3   other air-based non-profits work interface clean 

          4   air campaigns really drive it 

          5   home.

          6        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Mr. 

          7   Draves.

          8        MR. DRAVES:  Yes, I'm Gordon Draves.  I'm 

          9   President of Georigans Against Smoking Pollution.  

         10   Very concerned especially with indoor air quality, 

         11   but also very much with outdoor air quality also 

         12   because, you know, we don't need to be exposed 

         13   either place with massive amounts of pollution, so 

         14   I agree with the three previous speakers on this 

         15   issue and I think it would be a good idea to lower 

         16   the ozone rate down to 0.06.  

         17        Ozone is our friend when it's high up in the 

         18   sky, it helps save us from skin cancer and such, 

         19   but when it's down here on the ground it's not good 

         20   for us and it's not good for plants, so I've seen 

         21   some of the things that happen to plants up near 

         22   Mount Mitchell and such where the leaves fall off 

         23   of the trees and such because of the ozone damage, 

         24   so, you know, we need to clean up our air and keep 

         25   it as ozone free as possible.




                                                                      132



          1        As mentioned about asthma, asthma is the 

          2   number one chronic condition for absenteeism from 

          3   school.  And the thing is that we need our kids in 

          4   school not at home or in the hospital.  Asthma does 

          5   contribute to hospitalization and such so that we 

          6   do need to reduce the amount of pollution in the 

          7   air so that our kids will stay healthy and in 

          8   school because our schools get some $3 a day for 

          9   each student or something.  So, anyway, to find out 

         10   that, you know, at least 15 percent of the kids in 

         11   Atlanta have asthma, you know, this is a very big 

         12   concern.  Of course, hearing that, Atlanta is the 

         13   number one city for asthma in America.  That should 

         14   be a great concern to everybody.

         15        One thing that kind of frustrates me is that 

         16   granted we do have high ozone days or unhealthy air 

         17   days, the weather men on television tell us to stay 

         18   indoors.  Of course, I would like to have them set 

         19   a little caddy and that is to smoke-free, 

         20   non-tobacco smoke polluted areas because, 

         21   unfortunately, about at least 20 percent to 25 

         22   percent of the children are in families where they 

         23   do smoke.  So if you are keeping the kids indoors 

         24   to keep them from inhaling ozone, they are indoors 

         25   inhaling a lot of other stuff and homes can be 




                                                                      133



          1   almost as polluted as a restaurant and such with 

          2   tobacco smoke.  So the thing is I would like them 

          3   to tell people, maybe go inside, but make sure it's 

          4   a smoke-free area.  So, you know, we really do need 

          5   to work on these issue, try to get our automobiles 

          6   more efficient so they are not polluting as much 

          7   and that we don't have as much stuff in the air 

          8   that we breathe and we just, you know, need to keep 

          9   at this and if the 0.06 will help us a little bit, 

         10   I think that we should do that.  I'm kind of 

         11   disappointed in Sonny Perdue coming out and saying 

         12   that he's for doing that.  Of course, he's hailed 

         13   me on some other issues too, but the thing is on 

         14   this, you know, this affects everybody's health and 

         15   if we can lower the standard a little bit down to 

         16   0.06 and encourage people not to pollute the air 

         17   and have better standards for cars and those kind 

         18   of things I think that will be a lot better idea.

         19        I am kind of disappointed in Georgia.  They 

         20   are going to license a coal-fired plant down in 

         21   Early County and with the winds possibly coming up 

         22   this way, it will influence our air too.  And I'm 

         23   not sure if that will definitely influence the 

         24   ozone layer, ozone concentrations up in this area 

         25   or not.  I'm not sure what exactly it is going to 




                                                                      134



          1   be producing, but we don't need anymore air 

          2   pollution from those kind of plants.  So I'm kind 

          3   of disappointed that it has been on the agenda.  I 

          4   hope that we can stop that.  

          5        So, anyway, we need to work on outdoor issues, 

          6   indoor air issues by prohibiting smoking would be a 

          7   good idea and to just clean up the air all the way 

          8   around because it does have a great effect on our 

          9   lives, our health and everything else.  It's clean 

         10   air equals health, wealth and we save lives.  Thank 

         11   you.

         12        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both for coming today.  

         13   We appreciate it.

         14        Our next speakers are Mr. Bart Melton and 

         15   Jennette Gayer.  All right.  Mr. Melton, you are 

         16   first.  

         17        MR. MELTON:  You may have heard some similar 

         18   comments at other times and other locations, but I 

         19   will reiterate a little bit.  My name is Bart 

         20   Melton.  I'm here on behalf of the Non-Partisan 

         21   Non-Profit National Parks Conservation Association.  

         22   I'm here to represent our 337,000 members to 

         23   testify regarding EPA's proposed changes to the 

         24   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.  

         25   We are going to be submitting formal written 




                                                                      135



          1   comments in coordination with the Appalachian 

          2   Mountain Club and other organizations in the coming 

          3   weeks so be looking out for those. 

          4        For the record, I would like to note the NPCA 

          5   supports the American Lung Association's 

          6   recommendations regarding the EPA's proposed 

          7   changes to the primary standard.  We agree with and 

          8   support the ALA's recommendation to the EPA.  

          9   Specifically, we feel that in order to protect 

         10   health that a primary standard of 0.060 ppm is most 

         11   appropriate.   

         12        As our formal written comments to EPA will 

         13   point out, the scientific community and more 

         14   specifically, the National Parks Service, now has 

         15   25 years of data showing that ozone is having an 

         16   extremely negative effect on the (inaudible) of our 

         17   national parks.  It's time we act now to protect 

         18   the natural integrity of our national parks and the 

         19   harmful effects that ozone is having.  This is why 

         20   NPCA has chosen to concentrate our formal written 

         21   comments and remarks today on the proposed changes 

         22   to the secondary standard.  Before addressing our 

         23   technical remarks I wanted to applaud EPA's 

         24   decision to re-examine both the primary and 

         25   secondary standard on NPCA is I would like to point 




                                                                      136



          1   out that as with the primary standard, we do feel 

          2   that EPA's proposed changes would not go far enough 

          3   to fully be protective of public health and 

          4   environmental health.  

          5        It is imperative that EPA take the entire body 

          6   of scientific evidence now available regarding the 

          7   harmful effects of ozone on the natural environment 

          8   and human welfare into consideration.  The 

          9   secondary standard, as with the primary, must be 

         10   truly protective.  In the case of the secondary 

         11   standard, it must be truly protective of the 

         12   environmental and plant health of our nation's 

         13   national parks.

         14        NPCA recommends the following regarding EPA's 

         15   proposed changes to the secondary standard.  First, 

         16   the secondary standard for ozone should use an 

         17   annual cumulative weighted index.  We are opposed 

         18   EPA's proposal to average over multiple years which 

         19   will result in high ozone years being averaged out. 

         20        Second, we agree that there is sufficient 

         21   evidence that the W126 based standard is 

         22   appropriate, however, we disagree on the 12-hour 

         23   and three-month summation period.  We prefer the 

         24   longer level proposed 0.07 ppm especially over 12 

         25   hours and three months as I stated.  




                                                                      137



          1        However, our ultimate preference is the tier 

          2   approach that considers varying levels of plant 

          3   sensitivities limited to National Park Service 

          4   thresholds.  

          5        Thirdly, the standard should include May 

          6   through September to reflect the full grounding 

          7   season.  Grounding seasons are expanding due to 

          8   climate change and they expand we see a need for a 

          9   better look at the overall standard length.

         10        Fourth, the secondary standard should not 

         11   replicate an implementation but establish the 

         12   primary standard, which is based on human health 

         13   populations which are mutually protective of 

         14   vegetation.

         15        Finally, the federally protected and large 

         16   contiguous natural areas with known sensitive 

         17   species should receive additional funding for ozone 

         18   monitoring.  In the Great Smoky Mountains National 

         19   Park there is a complete shortage of funding for 

         20   ozone monitoring and it's important that we 

         21   strengthen that program to better understand the 

         22   overall effects of ozone on plants. 

         23        It's time we take seriously into account the 

         24   existing data of the effects ozone is having on our 

         25   natural environment.  We feel that expanding both 




                                                                      138



          1   the primary and secondary standards for ozone to a 

          2   protective level is extremely important.  It's time 

          3   we protect our National Parks and our 

          4   (inaudible).

          5        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

          6        MS. GAYER:  Good afternoon.  My name is 

          7   Jennette Gayer and I'm a Policy Advocate with 

          8   Environment Georgia.  Environment Georgia is a 

          9   non-profit and non-partisan environmental advocacy 

         10   organization with roughly 5,000 citizen members 

         11   across Georgia.  Thank you for giving us the 

         12   opportunity today to testify on the Environmental 

         13   Protection Agency's proposal to revise the national 

         14   air quality standards for ozone, smog, 

         15   pollution.

         16        Environment Georgia is pleased that EPA is 

         17   taking a step toward cleaner air for Georgia and 

         18   the entire country by proposing to strengthen the 

         19   national air quality standard for ozone.  

         20   Unfortunately, EPA's proposal falls short of the 

         21   ozone standard its own scientific advisors said is 

         22   necessary to public health and its proposal leaves 

         23   open the possibility of not strengthening the ozone 

         24   standards at all.

         25        Ozone is a powerful pollutant that can burn 




                                                                      139



          1   our lung airways causing health effects ranging 

          2   from coughing and wheezing to asthma attacks and 

          3   even premature death.  Children, teenagers, senior 

          4   citizens and people with lung disease are 

          5   particularly vulnerable to the health effects of 

          6   ozone.  New epidemiological and clinical studies 

          7   show the health impacts of breathing ozone at 

          8   levels at the current ambient air quality 

          9   standards.  In fact, clinical studies of otherwise 

         10   healthy adults have found decreased lung function, 

         11   increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation and 

         12   increased susceptibility to respiratory infection 

         13   at or below the current standard of 0.08 ppm.

         14        Locally, ozone pollution is a problem that the 

         15   Atlanta area knows very well.  In its 2007 State of 

         16   the Air Report, the American Lung Association gave 

         17   grades of F for ozone pollution levels to Fulton, 

         18   DeKalb, Douglas, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale 

         19   Counties.  The combined population of these 

         20   counties is over 30 percent of our states 

         21   population.  Clearly, this is problem that hits too 

         22   close to home in the state of Georgia.

         23        The independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

         24   Committee reviewed a 2000-page summary of the 

         25   scientific research  of the health impacts of ozone 




                                                                      140



          1   and unanimously concluded that the current ozone 

          2   standard is not adequate to protect human health.  

          3   Under the Clean Air Act, air quality standards must 

          4   be set at levels that protect public health 

          5   including that of sensitive populations with an 

          6   adequate margin of safety.  As a result, the Clean 

          7   Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended 

          8   setting a new ozone standard in the range of 0.060 

          9   to 0.070 ppm.

         10        EPA's proposal to strengthen the standard to 

         11   within a range of 0.070 ppm to 0.075 is therefore 

         12   weaker than the Agency's scientific advisors say is 

         13   necessary to protect public health.  While stronger 

         14   than the current ozone standard, the proposal fails 

         15   to protect public health with an adequate margin of 

         16   safety.  In effect, EPA's proposed standards will 

         17   protect millions of Americans but will continue to 

         18   leave millions, particularly those with lung 

         19   disease or who are otherwise sensitive to air 

         20   pollution, exposed to the harmful effects of dirty 

         21   air.

         22        Alarmingly, the new EPA proposal also leaves 

         23   the door open to retaining the current ozone 

         24   standard.  Scientists and even EPA Administrator 

         25   Johnson have said that the current standard is not 




                                                                      141



          1   good enough to protect public health.  One has to 

          2   wonder why that option is still even on the table.  

          3   One possible factor is that in the weeks leading up 

          4   the release of EPA's proposal, representatives from 

          5   the electric utilities, chemical industry oil 

          6   companies and the automakers organized high-level 

          7   meetings with the Bush Administration officials to 

          8   discuss the new ozone standards.

          9        Every American and every Georgian deserves to 

         10   breathe clean air. EPA should reject industry 

         11   pressure to retain the current standard and instead 

         12   adopt an ozone standard of 0.060 ppm consistent 

         13   with the recommendation of its scientific advisors.  

         14   Thank you, again. 

         15        MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are Ms. Eleanor 

         16   Hand and Ms. Peggy Berg.  Ms. Hand, you are 

         17   first.

         18        MS. HAND:  Hello, I'm Eleanor Hand.  I'm 

         19   speaking as a private citizen.  The poor air 

         20   quality in Atlanta and in the North Georgia 

         21   mountains is the one factor that woke me up from my 

         22   complacency.  I have always been a gardener, walker 

         23   and swimmer.  In the '90s I began to notice more 

         24   difficulty breathing, more exhaustion and more 

         25   inflammation in my joints after engaging in these 




                                                                      142



          1   activities when there was smog outside.  I can no 

          2   longer be longer be outside when and, as I would 

          3   like.  My son and daughter both suffered from 

          4   asthma, which was worse between May and October.  

          5   We bought a farm in the North Georgia mountains 

          6   only to find the air quality was worse there than 

          7   in Atlanta.  I became motivated to speak out, to 

          8   join various organizations like the Sierra Club.

          9        Now my children suffer less with asthma as 

         10   they have moved to "greener skies," Lake Tahoe and 

         11   Burlington, Vermont.  The quality of air in Atlanta 

         12   contributed to their move.  This Labor Day weekend 

         13   in the mountains of Georgia, the ozone levels were 

         14   very high.  The sun was shining and the visibility 

         15   was very low.  It was disgustingly smoggy, could 

         16   not have been healthy and I suffered through a 

         17   two-hour hike.  At Fort Mountain, the 8-hour 

         18   average of ozone concentration stayed between 0.050 

         19   and 0.066 ppm for the entire 72 hours between 

         20   Sunday morning and midnight last night.  Pollution 

         21   from the metro area had blown up against the 

         22   mountains.  Needless to say, I am sad that Atlanta 

         23   is one of the "hot spots" in the U.S. for unhealthy 

         24   air.

         25        The proposal to strengthen the national air 




                                                                      143



          1   quality standard for ozone is encouraging, but it 

          2   must be set at 0.060 ppm without any rounding 

          3   loopholes.  Children, seniors and people with lung 

          4   disease are vulnerable to the health effects of 

          5   ozone.  The clinical studies have shown even 

          6   healthy adults have decreased lung function at or 

          7   below 0.08 ppm.  Breathing ozone can kill.  In a 

          8   14-year study in 95 cities short-term increases in 

          9   ozone were found to increase deaths in 

         10   cardiovascular and respiratory causes.  The 

         11   relationship between mortality and ozone was 

         12   evident even on days when pollution levels were 

         13   below 0.060 ppm.

         14        We do not want to sacrifice the health of our 

         15   children for corporate profit, nor do we want our 

         16   children to stay inside and become couch potatoes 

         17   or computer zombies.  Ozone can damage a child's  

         18   lungs and stunt lung growth.  A California study 

         19   found that children who played outside were three 

         20   times more likely to suffer asthma as those who 

         21   didn't, particularly those who paid outdoor sports.  

         22   I believe that since children play outdoor sports 

         23   in the afternoon or early evening when the ozone 

         24   levels are highest, we should seriously consider 

         25   taking an average of these afternoon hours and 




                                                                      144



          1   making it the standard.  It would be a more 

          2   adequate indicator of our exposure to ozone. 

          3        According to the unanimous Supreme Court 

          4   decision in 2001, the national air quality standard 

          5   must be rigorous in telling the public that the air 

          6   outside is safe.  Corporations make billions 

          7   polluting.  Individual citizens pay enormous fees 

          8   for healthcare to treat diseases made worse by 

          9   these corporate polluters.  Asthma treatment cost 

         10   $16 billion last year.  Corporations could use a 

         11   new technology to reduce air pollution and protect 

         12   public health such as Honda, which priced a Civic 

         13   compact model on the market that emitted less than 

         14   half of what was permitted under California law for 

         15   an increased cost of $100 per vehicle.

         16        The EPA should reject industry pressure to 

         17   retain current standards and instead adopt an ozone 

         18   standard of 0.06 ppm consistent with the 

         19   recommendations of its scientific advisors. 

         20        I would like to fly home to Atlanta, look down 

         21   from the plane and not be depressed about living in 

         22   a cloud of dirty air that covers north Georgia.  I 

         23   would like to look up to the skies from my home and 

         24   see the Northern Hemisphere Milky Way as clearly as 

         25   I saw the Southern Hemisphere Milky Way in New 




                                                                      145



          1   Zealand.  We have become numb to dirty air and 

          2   don't know how sparkling and plentiful the stars 

          3   are in the night sky or how clearly blue the noon 

          4   sky can be.

          5        Thank you for listening to my story, 

          6   observations and ideas.  I hope it influences your 

          7   decision.

          8        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

          9        MS. BERG:  My name is Peggy Berg.  I am a 

         10   business woman and I am a soccer mom.  I'm here 

         11   because I'm distressed.  When I drove into Atlanta 

         12   recently, I could not see the skyline and the sky 

         13   was the wrong color.  I remember skies that were 

         14   the wrong color and skylines blurred by dirty air 

         15   when I was a child and we drove through Buffalo and 

         16   Cleveland and Pittsburgh on family trips.  I 

         17   remember green skies.  Those same skies were clear 

         18   and the skylines sparkled when I traveled to those 

         19   same cities as a young professional.  

         20        In the past 18 months I have seen skylines in 

         21   Dallas, Memphis, Los Angeles, Philadelphia as well 

         22   as in Atlanta that are once more obscured by dirty 

         23   air.  So in my lifetime, we fouled our air, we 

         24   cleaned our air and more recently we fouled our air 

         25   again.  I never thought that our government with 




                                                                      146



          1   its Environmental Protection Agency would permit 

          2   our air quality to deteriorate again after the 

          3   benefits of clean air were so clearly demonstrated.  

          4        I've been a soccer mom for 14 years.  Soccer 

          5   moms now discuss whether the air is clean enough to 

          6   allow their children to go to soccer practice.  

          7   From playgrounds to sports fields, moms now have to 

          8   decide when the air is safe for their children to 

          9   breathe when they run outside.  This was unheard of 

         10   10 years ago, but children with respiratory 

         11   problems at school and at play were also 

         12   comparatively rare ten years ago, they are common 

         13   now. 

         14        I am an employer.  Employees with allergies 

         15   and bronchial ailments come to my attention 

         16   frequently now.  These issues rarely crossed my 

         17   path only five years ago.  This is testimony with 

         18   deteriorating air quality is obvious in the 

         19   day-to-day activities of a businesswoman and a 

         20   mother.  It is having a negative impact on the most 

         21   basic impacts of our lives.  The Clean Air Act that 

         22   made such a difference to American skies between my 

         23   childhood and my 20s death with a simpler economy, 

         24   a fraction of the automobiles, a fraction of the 

         25   heated and cooled space in buildings and a much 




                                                                      147



          1   smaller population.

          2        To clean our skies now, to make it safe for 

          3   our children to play outdoors, to keep our 

          4   employees healthy and productive, will take more 

          5   stringent regulations that were needed years ago 

          6   because of the additional people and cars and 

          7   buildings.  

          8        This isn't to me an esoteric discussion about 

          9   impacts and projections and statistics.  This isn't 

         10   a matter for compromise.  A standard of 0.070 ppm 

         11   when science recommends 0.060 ppm and compromise 

         12   secondary standards violate the very mission and 

         13   purpose of the organization that is promoting these 

         14   standards.  This is immediate.  This is not a 

         15   subject that should be waiting for 2010 for 

         16   implementation.  This is real.  This is affecting 

         17   us all today.  This requires change now.       

         18        The mission of EPA is to protect human health 

         19   and the environment.  When a businesswoman sees 

         20   skylines obscured, when moms are afraid to let 

         21   their children play outside, when bronchial 

         22   ailments are common in the workplace, the EPA has 

         23   failed in its mission and the EPA has to make a 

         24   radical change in course.  This is a situation that 

         25   has to be turned from degradation to rapid 




                                                                      148



          1   improvement.

          2        I am a staunch supporter of the Environmental 

          3   Protectional Agency in the execution of its 

          4   mission.  I believe that this Agency's success in 

          5   meeting its charge is vital to its nation, to my 

          6   business and to my family.  I want the EPA to pass 

          7   regulations that will fulfill it's mission to 

          8   protect human health and the environment now.  This 

          9   is not a time for compromise and negotiated 

         10   legislation.  This is a time to take courageous, 

         11   dramatic, immediate and necessary steps to improve 

         12   our air quality.

         13        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you both for 

         14   coming.  Would you submit your comments for the 

         15   record.  Thank you.

         16        Our next speakers are Mrs. Rebecca Watts Hull 

         17   and Mr. Noah Hull.

         18        MS. HULL:  Good afternoon.  My name is Rebecca 

         19   Watts Hull and I represent Mothers & Others for 

         20   Clean Air, a partnership of six leading health and 

         21   environmental organizations in Atlanta.  I am here 

         22   today to urge the EPA to follow the recommendation 

         23   of the Scientific Advisory Committee and lower the 

         24   primary standard for ozone from 0.080 ppb to 0.060, 

         25   the level that best protects the most vulnerable 




                                                                      149



          1   population, including my children and provides the 

          2   "adequate margin of safety" required under the 

          3   Clean Air Act.

          4        Because the EPA has already reviewed the 

          5   extensive report on the health effects of ozone 

          6   provided by the Scientific Advisory Committee, I 

          7   will focus my comments on the impacts of ozone 

          8   pollution on Georgia's children and what a stronger 

          9   standard could do for them and all Georgians.

         10        Over half of Georgia's population is currently 

         11   breathing unhealthy air and the asthma rate among 

         12   Georgia's children is alarming.  According to the 

         13   2007 Asthma Surveillance Report published by 

         14   Georgia's Division of Public Health, in Georgia 

         15   more than 10 percent of children ages 0 to 10, more 

         16   than 100,000 children have asthma; 15 percent of 

         17   middle school students or approximately 56,000 have 

         18   asthma; and 16 percent of high school students, 

         19   approximately 70,000 have asthma in Georgia.

         20        This means that there are a total of roughly 

         21   226,000 children living with asthma in Georgia.  

         22   These are truly alarming statistics, and to the 

         23   children, parents and other caregivers living with 

         24   asthma, these numbers are much more than 

         25   statistics, the impact is highly personal.  And I 




                                                                      150



          1   think you've heard a lot of those personal stories 

          2   today.  Asthma puts a huge emotional and often 

          3   financial burden on families and can limit a 

          4   child's ability to learn, to play and to sleep.  

          5   Asthma is the number one reason children are 

          6   admitted to hospitals in Atlanta and it is the top 

          7   chronic illness causing children to miss school.  

          8   Watching a loved one struggle to breathe is a 

          9   terrifying experience, and living with asthma takes 

         10   a major toll on thousands of Georgia families.

         11        Asthma carries high economic costs.  In 

         12   Georgia there are more than 47,000 emergency room 

         13   visits and 11,000 hospitalizations per year due to 

         14   asthma for a total cost of $142 million.  And these 

         15   figures only include direct medical costs.  If we 

         16   were to include the costs of higher insurance rates 

         17   and lost work days, the figures would be much 

         18   higher.  

         19        We know that ozone pollution sends kids with 

         20   asthma to the emergency room and can even result in 

         21   death.  There is also growing evidence that high 

         22   ozone levels may cause asthma to develop in the 

         23   first place.  According to the Centers for Disease 

         24   Control & Prevention, childhood asthma prevalence 

         25   more than doubled from 1980 to the mid 1990s and 




                                                                      151



          1   remains at historically high levels.  A California 

          2   study comparing active kids in high ozone levels 

          3   with active kids in areas with safe levels of ozone 

          4   found the high ozone group 3.3 times more likely to 

          5   develop asthma.  In other words, a high ozone 

          6   levels in metro Atlanta do not just make life more 

          7   difficult and dangerous for children living with 

          8   asthma, but also put our otherwise healthy children 

          9   at risk of developing asthma and other respiratory 

         10   problems.

         11        The State of Georgia and the federal 

         12   government have adopted many measures to improve 

         13   air quality, including cleaner fuels and new rules 

         14   placing caps on power plant emissions, but what 

         15   this summer's many ozone alert days show us is that 

         16   we are not yet doing enough.  So are in 2007 we 

         17   have had 28 days over the current 0.84 ppb limit 

         18   and nine of those have been over 100 ppb.  Clearly 

         19   we are not moving quickly enough to make a 

         20   difference for this generation of children growing 

         21   and breathing the air right now.  

         22        So what could a stronger ozone standard do for 

         23   Georgia, for the areas already classified as 

         24   "non-attainment" for ozone, a lower limit will 

         25   force stronger measures into play, getting us to 




                                                                      152



          1   cleaner air faster.  A new Transit Planning Board 

          2   has mapped out plans for a comprehensive regional  

          3   transit system, but some of Georgia's commuter rail 

          4   plans have been on the books, unbuilt, for 20 

          5   years.  A stronger federal rule can force a faster 

          6   pace for transit expansion.  Georgia also has a 

          7   long way to go with respect to the use of renewable 

          8   energy resources for power production.  A stronger 

          9   standard can force more aggressive changes into the 

         10   State Implementation Plans of Georgia's electric 

         11   utilities.

         12        For the areas of Georgia outside of metro 

         13   Atlanta, a lower limit on ozone will place many 

         14   additional counties in non-attainment, requiring 

         15   the State to put plans in place to reduce 

         16   ozone-forming emissions in those areas.  EPA 

         17   predicts that changing the standard to 0.070 ppb 

         18   will expand the size of the Atlanta non-attainment 

         19   area and will also put seven counties outside the 

         20   metro area into non-attainment.  A change to 0.060 

         21   ppb would likely add several more counties to that 

         22   list.  

         23        Business and industry groups have testified at 

         24   last week's hearings that lowering the limit on 

         25   ozone is unnecessary and would hurt manufacturers.  




                                                                      153



          1   But CASAC unanimously concluded the current 

          2   standard does not adequately protect public health.  

          3   And the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to 

          4   consider economics when setting air quality 

          5   standards.  The primary standard must be based 

          6   solely on protecting our health with an adequate 

          7   "margin of safety."  

          8        The proposed revisions to the standard for 

          9   ozone are a positive step toward cleaner air and I 

         10   urge the EPA to go even further by adopting the 

         11   level that scientists agree that are most 

         12   protective of our children and other vulnerable 

         13   populations, 0.060 ppb.  Thank you again for the 

         14   opportunity to speak today.

         15        MASTER HULL:  Good afternoon.  My name is Noah 

         16   Hull and I am from Decatur, Georgia.  I am here to 

         17   talk today about air quality and its effects on 

         18   people and living things.  

         19        I like to play sports at an after-school 

         20   program I go to.  On orange and red days we get 

         21   limited time to play outside because of the bad air 

         22   quality.  And if I don't get my energy out during 

         23   the day, I can't get to sleep at night.  I want air 

         24   quality limits to be strengthened so that we can 

         25   have an easier time going outside.




                                                                      154



          1        Ozone doesn't only affect us, but it also 

          2   affects plants and animals.  90 percent of black 

          3   cherry trees and milkweed plants in the Smoky 

          4   Mountain region are damaged by ozone pollution.  It 

          5   is also affecting coneflowers, tulip trees and 

          6   sassafras trees.  Most of these plants are 

          7   butterfly-attracting plants.  Plus, monarchs only 

          8   lay eggs on milkweed plants, so if half the 

          9   milkweed population that have suffered ozone damage 

         10   doe, there would only be 50 or 40 percent of 

         11   milkweed plants in the Smokies left.  It would also 

         12   affect the animals that eat monarchs and their 

         13   caterpillars and also other animals going up the 

         14   food chain.

         15        So we need to help strengthen the ozone rules 

         16   so that we can have an environment that has cleaner 

         17   air.  Thank you for coming and listening.  

         18        MR. PAGE:  You're welcome.  Our next speakers 

         19   are Ms. Peggy Harper and Mr. Michael Black.

         20        Welcome to you both and thank you for joining 

         21   us.  We appreciate you taking the trouble to come 

         22   down.  We're ready to listen.  Ms. Harper, you're 

         23   first.  

         24        MS. HARPER:  I have to apologize I did not get 

         25   the rulings until today, so I would have to write 




                                                                      155



          1   you some comments on the actual ruling.  I came 

          2   today to talk about a story than to talk about 

          3   Atlanta.  As a disclaimer let me start by saying 

          4   that I have had respiratory issues since I have 

          5   been in the 4th grade and smoker, smoking 

          6   inhalation, but I didn't have any problems until I 

          7   came to Atlanta.  I came to Atlanta in the '70s.  

          8   My lungs were clear.  I had no x-rays that came 

          9   back bad until about 1998 and that's when I was 

         10   diagnosed at Grady Hospital with severe COPD.  I 

         11   had moved from an area of Atlanta that was very 

         12   tree -- lots of trees.  I had a half acre.  My 

         13   property ran back to the interstate, but I had a 

         14   half-acre buffer with trees to downtown Atlanta 

         15   which has no trees to an area that is sandwiched 

         16   between two interstates I-20 and I-75.  As a matter 

         17   of fact, this area you heard from Mothers & Others 

         18   about children, that area has the highest 

         19   percentage at pediatric asthma in the City of 

         20   Atlanta even with millions of dollars invested 

         21   through the Empower Zone and now through Total 20 

         22   the money went for asthma prevention and 

         23   education.  

         24        Severe chest pains.  I thought I was having a 

         25   heart attack, turned out another case of 




                                                                      156



          1   bronchitis.  Lungs collapsed.  You name it, I've 

          2   had it.  My conclusion is that when I moved into 

          3   downtown Atlanta with no trees and lovely traffic 

          4   from the interstate as well as major connectors to 

          5   downtown Atlanta running through my neighborhood, 

          6   that this really putting a lot more stress on my 

          7   lungs and on my system.  I also observed that a lot 

          8   of municipal charter school and commercial buses, 

          9   including our mass-transit buses who make visible 

         10   gray-colored smoke, which tells me, hmmm, something 

         11   is not right here.  The State of Georgia, unlike 

         12   the State of Florida, does not have a strong car or 

         13   vehicle standard, so you can have vehicles on the 

         14   highway that are in disrepair and are not just 

         15   emission defective, but defective in other ways 

         16   giving off particulates in the air.  

         17        I always come with recommendations as many 

         18   people in Atlanta know, I don't just come to fuss 

         19   about a problem.  There are a couple of things that 

         20   I really wanted to say.  I really do hope that you 

         21   listen to the public more than you listen to big 

         22   business because most manufacturing is offshore 

         23   anyway, so there isn't that much going on around 

         24   here.  Secondly, I think that in populated areas 

         25   the 0.060 is probably good nationwide, but I think 




                                                                      157



          1   in populated you need to be even stricter in urban 

          2   areas Atlanta, Los Angeles where there is dense 

          3   population, lots of cars, lots of interstates, I 

          4   think you need to be little bit more stricter, so 

          5   maybe you need to have two sets of standards, one 

          6   for urban and one for rural.  

          7        I also think that EPA needs to put pressure on 

          8   DOT to reduce the number of dollars that are being 

          9   given for roads and increase the number of dollars 

         10   that are being given for non-fossil fuel 

         11   transportation systems.  I also think that DOT 

         12   should be mandated to put at least a two-level tree 

         13   buffer along the interstate along with some kind of 

         14   impervious barrier to keep dust from coming into 

         15   the neighborhoods in the urban areas.  So those are 

         16   things that I really wish that EPA, which is one of 

         17   the better agencies in the government and I used to 

         18   be a government employee so I can say that.  I hope 

         19   that EPA not only strengthens as it (inaudible) 

         20   back down to (inaudible) if we have to in urban 

         21   areas, but also put some pressure on DOT to get 

         22   some help from DOT because I think that cars and 

         23   fossil-fuel emissions are one the biggest things 

         24   that we have in ozone problems.  Thank you so much. 

         25        MR. PAGE:  Mr. Black, ready?  




                                                                      158



          1        MR. BLACK:  Sure thing.  I'm Michael Black and 

          2   I am coming here as an individual and not 

          3   representing a group.  I'm a research scientist at 

          4   Georgia State University and I'm concerned that the 

          5   EPA scientific documents aren't holding much weight 

          6   in the current policy realms as I think they 

          7   should, so I wanted the urge the EPA to set the 

          8   standard at 0.064 ppm or lower to reduce the ozone 

          9   related deaths as much as 75 percent.  Even 

         10   considering a standard between 0.070 and 0.080 ppm 

         11   would put the health of millions of Americans at 

         12   risks and I think it's a fool's task.  Ozone is a 

         13   powerful airway irritant that damages lungs, sends 

         14   sensitive people to the hospital and increases the 

         15   development of asthma in children.  I also ask that 

         16   that rounding loophole that lets regulators round 

         17   down to the nearest two decimal places be removed 

         18   because we can detect these at lower levels very 

         19   easily now and the rounding loophole doesn't really 

         20   need to exist.  My wife is a doctor and while she 

         21   worked at Children's Hospital in Scottish Rite, you 

         22   could tell the asthma cases coming into the 

         23   hospital when it was an orange or a red day.  You 

         24   didn't even have to look.  The costs emotionally 

         25   and financially to families is too a high a price 




                                                                      159



          1   to pay, even if we were looking at the economics.  

          2        As an Atlantan resident often exposed to high 

          3   levels of ozone in the air, I know that there won't 

          4   be a real push for change unless EPA regulations 

          5   cause that to be required.  I worry about the 

          6   current trends I've seen in the scientific evidence 

          7   such as the 2005 set standard  for particulate 

          8   matter.  I think we need to take into account 

          9   independent scientific research and weigh it more 

         10   than it has been weighed rather than just looking 

         11   at recommendations of political appointees and 

         12   staff scientists.  And I just wanted to thank you 

         13   for letting me speak and give my input on this 

         14   important issue.

         15        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  I have a question:  

         16   You said you support a level of 0.064 ppm?  

         17        MR. BLACK:  Yes or lower.

         18        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both for coming today.  

         19   We appreciate it very much.  

         20        Our next speakers are Dr. Gerald Durley and 

         21   Ms. Judy Adler.

         22        MS. ADLER:  Thank you for the opportunity to 

         23   speak this morning.  My name is Judy Adler and I'm 

         24   a resident of the City of Atlanta.  I am 

         25   representing myself although I am an environmental 




                                                                      160



          1   engineer by training.  I'm speaking this morning to 

          2   urge EPA to make the standard more protective of 

          3   public health.  As someone who suffers from asthma 

          4   personally, I know first-hand how bad air affects 

          5   health.  This summer I have experienced more 

          6   instances of wheezing and shortness of breathe, 

          7   like I am from walking to my office to over to 

          8   here, than any other time in my life.  I'm sure you 

          9   know this already, but it's my understanding that 

         10   there is a 14-year study that was published in the 

         11   Journal of the American Medical Association that 

         12   says that lowering the standard would save 4,000 

         13   lives per year in the U.S.  This is more Americans 

         14   that were killed on September 11th, this is more 

         15   Americans that have died in the Iraq war to date.

         16        Lowering the standard would force our public 

         17   officials to work harder to clean our air.  It is 

         18   clear that the current standards are not likely to 

         19   change, that we need, especially here in metro 

         20   Atlanta.  If you look at the ARC's Regional 

         21   Transportation Plan that was released, you will see 

         22   that building roads is prioritized over transit.  

         23   If you attend public hearings of the Public Service 

         24   Commission or if you look at permitting of 

         25   Environmental Protectional Division, you will see 




                                                                      161



          1   that they still prioritize building whole plans 

          2   over efficiency and other clean energy solutions.  

          3        And finally I just want to say as a mother of 

          4   a two-year-old, I urge you to make the right 

          5   decision.  As you know, ozone exposure childhood 

          6   can result in permanently stunted lung function.  

          7   Studies show that if my daughter chooses to play 

          8   soccer or ran track or some other outdoor activity, 

          9   she is three times more likely to develop asthma 

         10   compared to a child that lives in a city that does 

         11   not have high ozone levels.  Now, as a mom I really 

         12   would like my daughter to not have to be like her 

         13   mom and carry an inhaler in her purse everywhere 

         14   she goes.  Thank you. 

         15        MR. PAGE:  Thank you. 

         16        MR. DURLEY:  Good afternoon.  My name is 

         17   Gerald Durley.  I'm the Pastor of Providence 

         18   Missionary Baptist Church also the former Pastor of 

         19   the Concerned Black Clergy here in Atlanta 

         20   representing close to 400 churches and I'm the 

         21   Chair of Regional Council of Churches which 

         22   constitute a little over 2,000 churches in the 

         23   metropolitan area of all denominations.  

         24        As a leader in Atlanta's faith community I 

         25   urge to adopt the scientist agree is most 




                                                                      162



          1   protective population, 0.060 ppb.  Ozone pollution 

          2   disproportionately affects urban and minority kids 

          3   resulting in terribly high asthma rates among black 

          4   children.  I have been on the Board of Hughes 

          5   Spalding Children's Hospital here in Atlanta for 

          6   about seven years and right now the rate of asthma 

          7   Ms. Adler talked about is unbelievable and this is 

          8   something that we're very much concerned about, 

          9   particularly in the urban areas.  According to a 

         10   national study in 2000 -2002, 71 percent of 

         11   African-Americans live in counties that violated 

         12   federal air pollution standards compared to 58 

         13   percent of the white population.  It's not 

         14   surprising then that asthma rates are also higher 

         15   African-American children than white children.  

         16   According to the most recent data of Georgia, while 

         17   10 percent of white children ages 0 to 10 have 

         18   asthma, the figure is 12 percent for black 

         19   children.  In addition, in Georgia, blacks are 

         20   three times more likely to visit an emergency room 

         21   with asthma than whites.  Children living now in 

         22   low-income households are also at greater risk.  17 

         23   percent of children ages 0 to 10 in households 

         24   earning $20,000 or less suffer from asthma compared 

         25   to 10 percent children overall.  We also know that 




                                                                      163



          1   Fulton County asthma rates are significantly higher 

          2   than the State rate and Fulton County will 

          3   experience major congestion on three massive 

          4   highways on a daily basis.  Pollution from cars and 

          5   trucks contribute about half the emissions that in 

          6   summer heat form ozone.  While all people in 

          7   Atlanta suffer from our poor air quality, studies 

          8   show that children living within 500 meters of a 

          9   highway are at even greater risk of developing 

         10   respiratory problems.  

         11        As a Christian leader here in the City of 

         12   Atlanta I believe we are called to care for the 

         13   poor and marginalized, to care for God's is 

         14   everything to do justice.  We are imposing heavy 

         15   burdens on children and families already straining 

         16   under the stress of poverty.  With the current 

         17   standard of ozone set too high to protect our 

         18   children, the elderly and the sick we are failing 

         19   to care for the least of these, the lost, the left 

         20   behind.  For years, when I joined up with Dr. King 

         21   in 1959, they asked me would not those of us who've 

         22   been concerned about civil rights and human rights 

         23   are getting involved, how we find common bonds with 

         24   those in other areas now.  We feel that for some 

         25   time when we started joining forces for the first 




                                                                      164



          1   time with those in the Evangelical community and 

          2   other communities, it was just not about same-sex 

          3   marriages, it was not just about abortion, but now 

          4   we've got to be concerned about an overall planet 

          5   that affects us all regardless of our color, 

          6   regardless of our economic condition, so 

          7   consequently those of us that fight for human 

          8   rights in the religious community have found a 

          9   common bond to come and address the concerns in our 

         10   environment.  

         11        In closing I urge you to follow the 

         12   recommendations of the scientists who have very 

         13   carefully reviewed stacks and stacks of documents 

         14   and in concluding, you must strengthen the standard 

         15   to 0.060 ppb to protect the most vulnerable members 

         16   of our community.  Thank you so much for allowing 

         17   me to speak on behalf of the religious community 

         18   here in the City of Atlanta and the State of 

         19   Georgia.

         20        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both for coming today.  

         21   We appreciate it.  We're going to take a short 

         22   break right now.  If anybody anything is here that 

         23   wants to speak, we ask you to register out at the 

         24   table when you come in.  Right now that's the end 

         25   of the registered speakers.  We'll take a short 




                                                                      165



          1   break and reconvene shortly.  

          2                            - - -

          3             (Whereupon, a brief break was taken)

          4                            - - -

          5        MR. PAGE:  All right.  We're going to resume 

          6   again on our public hearing on the EPA's proposal 

          7   to revise the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

          8   Standards.  We have some speakers that are 

          9   registered and ready to go, so we would like to 

         10   call you up to two at a time, as we have been doing 

         11   all day.  If you would, please, as you come up here 

         12   and give your statements, stay at the table until 

         13   the other speaker has finished, that would be 

         14   great.  We would appreciate that.  

         15        Our next speaker is that Siobahn Gilchrist and 

         16   Free Polazzo.  Ms. Gilchrist, you are our next 

         17   speaker.  

         18        MS. GILCHRIST:  Thank you.  My name is Siobahn 

         19   Gilchrist.  I'm an epidemiologist.  I work in 

         20   maternal and child health.  I'm actually here on my 

         21   behalf, however and I also am a member of the 

         22   American Public Health Association.  Thank you for 

         23   the opportunity to provide comment today on this 

         24   important issue.  The National Ambient Air Quality 

         25   Standard matters to public health and to 




                                                                      166



          1   individuals.  They tell us when the air outside is 

          2   safe to breathe and that's very critical now a days 

          3   because we have a problem of childhood obesity and 

          4   we need to get our kids outside and exercising, so 

          5   it's very important that we consider lowering the 

          6   level to a safe level.  The standards are the goals 

          7   that each county and state must meet, so they drive 

          8   every effort nationwide to clean up our air 

          9   pollution.  Ozone exposure even at the levels 

         10   proposed 0.070 ppm is associated with increased 

         11   rates of asthma, heart disease and other 

         12   respiratory illnesses.  Epidemiological studies 

         13   have shown that susceptible children, the elderly 

         14   and persons with asthma experience significant 

         15   adverse health effects at well below these levels, 

         16   the proposed level, in fact.  

         17        According to a 2007 report of asthma rates in 

         18   Georgia, we have a pretty big problem of asthma 

         19   here.  We have a large susceptible population. 

         20   There are 137,000 children under the age of 10 with 

         21   asthma.  There are 126,000 middle schoolers and 

         22   high schoolers with asthma and there are over 

         23   480,000 adults in the State of Georgia with asthma.  

         24   That is three quarters of a million people.  The 

         25   associated costs for hospitalization and emergency 




                                                                      167



          1   room visits are well over $100 million per year.  

          2   For the year to date, metro Atlanta has had 44 smog 

          3   alert days, of which 31 were unsafe for sensitive 

          4   populations, which would be three quarters of a 

          5   million people and 13 were unhealthy for everyone.  

          6   Now, we know a lower standard would increase the 

          7   number of days when we would have a higher smog 

          8   problem, ozone alerts and smog problems, at least 

          9   we would know that, but what is important is that 

         10   allows us to highlight to need to take preventive 

         11   measures and to help us put in place measures that 

         12   would reduce ozone pollution at its source, 

         13   particularly motor vehicles and aging utility 

         14   plants.

         15        I urge the EPA to step up to the plate and 

         16   set more stringent limits that are protective of 

         17   the health of sensitive and vulnerable populations.  

         18   By setting the 8-hour ozone standard at 0.060 ppm 

         19   as recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

         20   Committee, instead of the proposed 0.070 ppm, we 

         21   will have a better shot at protecting the public's 

         22   health with "an adequate margin of safety."  Thank 

         23   you.

         24        MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  

         25        MR. POLAZZO:  That was an amazing 




                                                                      168



          1   introduction.  Thank you for coming to listen to us 

          2   tell you about our concerns about air quality.  My 

          3   name is Free Polazzo and I'm here representing 

          4   myself and others who have breathing problems.  I'm 

          5   just a sick person.  I'm not a professional.  I 

          6   don't have any statistics, so you don't have to 

          7   write them down.  I want to thank Environmental of 

          8   Georgia for letting me know about this hearing and 

          9   I think my partners for letting me take off work to 

         10   come here and do this.  

         11        I have a serious lung disease and that makes 

         12   me very conscious of the air quality.  I'm only can 

         13   use two-thirds of my lungs because I have 

         14   sarcoidosis.  How many people in here know what 

         15   that is?  You got to be a professional to know.  So 

         16   I have lost a third of my lung capacity and  it's 

         17   probably been going on since I start out with 

         18   asthma.  It's amazing how many illnesses we don't 

         19   really know what they are.  And I actually think my 

         20   grandfather when he came to this country and was 

         21   turned back at Ellis Island had the same disease.  

         22   They thought he had TB.  He came back six months 

         23   later, had the same exact screen, they let him in 

         24   and so I think a lot of -- there are illnesses that 

         25   are very difficult to identify and they were going 




                                                                      169



          1   to take my lung out because they thought I had 

          2   cancer then they thought I had TB.  Thank God we 

          3   had a doctor from Costa Rica who was in the 

          4   operating room and he noticed, Oh, I know what that 

          5   is, it's sarcoidosis.  I didn't fit the population 

          6   that is supposed this disease.  I'm not from Africa 

          7   and I'm not from northern Europe, so what does that 

          8   say.  My family has not been to Africa or Northern 

          9   Europe for many generations.  We're Eastern 

         10   European.   And I think there are things happening 

         11   to our collective bodies that we don't know and 

         12   that's the scary part.  I've got grandchildren, I 

         13   got children and I worry about their breathing 

         14   because it's an invisible thing that happens.  So I 

         15   feel like I don't need a monitor to know about the 

         16   air quality.  I have a built-in air detector, so 

         17   the politics is sort of the weird when I here 

         18   people talk about a thousand of a percent or a 

         19   hundred of a percent.  I'm dealing with a third.  

         20   By trade, I'm an accountant and I sell systems, 

         21   business systems, lot of money measuring things and 

         22   we don't measure our air quality and I'm worried 

         23   about.  I would love to have a home air quality 

         24   detector that I could stick out in the yard that 

         25   would tell me if I was living in the right place.  




                                                                      170



          1   I had to sell my house in downtown Atlanta ten 

          2   years ago because I couldn't breathe, so I moved 

          3   out to Douglasville 30 miles west.  It was okay.  I 

          4   didn't need the EPA to tell me and they couldn't 

          5   because they only have one detector over by the 

          6   highway or in the whole county, so I didn't believe 

          7   the ratings, which are much higher than I think it 

          8   is.  But now ten years later, I can't leave my 

          9   house.  I have a hard time going outside and it 

         10   really bothers me because it's a beautiful 

         11   neighborhood.  It looks beautiful.  Where am I 

         12   going to go next?  I mean there is no place to go.  

         13   Drive up to the Appalachians.  I mean the trees can 

         14   tell you?  I'm into profit and loss, I help who 

         15   cares if you can't breathe, if your kids can't 

         16   breathe, who cares if you make an extra million 

         17   dollars.  So I'm in here to ask you to please do 

         18   something about the way we measure air quality.  

         19   Why should I have to watch late night TV to learn 

         20   that my house can have cleaner air than the 

         21   outside.  How many of you have seen the Oreck 

         22   vacuum commercials.  The man shows you what you are 

         23   breathing.  I mean if you don't measure something, 

         24   it doesn't exist, right.  So this man is smart 

         25   enough that he went from to doing vacuum cleaners 




                                                                      171



          1   to cleaning the air with the same kind of 

          2   technology.  He takes the dirty air after a couple 

          3   of hours, put water through this device and holds 

          4   it in a glass of water.  You wouldn't drink it.  He 

          5   said do you want to breathe this air.  Well, the 

          6   guy is making a bunch of money because he is on all 

          7   the time.  So he can make money off of this, there 

          8   has got to be a problem.  He even gets rid of 

          9   ozone.  If Oreck can do it, why can't we do it as a 

         10   community.  So that's my plea, forget about the 

         11   numbers.  Anybody can come up with numbers just to 

         12   prove their point.  Listen to your breathing. I'm 

         13   over.  I brought this from Dragoncon.  The truth is 

         14   smog kills and I picked it up downtown yesterday.  

         15   Somebody deserves this, so I don't know which of 

         16   you deserve this, but pass it on.  I don't think it 

         17   constitutes a bribe.  It was 20 bucks.  Thank you. 

         18        MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming.  We 

         19   appreciate you coming.  

         20        Our next speakers are Mr. Tom Stanek and Dr. 

         21   Anne Mellinger-Birdsong.  Welcome to both of you.  

         22   Thank you for coming today.  Mr. Stanek, you are 

         23   the next speaker.  

         24        MR. STANEK:  Thank you for so much for coming 

         25   to Atlanta.  It's a wonderful town.  We have made 




                                                                      172



          1   some good progress here and our smog.  They used to 

          2   call us the Smog Capital, but I don't think it was 

          3   of the World, but maybe just Georgia.  We're 

          4   getting our taxpayer's money's worth today, so we 

          5   appreciate your hard work and I'll try not to bore 

          6   you with too much stuff.  

          7        I live out in the suburbs.  I'm just a private 

          8   citizen.  We are actually told to keep our windows 

          9   closed in the car during peak traffic, but not bad 

         10   hair days, but bad air days.  We get them not as 

         11   much as we used to.  It's gotten better.  So these 

         12   new standards that you folks are considering and 

         13   it's after a lot of years of the same standard, so 

         14   we know we can do better.  And we have made so much 

         15   progress here in Atlanta, so we have kind of seen 

         16   the result of the new technology that's out there.  

         17   You folks are the pros, so I don't have numbers.  I 

         18   know that the technology is better able to help us 

         19   and you folks and also it's more accurate in 

         20   telling us to future for our children, which you 

         21   guys have kids.  I don't think any of you in here 

         22   are old enough to have grandkids, but we'll be 

         23   thinking about them as we move further forward 

         24   because we can do a better job with these 

         25   statistics, with this information and with this 




                                                                      173



          1   technology to reduce these emissions, ozone 

          2   especially.  Just like we're running, we can do the 

          3   same thing with cars regarding, not just the 

          4   pollution side, but the monitoring side.  The 

          5   standard being readdressed.  Thank you so much.  

          6   Good luck in your decisions.  Thank you all.

          7        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  We appreciate your 

          8   comments.  

          9        DR. MELLINGER-BIRDSONG:  Hello.  My name is 

         10   Anne Mellinger-Birdsong.  I'm a pediatrician with a 

         11   Masters in public health.  I'm also the mother of 

         12   two young children.  I have worked at city, state 

         13   and federal health agencies and at a Health Center 

         14   on a Native American Reservation.  I'm speaking 

         15   today as a citizen and as a pediatrician.  

         16        I will start off by speaking as a parent.  

         17   This August in Atlanta we had a three-week period 

         18   of very high temperatures and no rain.  During this 

         19   three-week period, there were 14 days that were 

         20   code red or code orange air quality days in which 

         21   children or other sensitive groups were told not to 

         22   exercise outdoors in the afternoons.  On all of 

         23   these days the major pollutant listed was ozone.  

         24   How am I as a parent supposed to tell my children 

         25   that we can't go to the pool when it's 100 degrees 




                                                                      174



          1   because the air is too unhealthy for them to 

          2   breathe.  While this three-weeks stretch of high 

          3   temperatures and continuous high ozone levels is 

          4   unusual, the occurrence of 15 code orange and code 

          5   red during a typical summer is not.  

          6        I will now move to the scientific part of my 

          7   testimony.  I will start by saying that I support 

          8   the recommendation of EPA's Clean Air Scientific 

          9   Advisory Committee to lower the 8-hour ozone 

         10   standard to 0.060 ppb.  I can't in five minutes 

         11   review the many studies that they've considered, so 

         12   I will highlight some of the more important ones.  

         13   First, I will start off with three studies 

         14   conducted in Atlanta.  Peel and co-authors found 

         15   that for every 0.025 ppb increase in ozone levels, 

         16   there was a two-and-a-half increase in emergency 

         17   department visits for respiratory symptoms.  This 

         18   effect for ozone persisted in multipollutant models 

         19   meaning that the increased emergency department 

         20   visits could be explained by the simultaneous  

         21   occurrence of other pollutants.  

         22        Tolbert and co-authors found an association 

         23   between pediatric asthma emergency department 

         24   visits and ozone in both single and multi-pollutant 

         25   models.  They also found a dose response effect, 




                                                                      175



          1   which means the higher the ozone level, the greater 

          2   the number of emergency department visits for 

          3   asthma.  This provides compelling evidence of 

          4   causation.  

          5        Friedman and co-authors in a study about the 

          6   effects of traffic changes during the 1996 Olympics 

          7   in Atlanta, found that during the Olympics, morning 

          8   traffic counts decreased by 22 percent and 1-hour 

          9   peak ozone decreased by 28 percent from 0.081 to 

         10   0.059 ppb, while pediatric asthma events decreased 

         11   by over 40 percent for both Georgia Medicaid claims 

         12   and at a large health maintenance organization, by 

         13   11 percent at two pediatric emergency departments 

         14   in Atlanta and by 19 percent in the Georgia 

         15   Hospital Discharge Database.  The number of 

         16   non-asthma events in the same databases were the 

         17   same during the Olympics, showing that the 

         18   reduction was specific for asthma.  

         19        Thurston and co-authors found a linear 

         20   no-threshold effect of ozone on a daily number of 

         21   asthma attacks in children with asthma down to a 

         22   level of at least 0.050 ppb of ozone.  This means 

         23   that in the range we are discussing, there is no 

         24   threshold of ozone exposure below which there are 

         25   no adverse effects, but rather that lowering the 




                                                                      176



          1   ozone standard from 0.080 to 0.060 ppb will have 

          2   more beneficial health effects than lowering it 

          3   from 0.080 to 0.070.  

          4        Trasande and Thurston noted that the adverse 

          5   effects of ozone include school absences, worsened 

          6   athletic performances, decreased lung function and 

          7   increased shortness of breath, chest pain, 

          8   wheezing, cough, asthma exacerbations, and 

          9   increased asthma admissions in multiple countries, 

         10   including Australia, Canada and the United 

         11   States.

         12        Studies in southern California have found 

         13   decreased lung function associated with cumulative 

         14   higher ozone exposure in children who spend more 

         15   time outdoors and higher rates of asthma in 

         16   children playing multiple sports in communities 

         17   with higher average ozone compared to children 

         18   playing multiple sports in lower ozone 

         19   communities.

         20        In summary, there is clear evidence that the 

         21   current 8-hour standard of 0.080 ppb is inadequate 

         22   to protect public health, that reducing ozone 

         23   exposure provides clear and immediate health 

         24   benefits and that following the recommendation of 

         25   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to 




                                                                      177



          1   lower the standard to 0.060 ppb is what is needed 

          2   to best protect public health.  Thank you.  

          3        MR. PAGE:  Thank you both for coming in today.  

          4   We appreciate it.

          5        All right.  Our next speakers are Ms. Krista 

          6   Brewer and Ms. Paula Gordon.  Welcome.  Thank you 

          7   all for coming today.  We appreciate it.  Ms. 

          8   Brewer, you are up first.  

          9        MS. BREWER:  Thank you for holding this 

         10   hearing.  I am here representing Atlanta 

         11   (inaudible) Woman's Action for New Direction, an 

         12   organization concerned about the health of our 

         13   children and our environment.  I'm also here 

         14   speaking as an individual and as a mother of three 

         15   almost grown children.  Others today have given you 

         16   a lot of fact and if figures and scientific 

         17   arguments, but I'm going to tell you about my 

         18   experience and my concerns.  Yesterday as I was 

         19   thinking about the effects of ozone and air 

         20   pollution and about speaking here, I was anxious, 

         21   not so much about speaking today.  You see my 

         22   daughter is a junior in high school we were at her 

         23   first practice of her high school cross country  

         24   team.  They were running on the streets of Atlanta 

         25   in the late afternoon.  She loves running, but she 




                                                                      178



          1   is pretty show.  She was born with heart defects.  

          2   She has a very compromised heart.  She has an 

          3   internal cardiac defibrillator to protect against 

          4   an increase of sudden cardiac arrest.  We are 

          5   learning that ozone can be especially dangerous to 

          6   people with heart disease.  Here I was thinking 

          7   that coming down here and testifying today and I 

          8   actually really pretty worried about her breathing 

          9   our dirty air.  

         10        I also have a college-aged son who has asthma.  

         11   When he was a toddler and a pre-schooler, we had a 

         12   number of very scary trips to the emergency room.  

         13   He's partly outgrown the worst of his asthma, but 

         14   we also want to manage it better.  But he was and 

         15   still is a great soccer player and I remember all 

         16   the late afternoons at practices when he was 

         17   younger.  He played so hard.  Often his practice 

         18   fields were right next to the downtown connector.  

         19   What was happening to his young mind.  

         20        I firmly believe in asthma management and 

         21   aggressive medical treatment for asthma, but do we 

         22   want our children medicated while our leaders are 

         23   allowed to foul our air.  This is not right.  It is 

         24   appropriate that the EPA is holding one of these 

         25   hearings in Atlanta.  I'm glad you came to Atlanta.  




                                                                      179



          1   As you are well aware, Atlanta has a huge ozone 

          2   problem and has been named the Asthma Capital of 

          3   the U.S. for this year.  There are several reasons 

          4   for this honor, but dirty air is one of the big 

          5   reasons.  

          6        It's good that you came to Atlanta for another 

          7   reason and as other people listen to and wouldn't 

          8   have interest and experience during the 1996 

          9   Olympics in Atlanta.  We all worked very hard to 

         10   reduce traffic during that time resulting in a 

         11   dramatic reduction in ozone.  And guess what? We 

         12   also had a dramatic reduction of asthma attacks in 

         13   children, so we know what can be done and we know 

         14   how to reduce asthma.  

         15        The evidence is overwhelming that ozone 

         16   exposure is much more damaging to children.  It can 

         17   result in permanent and stunted lung function.  

         18   Ozone exposure is related to low birth weight and 

         19   retardation of fetuses.  And, in general, children 

         20   are more vulnerable to effects of ozone.  They play 

         21   outdoors, their airways are narrower and they 

         22   inhale more pollutants in proportion to their body 

         23   weight.

         24        Most mothers are fierce protectors of their 

         25   children, but air pollution is something we really 




                                                                      180



          1   cannot protect our children from.  We also cannot 

          2   rely on what we've learned on the good intentions 

          3   on the good industry businesses and the general 

          4   populate.  This is a role -- reducing air pollution 

          5   is a role for a strong, competent and a 

          6   compassionate government.  I'm glad that the EPA's 

          7   own Scientific Advisory Committee recommended 

          8   tightening the standard to 0.060 ppb.  Evidence is 

          9   overwhelming that the current limits allow to much 

         10   pollution.  My children are precious to me and, of 

         11   course, I want the best for them, but we, as a 

         12   society, need to want the best for all of our 

         13   children.  They are young, they cannot protect 

         14   themselves, so it is up to us adults to look for 

         15   them.  I urge you and EPA to do the right thing.  

         16   Thank you.

         17        MR. PAGE:  Thank you. 

         18        MS. GORDON:  Paula Gordon, P-A-U-L-A, 

         19   G-O-R-D-O-N.   Everyone has heard the story of the 

         20   canary in the mindshaft.  When the canary stops 

         21   singing or drops dead people know there is danger 

         22   in the air.  I am that human equivalent of the 

         23   canary.  I have environmentally induced asthma.  It 

         24   is a direct result of Atlanta's air pollution. Smog 

         25   made me sick and ozone is inseparable from smog.  




                                                                      181



          1   As you set policy on what level of ozone is 

          2   acceptable, please let my experience help guide 

          3   your thinking and serve as a warning.

          4        In 2000, I was in my early 50s and unusually 

          5   healthy.  At my annual physical my doctor said I 

          6   would be even healthier if I lost some of that 

          7   middle-age spread.  He suggested daily walks?  

          8   Walking seemed like a natural.  We live in Midtown 

          9   Atlanta, five blocks from Piedmont Park, which is 

         10   kind of our central park, and I love to walk. 

         11        Spring is wonderful everywhere, so it was easy 

         12   to begin my walks in April.  Even though Atlanta 

         13   summers are famously hot, every morning I went for 

         14   my walk, but something was strange.  My lungs were 

         15   getting congested in ways that I had never 

         16   experienced.  I developed a persistent cough.  My 

         17   coughing affected by vocal chords, creating 

         18   laryngitis.  This is a serious problem for me, 

         19   since what I do is talk to television cameras and 

         20   radio microphones, so it matters.  

         21        By the end of the summer all of these symptoms 

         22   grew much worse and by October my lungs were 

         23   aching.  Clearly, something had gone terribly 

         24   wrong.  Alarmed, my doctor referred me to the head 

         25   pulmonologist at Piedmont Hospital, one of 




                                                                      182



          1   America's top 100 hospitals.  What was wrong, I was 

          2   told, that for the first time in my life, I had 

          3   asthma.  All other potential causes were 

          4   eliminated.  My asthma was environmentally induced 

          5   and I would have asthma for the rest of my life.  

          6        I know that these ozone hearings are not about 

          7   economic considerations.  The Supreme Court made it 

          8   perfectly clear you are required by law to set 

          9   standards that protect people and the environment 

         10   of which we are a part, not to yield to special 

         11   interests represented by governors like Georgia's 

         12   Sonny Perdue.  

         13        But this hearing is about costs.  And there 

         14   are real costs associated with my asthma.  The most 

         15   obvious cost is the incalculable loss of my once 

         16   excellent health.  And what is quality of life 

         17   worth?  Half of the year I cannot take walks in 

         18   Atlanta because of smog.  And I can tell you that 

         19   is lousy way to live.  It also creates all kinds of 

         20   ancillary related problems.  Or consider the 

         21   thousands of dollars we spent to make our house a 

         22   clean-air bubble, air filters for the car, doctors' 

         23   bills, medications, the cost of escaping Atlanta to 

         24   rest my sick lungs.  People should not have to be 

         25   well-off to be able to breathe; and trees do not 




                                                                      183



          1   leave town for vacations.

          2        Clearly politicians from City Hall to the 

          3   State and White House have failed us.  Filthy, 

          4   ozone-rich air is making lucky people like me sick.  

          5   It's killing those less fortunate.  And that's 

          6   before considering all the other living things that 

          7   ozone damages.

          8        The great news is that you, the EPA, can do 

          9   something about ozone levels in the air.  Do it.  

         10   Don't settle for halfway measures.  Act on the 

         11   science.  It's clear.  Restrict ozone to levels we 

         12   can live with.  Just do it.

         13        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you both for 

         14   coming today.

         15        Our next speaker is Ms. Teresa Mustelier.  

         16   Why don't you get ready to give your presentation 

         17   to us and up there and settled, also the spelling.  

         18   I see you have an assistant today.

         19        MS. MUSTELIER:  This is Matt, Matt Mustelier, 

         20   M-U-S-T-E-L-I-E-R and this is Lese Mustelier.  

         21   Thank you so much for coming to listen to us today.  

         22   I think that I was meant to speak after Paula 

         23   because I am a physician assistant that works in 

         24   two emergency departments here in the Atlanta area, 

         25   at DeKalb Medical and at Northside Hospital. And as 




                                                                      184



          1   a healthcare worker I am well aware of the adverse 

          2   effects of smog.  So far this year Atlanta has had 

          3   44 days of smog warnings.  These are the days that 

          4   I dread going into the emergency department because 

          5   I know that the emergency room will be teamed with 

          6   children who cannot breathe.  You know adults like 

          7   Paula can't breathe.  They are seasoned veterans of 

          8   inhalers and breathing treatments.  Little children 

          9   aren't.  They often don't understand that the 

         10   injections, intervenous fluids, oxygen masks and 

         11   nebulizer treatments are intended to allow them to 

         12   breathe again and they are simply terrified.       

         13        Many parents ask me, you laugh, you are not 

         14   the one's with asthma, many parents ask me what 

         15   they can do to prevent these episodes and I ask 

         16   them to keep their children inside during smog 

         17   alert days.  Lately, I've heard a lot -- have a lot 

         18   of problems with parents saying to me, but my 

         19   pediatrician says that my children should be 

         20   playing outside more.  They are getting fat staying 

         21   inside all the time.  There is nothing more 

         22   frustrating for patients than to receive 

         23   inconsistent advice from their healthcare 

         24   providers.  Pediatricians are seeing a steady 

         25   increase in childhood obesity.  It's no surprise 




                                                                      185



          1   that children who are more active have less 

          2   obesity.

          3        Because obese children tend to carry these 

          4   problems into adulthood, they will tend to be 

          5   sicker as they grow older, suffering from heart 

          6   disease, stroke and other ailments stemming from 

          7   their weight.  And just like in that song that was 

          8   sang when we were kids, the leg point is connected 

          9   to the knee bone, the knee bone is connected to the 

         10   thigh bone, well, our ability to breathe is 

         11   directly related and connected to this national, 

         12   growing epidemic of obesity.  

         13        We know that just 15 minutes of exercise a day 

         14   will lower a child's chances of becoming obese by 

         15   about half.  This means that a simple game of tag 

         16   or a brisk walk is enough to promote children to 

         17   keep them from becoming obese, but for these 

         18   exercises to pay off they must happen consistently.  

         19   For both adults and children, affordable, active, 

         20   outdoor play has to become a habit.  Why outdoors?  

         21   Because there are many adults who cannot afford or 

         22   will not go to a gym and many children who's 

         23   parents cannot afford or cannot make the effort to 

         24   take their children to a Monkey Joe's or Bouncing 

         25   Bob's or another inside play area.  




                                                                      186



          1        34 percent of the days in May, June, July and 

          2   August were smog alert days.  These were considered 

          3   unhealthy for outdoor play.  For exercise to become 

          4   a habit, we all know it must happen consistently.  

          5   Every once in a while is not enough.  I urge the 

          6   EPA to increase the ozone standard so we can keep 

          7   outdoor play safe, so that we can keep our weight 

          8   in check and so that when doctors and PAs tell 

          9   patients to go out and play, we don't have to worry 

         10   that by trying to address the problems of obesity 

         11   we are placing at increased risk for lung and heart 

         12   disease.  Thanks so much.

         13        MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much for coming.  

         14   Our next speakers are Mr. Tom Wyatt and Mr. Rick 

         15   Jones.  Welcome, gentleman.  Thank you for coming 

         16   today.  Mr. Wyatt, you are first up.  

         17        MR. WYATT:  Tom Wyatt, T-O-M, W-Y-A-T-T.  

         18   Myself and Rick Jones are delighted to be here 

         19   with the Greater Columbus Georgia Chamber of 

         20   Commerce and also speaking on behalf of the Valley 

         21   Partnership Regional Development Joint Authority.  

         22   We represent two cities and seven counties.  

         23        The issue that's before us today, obviously, 

         24   is very important and we appreciate EPA and its 

         25   team being here gathering input from 




                                                                      187



          1   representatives across the country.  Air quality 

          2   and ozone, obviously, has a significant impact on 

          3   quality of life.  I think that's a term that 

          4   probably you've heard a lot today and certainly the 

          5   business community and our region is very concerned 

          6   with the quality of life.  We are in the midst of 

          7   experiencing an increase in population in 

          8   comparison to the size of the City of Rome, 

          9   Georgia, Fort Benning is expanding by 33,000 

         10   people, 11,000 new jobs, the equivalent of about 

         11   $2.9 billion in capital investment.  AFLAC is 

         12   expanding jobs by 2,000.  Folks, Kia plant just 

         13   located in Pine Mountain, Georgia and on and on and 

         14   on, so unlike Atlanta, we have not yet had to deal 

         15   with some of the more visible consequences of air 

         16   quality.  And the City of Atlanta really is trying 

         17   to do, I think, a tremendous job in dealing with 

         18   that via the Clean Air Campaign and the Leadership 

         19   of (inaudible), but in considering these 

         20   modifications of the standard, we've got some 

         21   verbiage here and some details of the measurables 

         22   and whether or not there is some actual qualifiable 

         23   benefits of that change in standard.  And I don't 

         24   want to get into that, but what would I like to 

         25   emphasize is in our community and many others that 




                                                                      188



          1   have had the leadership and foresight to recognize 

          2   some of the challenges, it's really an opportunity 

          3   for business and government and public citizens to 

          4   get together and be proactive, whether it's 

          5   identifying ways to use alternative sources of 

          6   fuel, alternative forms of transportation, whether 

          7   it's being so created as to secure federal funding 

          8   to retrofit buses or even a simple thing as cutting 

          9   your grass at a simple time of day or refueling at 

         10   night, those are some of the things that we're 

         11   looking at.  And I'm delighted to say that we work 

         12   very diligently and hard with the Clean Air 

         13   Campaign.  And with some of the standards that are 

         14   already in place, we're doing the best job that we 

         15   can do in meeting that and in reaching that 

         16   priority that EPA has mandated.  We also got a 

         17   great partnership with EPD at the state level.  And 

         18   I think to be -- I hate to use the word fair, but 

         19   to be diligent in forming a partnership with local 

         20   communities who are trying to execute the current 

         21   standard, we would certainly ask that EPA look at 

         22   allowing a time period by which we can meet that 

         23   before the meal was moved, so to speak, midway 

         24   through.  And I think that would be something that 

         25   would have a favorable impact.  It certainly would 




                                                                      189



          1   encourage local governments and cities to continue 

          2   focusing on being proactive, handling the issue, 

          3   working head-on, while at the same time we are very 

          4   understanding of the health issues.  And all those 

          5   things that impact, and they are certainly 

          6   important.  Sometimes the business community is 

          7   given a very wrong perception or misspoken in 

          8   regards to their opinions on air quality.  Those 

          9   that are in the business community have to live and 

         10   breathe and go home to the very same neighborhoods 

         11   that everybody else does, so we don't want to leave 

         12   a bad impression, but we would like to ask for a 

         13   continuance of the standard that is in place to 

         14   work within the given timetable so that we can make 

         15   that happen.  I think there is a commitment here 

         16   being the public's part finding a partnership in 

         17   the Greater Columbus Valley Region and I'm sure 

         18   that kind of partnership and emphasis is something 

         19   that other communities, certainly like Atlanta are 

         20   working on and maintaining the current standard 

         21   will give us time to implement it.  

         22        MR. PAGE:  We're ready, Mr. Jones.

         23        MR. JONES:  Thank you.  Good evening.  My name 

         24   is Rick Jones.  I am the Director of Planning for 

         25   the Columbus Georgia Consolidated Government.  I'm 




                                                                      190



          1   also the Director for the Metropolitan -- Columbus 

          2   (inaudible) City Metropolitan Planning 

          3   Organization.  I want to thank you for the 

          4   opportunity to allow us to come and speak to you 

          5   for a few minutes about our concerns dealing with 

          6   your proposed regulations.  

          7        Let me start off with saying there is no 

          8   community probably anywhere or a region that is 

          9   more concerned about the quality of this air right 

         10   now than the Columbus City Region is.  We have been 

         11   combating with this for some time now in terms of 

         12   dealing with air quality issues.  In the mid '90s 

         13   we were confronted with ozone itself in terms of 

         14   reaching non-attainment.  There were several 

         15   studies conducted through Georgia Tech and others 

         16   in a partnership with not only our communities, but 

         17   together with Macon and the Augusta area as well in 

         18   terms of what we could do to combat or deal with 

         19   the issue of ozone itself. 

         20        Fortunately, some of our summers became a 

         21   little milder.  We no longer had to worry at that 

         22   time about dealing with ozone itself.  The next 

         23   real issue though we dealt with was particulate 

         24   matter 2.5.  Today we're confronted with the 

         25   problems.  And, again, EPA has already notified us 




                                                                      191



          1   that we're on the cusp here designated for that 

          2   particulate matter substance itself.  Again, 

          3   efforts are underway to deal with the ozone issue 

          4   itself and mobilizing the community in terms in 

          5   coming up with an overall plan of action, if you 

          6   will, about how we address that.  

          7        Our community is working in terms with other 

          8   communities throughout the region to, again, 

          9   address this need in terms of how we're going to 

         10   overcome it more than anything else.  We're 

         11   concerned, though, about our current health issues 

         12   and (inaudible).  I said all that to say this to 

         13   you today:  Columbus has a good track record in 

         14   terms of dealing with air quality issues itself and 

         15   dealing with them in a timely fashion, but what 

         16   good is this effort if the rules are going to be 

         17   constantly changed for it.  It makes it difficult 

         18   for us to convince our local officials and public 

         19   officials that we have problems to begin with and 

         20   that we need to address these new issues now.  But 

         21   if the rule is constantly getting changed on us or 

         22   something is off cue and we have to go back again 

         23   to the public officials and to the community poll, 

         24   we lose our credibility.  We lose that ability to 

         25   really have some direction and some conversation 




                                                                      192



          1   with our elected officials.  I can tell you now 

          2   we're working very hard to have an air quality week 

          3   ourselves.  It's a week from this coming Friday so 

          4   we invite everybody from the region to attend.  We 

          5   have a little over 200 folks that we've actually 

          6   asked to attend.  It's difficult to get those folks 

          7   to the table to begin with and then turn around and 

          8   tell them, oh, by the way, the rules have changed 

          9   again.  It makes it tough, especially for our 

         10   elected officials.  We lose some credibility in 

         11   that action itself.  My point is simply this:  If 

         12   you are asking communities such as Columbus to 

         13   implement the standard and grant us some 

         14   groundrules on ozone and hopefully, you've got to 

         15   be consistent in what you're asking for.  You've 

         16   got to be able to give that kind of leverage to us 

         17   to involve that.  Your own (inaudible)  shows now 

         18   that the current standards are working and that you 

         19   have already over the last two decades a 

         20   significant drop ozone itself.  We encourage you to 

         21   maintain those standards.  At least for the most 

         22   part, though, give communities like Columbus and 

         23   other communities some (inaudible) in terms of how 

         24   to respond to the rules themselves.  If you are 

         25   going to implement those immediately, we're in 




                                                                      193



          1   trouble, but if you can provide some assistance and 

          2   direction on that, that's another story.  We're 

          3   asking for your consideration from that aspect of 

          4   it more than anything else.  We know that 

          5   ultimately its the States themselves have yet to 

          6   fully implement all this information and all these 

          7   regulations.  If you are not giving them 

          8   assistance, what kind of assistance can a community 

          9   like Columbus expect to have in the near future in 

         10   dealing with this issue.

         11        Again, I don't want to understate it to you, 

         12   Columbus is concerned about its air quality and 

         13   about the health issues that this problem brings 

         14   with it, but at the same time there has to be some 

         15   kind of common sense approach to this thing that 

         16   allows us to do what we need to do to help the 

         17   community and help our citizens reach the overall 

         18   goal of helping Columbus and the surrounding areas.  

         19   I thank you for your time and also your 

         20   consideration.

         21        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  All right.  We seem to 

         22   have run out of speakers for a while.  It looks the 

         23   next to do is shortly after 5:00, so we'll take a 

         24   break until 5:00.

         25                            - - -




                                                                      194



          1             (Whereupon, a brief break was taken)

          2                            - - -

          3        MR. PAGE:  We're going to reconvene the 

          4   hearing and our next speaker is Mr. Will Henz.  Are 

          5   you Will Henz? 

          6        MASTER HENZ:  Yes.

          7        MR. PAGE:  Great.  Come on up.  You got 

          8   something to show us there, Will?  

          9        MASTER HENZ:  Yes.  Hello.  My name is Will 

         10   Henz and I am seven-years-old.  I am in second 

         11   grade at Oakhurst Elementary.  I love to pay 

         12   outside and ride my bike and my scooter and pay on 

         13   the playground with my friends.  This summer I 

         14   couldn't do all those things because I have 

         15   asthma.  On red days I can't play outside because 

         16   it will make me sick.  This makes me feel very 

         17   sad.  My friends get to play outside, but I don't.  

         18   I have to take medicine every day for my asthma.  

         19   If I don't take it, I will have to go to the 

         20   hospital.  When I have do a lot of treatments the 

         21   medicine makes me feel really bad.  I hope you can 

         22   make the red days go away.  Thank you.

         23        MR. PAGE:  That was very good.  Did you write 

         24   that statement?  

         25        MASTER HENZ:  Me and my mom.  




                                                                      195



          1        MR. PAGE:  Very good.  Very well done.  I 

          2   think you are the youngest speaker that we've had 

          3   at the hearing and that was excellent.  Thank you 

          4   for coming in.  Those are some of the things that 

          5   help you breathe easier, why don't you tell us what 

          6   you got there.  

          7        MASTER HENZ:  Medicine.  I have to take this 

          8   in the morning and I have to take this at night and 

          9   this at night and in the morning and this, whenever 

         10   I do this too sometimes whatever I need it.

         11        MR. PAGE:  Do you that one every day?  

         12        MOTHER:  Not everyday.

         13        MR. PAGE:  But when he has a hard time 

         14   breathing.  

         15        MOTHER:  When he has a hard time breathing.  

         16   This summer he had to do it up to six times a day.  

         17   These little vials of medicine, he has to sit still 

         18   for five to ten minutes.  It doesn't reach very 

         19   long, but he tries.  

         20        MR. PAGE:  Wow.  And so on days when the air 

         21   is bad outside, it probably makes you feel like you 

         22   have to use that medicine and the machine even 

         23   more, doesn't it?  

         24        MASTER HENZ:  Yes.

         25        MR. PAGE:  Well, thank you for coming by and 




                                                                      196



          1   telling us your story.  It really helps us do our 

          2   job -- a better job of what we do, so thank you 

          3   very much for taking the time and trouble to come 

          4   down here.  

          5        MASTER HENZ:  You're welcome.

          6        MR. PAGE:  Thank you all very much.  As far as 

          7   I know we don't have any registered speakers.  

          8        Are you ready to go?

          9        MS. BYRD:  Yes, I am.  

         10        MR. PAGE:  If you would spell your name for 

         11   the court reporter, we're going to put you right 

         12   there and if you will spell your name for the court 

         13   reporter, everything you say we'll be putting into 

         14   the record, so it's good to know who we're talking 

         15   about.  Thank you for coming by. 

         16        MS. BYRD:  Thank you for having this hearing.  

         17   My name is Madelyn, M-A-D-E-L-Y-N, Suriel, 

         18   S-U-R-I-E-L, Byrd, B-Y-R-D.  There is no hyphen in 

         19   between those.  Great.  Thank you.  I'm really 

         20   delighted that all are here and that you have this 

         21   forum for citizens.  I think it's definitely 

         22   needed.  I am here today because ozone and smog 

         23   pollution in Atlanta is a huge problem that I've 

         24   seen compounded over the years.  I have lived in 

         25   Atlanta since 1982 and up to 10 years ago I lived 




                                                                      197



          1   here full time and then I left for a few years and 

          2   have since come back.  And I've noticed since I've 

          3   come back that the smog is really so terrible that 

          4   you cannot see the horizon.  Even today.  I work on 

          5   the 27th floor and normally I can see way out to 

          6   Kennesaw Mountain or even Lookout Mountain, today I 

          7   could barely see to Buckhead.  I think that we as a 

          8   community, as a State, as a country and as a world 

          9   we really need to take this issue much more 

         10   seriously than it has been taken so far.  I heard 

         11   on the news today from the news briefing that you 

         12   had earlier today that some of our public officials 

         13   are more concerned with the cost of increasing or 

         14   strengthening ozone and smog solution standards 

         15   than with the actual health benefits to all of us, 

         16   not just people with breathing problems, but normal 

         17   people such as myself who have to come into the 

         18   city and breathe this terrible air every day.  

         19        I'm also concerned about the animals.  In 

         20   Atlanta we are very fortunate to have a great deal 

         21   of wildlife.  In my neighborhood alone in my yard I 

         22   have rabbits and raccoons and chipmunks.  You name 

         23   it, all kinds of animals.  I'm concerned about the 

         24   pollution going into those streams.  I'm concerned 

         25   with the pollution that the animals are having to 




                                                                      198



          1   deal with.  I think that we will do the environment 

          2   and our citizens and the world a great service by 

          3   strengthening existing EPA standards.  And really I 

          4   think it's much more simple than that.  I think 

          5   that if we were to decide definitively that our 

          6   clean breathing air is the most important thing, 

          7   then we will all decide that cutting down a tree is 

          8   completely counterproductive to cleaning the air.  

          9   I think that we have the perfect tool to remedy our 

         10   smog problems and that is our trees.  Atlanta is 

         11   very fortunate to be once known as the City in the 

         12   Forest and I think that the destruction of our tree 

         13   canopy is causing the smog and the ozone to 

         14   actually compound and become almost unmanageable.  

         15   So is really my main focus here today is that I 

         16   think we need to save the Atlanta trees, 

         17   literally.  I have pinned that into stats.  Save 

         18   the Atlanta trees stat.  I think it's a matter of 

         19   life or death for all of us.  If we continue to 

         20   destroy to tree canopy in this city, we will 

         21   continue to have rain deficits.  I have watched the 

         22   rain in this city for the last year with this focus 

         23   and literally I am sure that EPA can do a study.  

         24   If you look at the rain radar for the last year you 

         25   can see that there is almost this invisible cloud 




                                                                      199



          1   around the metro area that pushes the rain above 

          2   and below the city.  The only say that rain makes 

          3   it into the city is when it is a very powerful 

          4   storm, very violent.  We no longer get just general 

          5   rain showers, we get violent thunder storms and 

          6   that's how we get rain.  And I think that's 

          7   directly tied to our increasing smog.  And if we 

          8   were to mandate the absolute preservation of our 

          9   tree canopy, meaning our trees should not be torn 

         10   down for new development.  I believe there is 

         11   plenty of open land space for development that 

         12   would not necessitate the need to cut any more 

         13   trees.  And that combined with limiting the amount 

         14   of ozone and smog that industries and, you know, 

         15   economic financial people put out would make a huge 

         16   difference in our city and in our state.

         17        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  We appreciate you 

         18   coming by. 

         19        MS. BYRD:  And I was under five minutes.

         20        MR. PAGE:  Yes, you were.  Duly noted.

         21        MS. BYRD:  So what is going to happen after 

         22   you hear all of this stuff that we have to say.

         23        MR. PAGE:  We compile the transcripts from all 

         24   of the hearings and we do an analysis of them.  The 

         25   comment percent stays open until October 9th and 




                                                                      200



          1   we'll continue to get comments.  Starting October 

          2   9th we go through all of the comments and we do an 

          3   analysis of them.  And then we start to work on the 

          4   final standard and we go up and brief the 

          5   Administrator.  We'll be giving a final standard 

          6   March 2008.  It's a lot of work to do between 

          7   October 9th and March.

          8        MS. BYRD:  Is there another place where we can 

          9   submit comments or invite other people to make 

         10   comments?  

         11        MR. PAGE:  Absolutely.  Yeah, the comment 

         12   period is open until October 9th, so if you have 

         13   other things that you want to submit for the 

         14   record, please do.  That would be helpful. 

         15        All right.  

         16        MS. ABRAMS:  I'm Heather Abrams, A-B-R-A-M-S  

         17   and I am with Georgia Environmental Protection 

         18   Division Air Protection Branch.  

         19        MR. PAGE:  Very good.  You just let it fly 

         20   when you are ready.  

         21        MS. ABRAMS:  Okay.  My name is Heather Abrams. 

         22   I am the Chief of the Air Protection Branch of the 

         23   Georgia Environmental Protection Division.  I 

         24   appreciate the opportunity to present Georgia's 

         25   comments at this hearing.  




                                                                      201



          1        Georgia has a long history of addressing air 

          2   quality issues in the state and is proud of the 

          3   improvements we have made in the quality of life 

          4   for our citizens.  In fact, the Atlanta area is one 

          5   of the first major metropolitan areas in the 

          6   country to attain the previous 1-hour ozone 

          7   standard.

          8        We continue to aggressively move forward on a 

          9   path of further improving the air quality of the 

         10   state as we develop and implement the plans 

         11   necessary to meet the current 8-hour ozone 

         12   standard, the PM2.5 standard, the Clean Air 

         13   Interstate Rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule and the 

         14   Clean Air Visibility Rule.  We are also just now 

         15   beginning to realize the benefits of the federal 

         16   rules addressing cleaner fuels and vehicles, both 

         17   on-road and off-road.  Together these controls will 

         18   result in significant improvements over the next 

         19   several years.

         20        Which brings us to today's proposal.  Without 

         21   allowing for the full implementation of existing or 

         22   planned strategies, or an accurate or quantifiable 

         23   accounting of their full benefit, we are talking 

         24   yet again of moving the target and revising the 

         25   current ozone standard.  We realize that the Clean 




                                                                      202



          1   Air Act requires a periodic review and 

          2   determination to be done on the protectiveness of 

          3   existing standards. We also realize that the 

          4   standard setting process is health based and does 

          5   not consider economic costs; however, EPA does have 

          6   a great deal of discretion with which to determine 

          7   whether the existing science on this issue is 

          8   sufficient to warrant a revision at this 

          9   time.

         10        Justifying the necessary costs associated 

         11   with a revision to the existing standard requires 

         12   credible science and demonstrable benefit.  In 

         13   EPA's staff recommendation, it was stated that a 

         14   standard "somewhat less than the existing standard" 

         15   should be implemented, which implies on its face 

         16   that the science may not be definitive enough to 

         17   warrant another revision at this point.  In 

         18   addition, the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA 

         19   states that there is a continuum with greater 

         20   confidence and less uncertainty about the existence 

         21   of health effects at the upper end and less 

         22   confidence and greater uncertainty as one considers 

         23   increasingly lower ozone exposure levels.  EPA 

         24   further recognizes that there is no sharp 

         25   breakpoint within the continuum ranging from 0.080 




                                                                      203



          1   ppm to 0.060 ppm.  In considering the concept of 

          2   exposures of concern, it is important to balance 

          3   concerns about the potential for health effects and 

          4   their severity with the increasing uncertainty 

          5   associated with our understanding of the likelihood 

          6   of such effects at lower ozone levels.  We agree 

          7   and would further argue that without knowing where 

          8   on the continuum the existing strategies get us, 

          9   the uncertainty associated with revising the 

         10   standard at this point is even more relevant.

         11        As you know, a revision of this standard sets 

         12   in motion a series of state planning requirements 

         13   and deadlines.  As I mentioned earlier, we are only 

         14   now in the process of developing plans and 

         15   implementing measures to address the latest 

         16   revisions.  A new set of requirements and deadlines 

         17   could be disruptive to our progress.

         18        We believe that an appropriate period of time 

         19   should be given to allow us to meet these new 

         20   standards and measure the results before any 

         21   further changes to these standards are considered 

         22   and that this position has warranted and 

         23   supportable.

         24        Additionally, we would your careful 

         25   consideration as you review the secondary ozone 




                                                                      204



          1   standard for the protection of the environment.  We 

          2   believe that there are questions as to whether or 

          3   not a sufficient amount of data has been collected 

          4   to demonstrate a level of additional protectiveness 

          5   to our agricultural and forestry resources to 

          6   justify such a drastic departure from current 

          7   practice.  Further evaluation of the nature and the 

          8   extent of the problem to be addressed with the 

          9   secondary standard needs to occur before such a 

         10   recommendation is considered.

         11        I appreciate your consideration of our 

         12   comments and thank you again for the opportunity to 

         13   present them here in Atlanta.

         14        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

         15        MR. PAGE:  My name is Lynn McIntyre, 

         16   M-C-I-N-T-Y-R-E.  My affiliation is I represent 

         17   Georgia PTA with a membership of 180,000 parents 

         18   across the State of Georgia and I'm here to speak 

         19   on behalf of our position from the National PTA. 

         20        Since its founding, National PTA has worked to 

         21   secure adequate laws for the care and protection of 

         22   children and youth.  Over the years the National 

         23   PTA has recognized the growing importance of 

         24   environmental issues and the impact that they have 

         25   on the health and welfare of children and their 




                                                                      205



          1   families.  PTA members have the responsibility to 

          2   promote environmental health and safety and to help 

          3   protect our world's finite natural resources. 

          4        National PTA urges our membership at all 

          5   levels to monitor, support and advocate for laws, 

          6   regulations and programs that promote environmental 

          7   education programs through Pre-K through higher 

          8   education; to eliminate environmental pollutants 

          9   and present new hazards; protect children from 

         10   health risks by testing for specific hazards in and 

         11   around homes, schools and if hazards are found, by 

         12   limiting exposure and address remedies.

         13        I think that says pretty much what I need to 

         14   say in theory, short and concisely.  I will say 

         15   that according to my information, this hearing is 

         16   to consider reducing the stringent rules that are 

         17   currently being applied and if that is the case 

         18   we're actually going in the wrong direction.  I 

         19   would hope that we would consider the future and 

         20   specifically the future of children.  We have a 

         21   rising number of asthma cases.  We have an amazing 

         22   impact of pollution on children.  This summer I was 

         23   spending time working with several other groups in 

         24   a collaborative effort to, for instance, to 

         25   retroactively retrofit school buses which produce a 




                                                                      206



          1   tremendous amount of pollution.  We know from our 

          2   research that California has successfully 

          3   accomplished that and it has had a positive impact 

          4   on pollution while working with manufacturers of 

          5   the buses to retrofit them, so we are going to be 

          6   spending some time working on that and working, 

          7   particularly, with Bluebird, our (inaudible) 

          8   manufactured here in Georgia about finding 

          9   solutions to impact that immediately. 

         10        In terms of air quality, I just want to remind 

         11   the people listening that when you think of life we 

         12   often think of breath.  And breath is something 

         13   that happens when you are born.  The breath of 

         14   life.  If you think about taking a breath and the 

         15   breath of air that you take is not clean air, you 

         16   are diminishing life, so we ask that you please 

         17   consider children first in making any decision that 

         18   would change the requirement that you particularly 

         19   pay attention to the scientists who have given very 

         20   strong evidence that this is something that we need 

         21   to consider very carefully and not make decisions 

         22   based on political situations of what those who 

         23   will profits of corporation, but what's better for 

         24   all citizens because it's something we all have a 

         25   right to and that is life and breath.  Thank you.




                                                                      207



          1        MR. PAGE:  If I could clarify one thing just 

          2   to make sure that we're working on the same page 

          3   here, the EPA proposal is to strengthen the ozone 

          4   standard in a range and I will throw some numbers 

          5   out.  

          6        MS. MCINTYRE:  0.060 ppm.

          7        MR. PAGE:  It's 0.070 to 0.075, that's the 

          8   EPA range, but we are also taking comments for 

          9   strengthening it even further, which is 0.060 and, 

         10   yes, in your comment you said you even considering 

         11   going the other direction, you are right, we are 

         12   taking comment on levels all the way up the current 

         13   standard of 0.084.  Just to be clear, the 

         14   Administrator's proposal was to say that current 

         15   standard at 0.080, which can be rounded up to 

         16   0.084, is not based on good science anymore.  They 

         17   know more and he proposing to set that range.

         18        We've had a lot of testimony today all over 

         19   the place from various groups --

         20        MS. MCINTYRE:  I might have misquoted because 

         21   I was afraid to speak.

         22        MR. PAGE:  No, it's good.  This is an 

         23   opportunity for us to make sure that we're 

         24   understood that's why we are having these hearings 

         25   ourselves, but we have heard from people all over 




                                                                      208



          1   saying you should listen to your scientists and 

          2   science advisors and go as low as they possibly can 

          3   as to 0.060 and others have come in and saying 

          4   please keep the current standard in place.  We are 

          5   all trying as hard as we can to comply.  So your 

          6   comments are appreciated.  I understand that what 

          7   you are asking for is a strengthening of the 

          8   standard, perhaps, even lowering than what EPA has 

          9   recommended down to 0.060, is that a correct 

         10   interpretation?  

         11        MS. MCINTYRE:  That's correct.  And we are 

         12   working for solutions, in other words, we are 

         13   proactively working --

         14        MR. PAGE:  I hear that with the retrofits.  

         15   Now, does the National PTA have a printed position 

         16   on this and would you mind submitting that for the 

         17   record? 

         18        MS. MCINTYRE:  When we speak from positions 

         19   we actually have to get -- 

         20        MR. PAGE:  I work for the government, I well 

         21   understand that.  

         22        MS. MCINTYRE:  This is the official position 

         23   that I was speaking of. 

         24        MR. PAGE:  Can we get a copy of that.  Thank 

         25   you.  I appreciate that.  We appreciate you coming 




                                                                      209



          1   down.

          2        MS. MCINTYRE:  I work for the Nature Center 

          3   and we're about making the water cleaner at the 

          4   Chattahoochee Nature Center.  We are building a 

          5   museum to teach people about water quality issues, 

          6   but air quality is just as important.  Only I feel 

          7   like we can't control it as much, but we surely 

          8   can.  Thank you.

          9        MR. PAGE:  Well, thank you very much for 

         10   coming by.  I know you are busy and we appreciate 

         11   you.  Thank you so much.  

         12                            - - -

         13             (Whereupon, a dinner break was taken)

         14                            - - -

         15        MR. PAGE:  I'm Stephen Page and I work with 

         16   the Office of the EPA and in the development of the 

         17   standards in which for industries and states to 

         18   carry out for air pollution and I work with Erika 

         19   Sasser.  We wanted you to know who we are and we 

         20   want to know your affiliation and we wanted you to 

         21   know who you are talking to.  If you have any 

         22   questions about the proposal, we can be a little 

         23   bit more informal here unless you'd like to go over 

         24   the written one.

         25        MR. SMITH:  I appreciate you offering.  




                                                                      210



          1        MR. PAGE:  Mr. Smith, if you would, for the 

          2   court reporter sign in formally your name and any 

          3   affiliation, that's fine.  We are ready for your 

          4   comments.  

          5        MR. SMITH:  Greetings.  I thank you for this 

          6   opportunity to give you a couple of comments on the 

          7   proposal.  I appreciate you spending your personal 

          8   time and coming to Atlanta.  Thank you.  My name is 

          9   Curtis Smith.  I'm a resident of Atlanta.  I've 

         10   lived here 18 years, originally come down from 

         11   Chicago and Milwaukee where atmospheric ozone and 

         12   pollutions were less of an issue.  Address is 3229 

         13   Oakbrook Lane, phone number is 404-294-6686.  

         14        I have allergies since childhood, asthma 

         15   since childhood and I personally can tell a story 

         16   that has been repeated a thousand times.  Come 

         17   summer time I get wheezy, my voice kind of gets 

         18   raspy and I notice more and deeper colds and so on 

         19   given Atlanta being the fourth city, plus or 

         20   minute, must dirtiest city in the country.  Life 

         21   has caused me expense for medical doctors.  Days 

         22   where I feel like I'm too sick and I've lost days 

         23   at work.  I'm an IT contractor, so I work by the 

         24   hour, so if I'm sick home, it's out of my pocket, 

         25   so what is the case is Atlanta and the 16 or 




                                                                      211



          1   whatever number of states that are non-compliant 

          2   that we really need to have science, health-based 

          3   standards that are at the limits that science has 

          4   found to be sufficient and that it appears today is 

          5   0.060 ppm ozone.  So I'm a strong advocate because 

          6   I know that my health, my costs of healthcare will 

          7   go down the cleaner the air becomes in Atlanta. 

          8        I'd like to also advocate for another position 

          9   and Atlanta has already had rationing down clean 

         10   air standards, but what has been missing, though, 

         11   is strong enforcement.  I believe the State 

         12   Implementation Plan has always been years late and 

         13   some of that is U.S. EPA's lack of control lack of 

         14   support and also enforcement.  I know I currently 

         15   am not an active volunteer with the Georgia Sierra 

         16   Club, but I have had past roles with the Georgia 

         17   Sierra Club.  I'm presently giving my comments as 

         18   an individual, so I know firsthand that enforcement 

         19   actions we've not had support from the Region IV 

         20   Office for this.  According to the law, enforcement 

         21   actions that we've been initiating.  So the 

         22   standards are one thing, but enforcement -- you can 

         23   have all the standards on the books, as we 

         24   currently have the last seven years, has been an 

         25   excellent example of how having standards but not 




                                                                      212



          1   enforcing them has been a problem.  

          2        So Atlantans need clean air.  So I wish you 

          3   speed and success in promulgating your rule change 

          4   and also funding for your enforcement office.  

          5   Thank you very much.  

          6        MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much for coming by.  

          7   We appreciate it.

          8        We are going to call a truce on your last 

          9   name, if you will pronounce it when you get up here 

         10   and spell it.  Thank you for coming by. 

         11        MR. HOVDESVEN:  Do you want a copy of this?

         12        MR. PAGE:  Absolutely.  We'll put the whole 

         13   statement in the record and you are free to say 

         14   what you want.  For the court reporter, if you 

         15   would state and spell your name and say what group 

         16   that you are representing in your remarks tonight 

         17   that would be helpful  Welcome.

         18        MR. HOVDESVEN:  My name is Eric Hovdesven, 

         19   H-O-V-D-E-S-V-E-N.  I am here as an attorney and 

         20   resident of north DeKalb County.  I am just 

         21   representing myself as a concerned individual.  I 

         22   was from 1999 through 2004, I had served on the 

         23   Georgia Regional Transportation Authority or GRTA 

         24   Board and so I have some familiarity with some of 

         25   these issues and I have always taken an interest in 




                                                                      213



          1   them.  

          2        I am here today to express my agreement with 

          3   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. 

          4   PIRG, the American Lung Association, American 

          5   Academy of Pediatrics, American Thoracic Society 

          6   and many others who have recommended a standard 

          7   below the current one of the current one being 

          8   0.080, they are recommending some 0.060 and others 

          9   0.070.  

         10        The last time EPA revised the standard for 

         11   ozone air pollution was in 1997 when the Agency an 

         12   8-hour standard of 0.080 ppm.  This is a standard 

         13   that metro Atlanta is still not meeting.  And a 

         14   review of metro Atlanta so-called progress in 

         15   landuse and transportation revealed that a mere 

         16   failure of resolve is the only reason they have not 

         17   met it.

         18        While metro Atlanta has added a handful of new 

         19   bus service the State of Georgia also has continued 

         20   to not provide meaningful state funding to the main 

         21   and only significant transit provider, MARTA.  Thus 

         22   while some suburban bus lines were added, MARTA was 

         23   forced to significantly cut bus and rail service.  

         24   The transportation plans currently on tap are 

         25   slipping back towards a mentality of making more 




                                                                      214



          1   room for single-occupancy vehicles.  The I-75 

          2   corridor project is not a meaningful transit 

          3   project as it mixes cars with buses.  This project 

          4   by building new lanes for trucks and HOV vehicles 

          5   that are already traveling in the corridor, really 

          6   is much, if not more, an increase in capacity for 

          7   single-occupancy vehicles.  Likewise, the I-285 

          8   studies signal a lack of resolve for meaningful 

          9   transit in that corridor.  State officials have 

         10   also turned their backs on attempts by the City of 

         11   Atlanta to implement a belt line transit route or a 

         12   Peachtree Street trolley route as well as attempts 

         13   for meaningful transit connections to the Emory 

         14   University/CDC/Clifton corridor.  

         15        Thus while setting meaningful ozone standards 

         16   has significant health benefits, it also has 

         17   collateral benefits of providing incentives for the 

         18   region not to subsidize sprawl in single-occupancy 

         19   vehicles travel through an unbalanced contribution 

         20   of capacity to these types of uses or behavior.  

         21   This, in turn, creates a more sustainable 

         22   community, lowers our dependence on foreign oil and 

         23   reduces the release of greenhouse gases while 

         24   saving green space by making redevelopment rather 

         25   than virgin development more attractive.




                                                                      215



          1        Thank you for your time.

          2        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  

          3        We are going to get y'all registered in.  The 

          4   court reporter needs you to spell your name and if 

          5   you have an affiliation or you are representing a 

          6   group.  

          7        MR. JENKINS:  I'm not representing a group.  I 

          8   have an affiliation.

          9        MR. PAGE:  Okay.  

         10        MR. JENKINS:  My name is Alan Jenkins, 

         11   A-L-A-N, J-E-N-K-I-N-S, and I work with Earth 

         12   Covenant Ministry and (inaudible) Presbyterian 

         13   Churches in the Atlanta area and the Presbyterian 

         14   Church, USA.

         15        MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Very good.  Well, we're 

         16   ready for you.  Go for it.  

         17        MR. JENKINS:  I speak today in favor of 

         18   revising the EPA ozone 0.070 to 0.075 ppm.  As we 

         19   know, according to the Clean Air Scientific 

         20   Advisory Committee the current limit on ozone of 

         21   0.080 ppm is to high to protect public health, so 

         22   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has 

         23   advised the Environmental Protection Agency to 

         24   reduce the limit on ozone to a level in the range 

         25   of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.  So I stand here in support 




                                                                      216



          1   of a change in revising the EPA ozone standard to 

          2   0.075 ppm at the most.  

          3        As a citizen concerned about public health, 

          4   not the least of which is my five-year-old nephew, 

          5   who lives on the north side of Atlanta, I urge the 

          6   EPA to set this new and necessary standard.  Big 

          7   business will resist, of course.  They will say 

          8   that technology to reduce air pollutant emissions 

          9   is too costly for consumers, but history tells us 

         10   that polluting industries will not lead without the 

         11   EPA raising the bar.  Revising the ozone will 

         12   encourage the technological developments and not 

         13   the other way around.  I urge you to consider and 

         14   compare the costs in public health where industry's 

         15   concerns of costs of technological improvements.  

         16   Such comparison, strictly from a financial 

         17   perspective, makes clear the urgency of clear air. 

         18        Last, as a member and soon to be ordained 

         19   minister in the Presbyterian Church, USA, I stand 

         20   before you to share a growing awareness in our 

         21   denomination and, indeed, in faith communities 

         22   across the country that the health and well-being 

         23   of God's creation is of paramount importance in the 

         24   life of faith and our service to God and in our 

         25   practice of love for our neighbors.  Any form of 




                                                                      217



          1   pollution is blasphemy before our creator.  A sin 

          2   of which all of us are guilty, no doubt.  A sin for 

          3   which public health and all creation pay a price.  

          4   Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to do all we can 

          5   to limit our emissions.  

          6        Again, I stand in favor of revising the EPA 

          7   ozone standard to within the range of 0.070 to 

          8   0.075.  Thank you very much.

          9        MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming here tonight.

         10        You've  heard us welcome a couple of other 

         11   folks and if you say your name for the court 

         12   reporter and the proper spelling and if you are 

         13   affiliated with a group, that's always good for us 

         14   to know, if you're representing yourself, that's 

         15   great.  

         16        MS. LEW:  Okay.  My name is Joy Lew.  It's 

         17   spelled J-O-Y, L-E-W.  I'm a private citizen, 

         18   although I am a member of the Sierra Club.  I came 

         19   down here because I recently actually received an 

         20   e-mail for this hearing and I want to speak a 

         21   little bit about the Clean Air Act and the changes 

         22   and this is something that affects me personally 

         23   because I moved to Atlanta about six or seven years 

         24   ago and within two years I have developed my severe 

         25   asthma.  And I am actually planning on moving away 




                                                                      218



          1   from the city because it's not getting any better.  

          2   And it took a while, actually, for my doctor to 

          3   figure out what was wrong with me.  And then I knew 

          4   something was wrong because I started to have heart 

          5   problems.  And I knew something was wrong for 

          6   someone in their late 20s to be having heart 

          7   problems, but I wasn't getting enough air and so my 

          8   heart was under a lot of strain.  And finally 

          9   figured out the reason I was having heart problems 

         10   was because my asthma was being untreated.  And I 

         11   had asthma as a child, but I'd outgrown it and 

         12   didn't need any kinds of medications and in my 

         13   adolescence I was very active.  I could, like, ride 

         14   bikes.  I could do all kinds of things, but when I 

         15   moved here I started to discover that over time my 

         16   ability to be involved in all the various other 

         17   activities was very limited.  I kind of dreamed 

         18   when I came here to the big city I would eventually 

         19   begin to use the mass transit, instead of ride a 

         20   bike everywhere.  I felt this would be a fabulous 

         21   way to live.  I discovered based on politics, a 

         22   city with mass transit is not a very efficient way 

         23   to get around.  I walk when I can, but that sets 

         24   off my asthma and there is absolutely no way I can 

         25   bike here with the air quality.  I tried, but 




                                                                      219



          1   unfortunately I was very disappointed.  I had to 

          2   give my bike away to my friends.  It's really very 

          3   sad.  I would like to think that in this country 

          4   with the amazing kind of government that we have, I 

          5   could provide the citizens with better quality air. 

          6        I had the marvelous opportunity to go to China 

          7   this year.  What I saw firsthand is what a county 

          8   is like when you don't have someone like the EPA 

          9   there and it was horrible.  I had to have the face 

         10   mask.  I was using my inhalers all the time and I 

         11   knew this when I went over there that the air was 

         12   bad, but every night the sky was orange.  It didn't 

         13   even get dark there it was so much air pollution. 

         14        And so when I came back to America, for the 

         15   first time when we came in on the plane, we saw 

         16   clouds.  We hadn't seen those at all in China, 

         17   there was so much smog.  And I remember when I was 

         18   there just hoping, one, (inaudible) in my lifetime; 

         19   and, two, really appreciating what has been done on 

         20   behalf of the government to help people, but I 

         21   would really like to be able to see more just 

         22   (inaudible).  In my own case, I know to have seen 

         23   firsthand what it's like to have your health really 

         24   affected.  I know that I'm not totally out of 

         25   shape.  I mean, I can go to the gym and use the 




                                                                      220



          1   bikes inside where we have the ozone problem and 

          2   I'm okay there, but as soon as I try to get out, 

          3   like, on the streets of Atlanta, it's horrible.  

          4   Last summer, last July, we had a lot of red days 

          5   and I would walk outside of my apartment and I 

          6   would start to immediately have an asthma attack.  

          7   It's just so sad to me.  I think this is such a 

          8   beautiful country and I think we have really 

          9   wonderful resources here.  And I really like the 

         10   idea of improved legal laws and enforcement of the 

         11   laws of EPA having the power to crack down the 

         12   companies to really be able fill their mandate, not 

         13   only with the plants, but the things that we eat, 

         14   but the people themselves.  Thank you.  

         15        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you for coming 

         16   by. 

         17                       - - -

         18        (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 9:00 

         19   p.m.)

         20                       - - -         

         21   

         22   

         23   

         24   

         25   




                                                                      221



          1                      C E R T I F I C A T E

          2   STATE OF GEORGIA)
                              )
          3   COUNTY OF DEKALB)

          4   

          5        I, JANET R. ALLEN, being a Certified Court Reporter 

          6   in and for the State of Georgia, do hereby certify that 

          7   the foregoing transcript, consisting of 220 pages, is a 

          8   true, complete and correct transcript record of the 

          9   aforesaid proceedings reported by me.

         10        I further certify that I am not related to, 

         11   employed by, counsel to, or attorney for any party, 

         12   attorney, or counsel involved herein; nor am I 

         13   financially interested in this matter.

         14        This transcript is not deemed to be certified 

         15   unless this certificate page is dated ad signed by me.

         16        WITNESS BY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this 21st day of 

         17   September, 2007.

         18   
                                          __________________________
         19                               JANET R. ALLEN, CCR
                                          CCR No. B-1213.
         20    

         21    

         22    

         23    

         24   

         25   




