1

              1        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

              2

              3        PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE

              4             REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE

              5   National Ambient Air Quality Standards For Ozone

              6

              7

              8

              9        TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the

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

             11   Suite, Westin Hotel, 909 North Michigan Avenue,

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

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

             14

             15

             16   PANEL MEMBERS:

             17        MS. ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ, Chairman;

             18        MR. HARVEY RICHMOND;

             19        MR. STEVE MARQUARDT.

             20

             21

             22

             23

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

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

              2   start this public hearing.

              3              This is the public hearing on the EPA's

              4   proposed rules regarding the revisions of the

              5   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.

              6   Thank you for attending this public hearing on

              7   the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone

              8   standards.  I recognize that many of you have

              9   traveled quite a distance to be here and I

             10   appreciate your efforts.

             11              My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, I'm the

             12   associate director of the Health and Environmental

             13   Impacts Division of the Office of Air Quality

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

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

             16   colleagues here, Harvey Richmond and Mary Pat

             17   Tyson, will be co-chairing with me.

             18              We are here today to listen to your

             19   comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the

             20   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.

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

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

             23   The panel members may answer questions that seek to

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

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

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

              3   much time for that.

              4              Before we begin the comment period, I

              5   would like to briefly describe the proposed rule

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

              7   proposed rule was published in the Federal Register

              8   on July 11, 2007.

              9              Ground-level ozone is the primary

             10   component of smog.  It is formed through the

             11   reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic

             12   compounds in the presence of sunlight.  Exposure to

             13   ozone is associated with an array of respiratory

             14   problems, including aggravated asthma, increased

             15   susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased

             16   doctors' visits, increased emergency department

             17   visits and hospital admissions and premature death.

             18              In addition, ground-level ozone can have

             19   harmful effects on sensitive plant species,

             20   including trees and crops and on the ecosystems

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

             22   level of ozone to which plants are exposed and the

             23   duration of the exposure are important factors in

             24   determining plant response.  The most significant                                                                       4

              1   effects, including biomass loss and yield

              2   reductions, and they result from the accumulation

              3   of ozone exposures throughout the growing season

              4   with higher concentrations of ozone producing

              5   greater impacts.

              6              Based on critical review of the large

              7   body of scientific evidence now available regarding

              8   the health and welfare effects associated with

              9   exposure to ozone, the administrator of the EPA has

             10   concluded that the current ozone standards are not

             11   adequate to protect public health and welfare.  A

             12   number of new health studies have been conducted

             13   indicating that adverse effects occur following

             14   exposure to ozone at levels below the current

             15   standard.  Furthermore, these studies indicate that

             16   people with a respiratory illness, such as asthma,

             17   are particularly sensitive to these adverse

             18   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies

             19   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely affects

             20   the growth of sensitive plant species and may

             21   increase the susceptibility to disease and pests.

             22              After careful consideration of this

             23   scientific evidence, advice from EPA's Clean Air

             24   Scientific Advisory Committee, and public comments,                                                                       5

              1   the administrator has proposed to revise both the

              2   primary ozone standard designed to protect human

              3   health and the secondary ozone standard, designed

              4   to protect welfare such as vegetation and crops.

              5              Currently, the primary and secondary

              6   ozone standards are identical, an eight-hour

              7   standard .08 parts per million, which is

              8   effectively .084 parts per million with the current

              9   rounding convention that we use.  Under EPA's

             10   proposal, each of these standards would be revised

             11   and the form of the secondary standard might change

             12   so that it is no longer identical to the primary

             13   standard.  EPA has requested comments on all

             14   aspects of its proposal and on alternatives to the

             15   proposed revisions.  Specifically:

             16              With respect to the primary standard to

             17   protect public health, the proposal included:

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

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

             20   Agency has also requested comments on alternative

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

             22   and including retention of the current standard

             23   which is .084 parts per million.

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

              1   the level of the primary standard to the third

              2   decimal place, because today's monitors can detect

              3   ozone that accurately.

              4              With respect to the secondary standard

              5   to protect public welfare, EPA proposed two

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

              7   establish a new form of the standard called the

              8   W126, that is designed specifically to cumulate

              9   ozone exposures and give more weight to higher

             10   concentrations.  This form of the standard would

             11   add together weighted hourly ozone concentrations,

             12   measured during the 12-hour daylight window from

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

             14   three-month period with the highest ozone levels.

             15   EPA is proposing to set the level of this

             16   cumulative standard within the range of 7 to 21

             17   parts per million hours.  Another option would be

             18   to revise the secondary standard so that it is

             19   identical to the proposed primary eight-hour

             20   standard.

             21              Additional information on the proposed

             22   rule can be found in the fact sheet available in

             23   the registration area today.  Publication of the

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

              1   90-day public comment period, which closes on

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

              3   the registration area with detailed information for

              4   submitting your written comments.

              5              In addition, we have prepared a list of

              6   all the topics in the proposed rule that the agency

              7   is seeking comments on.  This handout is also

              8   available on the registration table.  EPA will

              9   issue a final rule by March 12, 2008.

             10              Now, let me turn to the logistics of the

             11   comment portion of today's hearing.  This hearing

             12   is one of five public hearings we are holding

             13   across the country.  Last Thursday, August 30 of

             14   2007, hearings were held in Los Angeles, California

             15   and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Today, hearings

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

             17   and here in Chicago.  We will be preparing a

             18   written transcript of each hearing.  The

             19   transcripts will be available as part of the

             20   official record for each rule.

             21              Today's hearing will work as follows:  I

             22   will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone

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

             24   and affiliation.  It will help our court reporter                                                                       8

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

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

              3   your testimony to five minutes each and to remain

              4   at the microphone at the table until both speakers

              5   have finished speaking.

              6              After you finished your testimony, a

              7   panel member may ask clarifying questions.  As I

              8   mentioned, we are recording today's hearing and

              9   each speaker's oral testimony will become part of

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

             11   of any written comments to our staff at the

             12   registration table.  We will put the full text of

             13   your written comments in the docket for you.

             14              We have a timekeeping system consisting

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

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

             17   have five minutes to speak.  The yellow light will

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

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

             20   We will try to ensure that everyone has an

             21   opportunity to comment.  If necessary, we will stay

             22   through the evening.

             23              If you would like to testify but have

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

              1   registration table.  We have a pretty full schedule

              2   this morning, but we might have a couple openings

              3   if you're interested in registering and speaking

              4   today.  For those who have already registered, we

              5   have tried to accommodate your request for specific

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

              7   through the list.

              8              Again, Harvey Richmond to my right, he

              9   is part of the staff responsible for writing the

             10   rule from the Health and Environmental Impacts

             11   Division of the Office of Air Quality and Planning.

             12   Mary Pat Tyson, again, she is acting deputy

             13   director of the Air and Radiation Office here in

             14   the EPA office.

             15              I would like to thank you again for

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

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

             18   Greenberger.

             19              I'm sorry for mispronouncing, that's

             20   David Cugell and Dr. Paul Greenberger.  Please

             21   spell your names and correct my pronunciation.

             22   Please spell your names for the court reporter.

             23          STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CUGELL, MD.

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

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

              2   disease.  My appearance here today has been

              3   arranged by the Respiratory Health Association

              4   Metropolitan Chicago.  I speak on behalf of a large

              5   but little heard constituency, those among us with

              6   one or another type of chronic lung disease such as

              7   asthma, emphysema, bronchitis and others.

              8              If blessed with healthy, normally

              9   functioning lungs, one takes little note of the

             10   ozone concentrations in the air we breathe, even

             11   when those concentrations rise to actionable

             12   levels.  On the other hand, people with lung

             13   disease or those with sensitive airways may be

             14   incapacitated by airborne contaminants that others

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

             16   explain.

             17              Ozone is an exceedingly corrosive -- it

             18   is a powerful irritant that inside active tissue it

             19   signals certain responses, primarily an outpouring

             20   of fluid.  Our lungs contain a branching network of

             21   air waves, with inspiration, fresh air to those

             22   regions of the lungs where oxygen enters the

             23   bloodstream and carbon dioxide is removed.

             24              The tissue lining in much of these air                                                                      11

              1   channels contains mucous-secreting glands, the same

              2   type of glands and secretions with which we become

              3   all too familiar whenever we have a cold.  When

              4   secretions accumulate in the airway, as they do

              5   with ozone or with any irritant, they limit air

              6   movement to some degree.  Those secretions are

              7   reabsorbed by tissues within the lung or cleared by

              8   coughing if clearance mechanisms are intact.

              9              If those protected mechanisms are

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

             11   secretions accumulate, the patient has to work

             12   harder and harder to breathe.  Consider the simple

             13   physical principles of the flow of gas in tubes,

             14   bronchial tubes in this case.  Throughout most of

             15   our airways, airflow is turbulent, meaning that a

             16   decrease in the radius of an airway by more than

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

             18   more.  To maintain airflow, the patient must

             19   increase airway pressure and must work harder and

             20   harder to do so.

             21              Those of us with normal lungs barely

             22   notice the effort required to breathe other than we

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

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

              1   example, may feel like he has just completed a

              2   hundred yard dash all the time.  When the airflow

              3   cannot be maintained, then respiratory failure

              4   occurs.

              5              In the 1950s when Los Angeles County

              6   smog was at its worst, patients with lung diseases

              7   were studied prior to and after entering an air

              8   chamber, and in a controlled environment, most lung

              9   function and exercise capacity improved.  Countless

             10   studies and populations, both urban and rural, have

             11   demonstrated a consistent pattern of increased

             12   morbidity and mortality when air pollution levels

             13   are elevated.  Population surveys primarily of lung

             14   function show a decline on days when ozone

             15   concentrations are increased, and in some surveys,

             16   the adverse effect on breathing capacity as found

             17   at ozone levels well below 60 parts per billion.

             18              The plethora of scientific studies now

             19   available fully justify why we should tighten the

             20   existing ozone standard.  We take for granted that

             21   our water supply is not contaminated and safe for

             22   all, are we not entitled to similar assurances

             23   about the air we breathe.

             24              Numerous scientific bodies and                                                                      13

              1   professional organizations support a new ozone

              2   standard, the EPA should follow the recommendation

              3   and issue a new ozone standard that is no greater

              4   than 60 parts per billion.

              5              Thank you.

              6        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you Dr. Cugell.

              7              Any questions from the panel?

              8        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

              9        MS. TYSON:  No.

             10        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Dr. Greenberger.

             11             STATEMENT OF PAUL GREENBERGER, MD

             12        MR. GREENBERGER:  Thank you.  My specialty is

             13   allergy immunology.

             14              Thank you to the panel members for

             15   conducting this hearing in Chicago.  I urge the

             16   panel to compel EPA to set a final standard for

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

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

             19   Respiratory Health Association of Chicago.  This

             20   level is consistent with prominent expert

             21   scientific panels including the EPA's Children's

             22   Health Protection Advisory Committee and the Clean

             23   Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

             24              I am an asthma specialists.  For over 30                                                                      14

              1   years I've conducted studies in the various aspects

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

              3   most complex disorders a physician is called upon

              4   to treat.  I diagnose and treat patients five

              5   minutes from here at Northwestern University

              6   Medical School, teach residents, students and train

              7   future specialists in allege immunology.  I speak

              8   today on behalf of approximately 500,000 people

              9   with asthma who live in the Chicago metropolitan

             10   area.  This is based conservatively on 7 percent

             11   incidence of 7 million people.

             12              Ozone has been shown to damage the cells

             13   in the surface lining of the bronchial tubes.  The

             14   cells are not able to provide the necessary

             15   defenses called anti-oxidants.  To translate this

             16   into football language, this is equivalent to

             17   having a poor defensive line that cannot stop the

             18   fullback or running back.  Patients with asthma

             19   have defective anti-oxidant defenses, which makes

             20   them vulnerable to ozone.

             21              Ozone even in the currently accepted

             22   concentration ranges has harmful effects.  First,

             23   the harmful effects of ozone were recorded in a

             24   study of children ages four through nine with                                                                      15

              1   asthma who were studied in inner cities, including

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

              3   Detroit, Baltimore, the Bronx and East Harlem.

              4              There is a big surprise in this study in

              5   that children with the history of being born

              6   prematurely, meaning earlier than three weeks

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

              8   5.5 pounds, were especially harmed by increases in

              9   ozone when the children were now between ages four

             10   and nine years of age.  There were greater declines

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

             12   of lung function, and greater symptoms of asthma

             13   for increases from the mean and the study of 48

             14   parts per billion for every increment of 15 parts

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

             16   billion.  So although the ozone concentrations

             17   averaged over eight hours were in the acceptable

             18   range, there were clearcut harmful effects on lung

             19   function and asthma symptoms.

             20              Another finding was that children who

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

             22   which in my experience is very common.  They

             23   experienced more symptoms of asthma and drops in

             24   their peaks expiratory flow rates on the days with                                                                      16

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

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

              3   without harmful effects but the 60 parts per

              4   billion will be an important improvement for

              5   children with asthma.

              6              There are a number of studies in adults

              7   as well demonstrating the deleterious effects of

              8   ozone such as in amateur bikers who exercise and

              9   studied the various concentrations of ozone and in

             10   mail carriers who were exposed to maximum

             11   concentrations 65 parts per billion.  For every ten

             12   parts per billion increment in the eight-hour ozone

             13   concentration, there were declines in the nighttime

             14   peak expiratory flow rates.

             15              I urge the EPA to set the final standard

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

             17   imperative to protect the health of the public.  As

             18   a physician and investigator, the scientific data

             19   are very clear.  We must take action to prevent

             20   harmful effects of ozone on children and adults,

             21   especially in patients with asthma.

             22              Thanks.

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

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

              1   your testimony.  That would be great.

              2              Any questions of the panel?

              3              Thank you.

              4              The next two speakers will be Walter

              5   Perez and Joe Wishnoff.  We were happy to

              6   accommodate Mr. Perez because he has another

              7   conflict.

              8        MR. PEREZ:  Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Joe Wishnoff.

             10              As we said, we're calling the speakers

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

             12             STATEMENT OF WALTER B. PEREZ

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

             14   Perez and I'm a pediatrician working in the

             15   community of Little Village and I came here to give

             16   some testimony I think that will be reflective of

             17   situations that the community lives currently.  I

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

             19   great experience of treating patients.

             20              I've worked in the Chicago area since

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

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

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

             24   asthmatic patients compared to what I was expecting                                                                      18

              1   based on the reports of increased asthma in the

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

              3   give it much of a thought.

              4              But in 2006 I moved my practice to an

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

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

              7   Immediately I realized there was a big difference

              8   in the number of patients I was seeing who had

              9   asthma.  I was pretty much seeing everyday new

             10   asthmatic patients that came to my practice.  So

             11   that was very appalling to me and I realized

             12   immediately that it was related to environmental

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

             14   investigation.

             15              To this point I think I have 200

             16   patients out of a total of 1500 patients, between

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

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

             19   the environmental conditions in the area are a

             20   resultant conclusion of the conditions.

             21              I think the type of problem that this is

             22   bringing also has some ripple effect because

             23   children get sick when they are outside, and this

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

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

              2   rippling effect on another major problem we're

              3   seeing, obesity, which I think has other

              4   implications as well as you can understand.

              5              I'm convinced that the environment

              6   though the conditions we're living now in the

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

              8   think the patients will benefit if this condition

              9   started improving and we'll have other situations

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

             11   striking experience I have moving in an area that

             12   has different environmental conditions in the

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

             14              Thank you.

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             16              Mr. Wishnoff.

             17              STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WISHNOFF.

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

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

             20   country and I can tell my story.

             21              Imagine if four days from now you were

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

             23   have a rare lung disease called idiopathic

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

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

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

              3   managing director of two Internet companies.  I've

              4   owned three start-up businesses which have been

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

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

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

              8   every day that I wake up.

              9              This unit on my face is a portable

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

             11   to narrow the boundaries of, you know, people

             12   able -- people with the ability to travel with

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

             14   change and set standards to give people the best

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

             16   have our citizens of this country, this great

             17   country, live as long as they can.

             18              A couple years ago I would say that I

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

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

             21   Health was not an issue.  And something painful had

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

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

             24   chances of me living past another year without a                                                                      21

              1   double-lung transplant are less than 50 percent.

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

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

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

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

              6   forward regardless of obstacles.

              7              When I was coming here today, I asked

              8   myself this one question, big business or politics

              9   or lobbyists, do they breathe a different air than

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

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

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

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

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

             15   the CEO of a billion dollar company breathes the

             16   same air.

             17              What I've learned through this painful

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

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

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

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

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

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

             24   back to do something so that between now and                                                                      22

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

              2   helped change the world.  He helped do something.

              3   He helped make it so people are living a healthier

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

              5   when I'm gone.

              6              You know, there's your immediate family

              7   and we all love our brothers and sisters and

              8   parents and then there's the bigger family.

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

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

             11   the best standards possible so that our citizens of

             12   this great country could live the best possible

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

             14   think we neglect the fact that money and politics

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

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

             17   before, health is everything.

             18              I most likely will not have a family, I

             19   most likely will not raise kids, unless they happen

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

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

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

             23   family that people should be thinking about health

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

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

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

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

              4   to say.  Thank you.

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

              6   and Mr. Wishnoff.

              7              Let me ask the audience to turn cell

              8   phones off as a courtesy to the speakers.  Thank

              9   you.

             10              The next two speakers are Anita Gewurz

             11   and Becki Stanfield.

             12              Again, I apologize for mispronouncing

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

             14   spell it for the reporter.

             15             STATEMENT OF ANITA GEWURZ, MD

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

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

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

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

             20   think will be helpful to see.

             21              I'm a professor of

             22   immunological/microbiology and a specialist in

             23   asthma and allergic diseases at Rush University

             24   Medical Center and in the Departments of Pediatrics                                                                      24

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

              2   a diplomate of the American Board of Pediatrics and

              3   I'm speaking today for the American Academy of

              4   Pediatrics.  I also served on the American Board of

              5   Allergy and Immunology, which I chaired in 2004.

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

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

              8   concentrations of air pollution and pediatric

              9   asthma.  I hope to persuade you that this

             10   association is not coincidental but can be avoided.

             11              According to EPA data, more than

             12   one-third of Americans live where ground-level

             13   ozone exceeds the current eight-hour standard of

             14   0.08 to 0.84  parts per million, which is

             15   approximately equivalent to 157 micrograms of ozone

             16   per cubic meter.

             17              As reported in the Chicago Tribune

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

             19   and surrounding counties violated the National

             20   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone on eight

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

             22   here in the Chicago area where one child in ten

             23   below age 18 has asthma, approximately 215,000

             24   asthmatic children were exposed to excess ozone                                                                      25

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

              2   Should we be upset about this?  Very.

              3              Why?  Because not all lungs are created

              4   equal.  Ozone exceedants are particularly harmful

              5   to children with asthma and other diseases that

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

              7   bear the brunt of ozone exposure.

              8              The first photograph from the Tribune

              9   articles shows five boys playing soccer next to a

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

             11   mostly Mexican working class industrial Chicago

             12   neighborhood.  Unlike adults who work indoors

             13   during months where ozone is highest, that is April

             14   through October in Illinois, children are more

             15   likely to be outdoors and exposed to ozone.

             16   Because children have higher respiratory rates,

             17   minute ventilation, when exposed to ozone, whether

             18   at rest or exercising, they naturally breathe and

             19   absorb more ozone than adults engaged in comparable

             20   activity.

             21              Unfortunately, communities with higher

             22   population density are the same areas where

             23   non-attainment of the ozone standard is more

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

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

              2   the people at highest risk are also exposed to the

              3   most potential harm.

              4              The Inflammatory effects of ozone on

              5   immature lungs are only now becoming apparent.

              6   Lung development continues from birth through

              7   adolescence, and developing airways are

              8   particularly susceptible to delayed and long-term

              9   damage from ambient ozone.  Asthmatic children are

             10   at increased risk.  Fetal lung damage can begin in

             11   utero from maternal exposure to ozone as well.  The

             12   inference is obvious.  Even at 60 parts per

             13   billion, ozone causes airway damage and children

             14   with asthma are especially vulnerable.

             15              The EPA's June '07 proposal to review

             16   the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

             17   ground-level ozone states the standards set within

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

             19   would provide appropriate protection against the

             20   variety of health effects associated with ozone

             21   exposure.  The Agency proposes that a standard

             22   level below this is unnecessary because the

             23   evidence linking ozone exposure to specific health

             24   effects becomes increasingly uncertain at lower                                                                      27

              1   levels of exposure.

              2              However, recent data such as those we

              3   have just reviewed refute this claim.  EPA's

              4   Children Health Protection Advisory also

              5   recommended setting the ozone standard at 0.06

              6   parts per million, the lowest value of the range

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

              8   the scientific literature, and this was March 26 of

              9   this year.  I emphatically agree.  Thank you.

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

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

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

             13   record.

             14        MS. GEWURZ:  Thank you.

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Any questions?

             16        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             17        MS. TYSON:  No.

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Stanfield, please.

             19             STATEMENT OF BECKY STANFIELD

             20        MS. STANFIELD:  Good morning and thank you for

             21   coming to Chicago to give us an opportunity to

             22   weigh in on your proposal to revise the National

             23   Ambient Air Quality Standard.

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

              1   could set the clock here.

              2        MS. STANFIELD:  My name is Rebecca Stanfield

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

              4   We are a statewide citizen-based environmental

              5   advocacy organization.  Ensuring that Illinois has

              6   clean air is core to our mission.

              7              The Clean Air Act Commission is very

              8   clear, every American should be able to breathe the

              9   air outdoors and not get sick.  Congress

             10   anticipated that the medical science would progress

             11   and to our understanding of how much pollution

             12   triggers health problems to us all.  They charge

             13   your agency with a great responsibility of updating

             14   the standards as warranted by scientific discovery

             15   and entrusted you with the job of realizing the

             16   promise of clean air for all Americans, even the

             17   most vulnerable among us.

             18              We think it's unfortunate, then, that

             19   you've proposed setting a standard that we already

             20   know is inadequate based on health studies that you

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

             22   scientific advisory committee and especially your

             23   children's health advisory committee have both

             24   recommended more protective standards.  They have                                                                      29

              1   warned that your proposal even when fully met will

              2   leave the most vulnerable among us, our children,

              3   breathing levels of smog that we know will cause

              4   serious health impacts for many of them.

              5              Ozone, as others have said, is a

              6   powerful pollutant that can burn our lungs and

              7   airways causing health effects ranging from

              8   coughing and wheezing to asthma attacks to even

              9   premature death.  Children, teenagers, senior

             10   citizens and people with lung disease are

             11   particularly vulnerable to the health effects of

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

             13   agreements that the current standard of .08 parts

             14   per million is inadequate even to protect perfectly

             15   healthy adults.

             16              Now, political studies show that the

             17   health impacts of breathing ozone at levels lower

             18   than the current ambient air quality standards and

             19   in fact, clinical studies of otherwise healthy

             20   adults have found decreasing lung function,

             21   increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation and

             22   increased susceptibility or respiratory infection

             23   at or below the current standards.

             24              The clean air scientific advisory                                                                      30

              1   committee reviewed a 2,000 page summary of

              2   scientific research of health and safety and

              3   unanimously concluded that the current standard is

              4   not adequate.  They recommended setting new ozone

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

              6   million.  The children's health protection advisory

              7   committee in their letter dated March 23, made a

              8   compelling case that only a standard in the low end

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

             10   protective of children's health.

             11              EPA's proposal to strengthen the

             12   standards to a reasonable .070 parts per million to

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

             14   scientific advisors say is necessary to protect

             15   public health.  Well, as stronger than the current

             16   standards, the proposal fails to protect health

             17   within an adequate margin of safety.  In effect,

             18   EPA's proposed standards is to protect millions of

             19   Americans but will continue to leave millions more,

             20   particularly those with lung disease or who were

             21   otherwise sensitive to airflow exposed to harmful

             22   effects of dirty air.

             23              Alarmingly, your proposal also leaves

             24   the door open to retaining the current ozone                                                                      31

              1   standard.  We are aware that in the weeks leading

              2   up to the release of your proposal, representatives

              3   from the electric industry, chemical industry, oil

              4   companies and auto makers organized high level

              5   meetings with the Bush Administration to discuss

              6   the new ozone standards.

              7              This obviously for us raises concerns

              8   that you are entertaining a course of action that

              9   will be unwise and illegal under the Clean Air Act

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

             11   reject that pressure and to adopt standards that

             12   are consistent with what the children's health

             13   protection advisory committee recommended, .060

             14   parts per million.  We thank you for this

             15   opportunity to address you.

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

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

             18   your testimony at our registration table.  Thank

             19   you very much.

             20              Any questions?

             21              Our next two speakers, Dean Schraufnagel

             22   and Giedrius Ambrozaitis.  You'll both definitely

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

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

              1   gentlemen here.

              2              Dean Schraufnagel, you're the first.  Go

              3   ahead.

              4          STATEMENT OF DEAN SCHRAUFNAGEL, MD

              5        MR. SCHRAUFNAGEL:  Thanks for the opportunity

              6   to speak and thank you for coming and for

              7   listening.

              8              My name is Dr. Dean Schraufnagel,

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

             10   American Thoracic Society.  The American Thoracic

             11   Society is a scientific and professional

             12   organization, that is all physicians and

             13   scientists, and as such, it represents thousands of

             14   pulmonologists, pulmonologists being lung doctors,

             15   and each of these pulmonologist in turn represents

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

             17   of patients with lung disease.

             18              The patients with lung disease -- I'm

             19   also at the University of Illinois, a practicing

             20   pulmonologist -- they invariably will tell you

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

             22   sometimes very alarming to them.  They will call

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

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

              1   with emphysema, stay indoors, sometimes increase

              2   medicines but the medicines aren't all that

              3   effective.

              4              These bad days, as you know, have been

              5   associated with levels of ozone and particulate

              6   matter.  The American Thoracic Society strongly

              7   recommends that the EPA adopt the level -- the

              8   primary standard should be established at 0.060

              9   parts per million.  We further strongly recommend

             10   that the degree of precision from the standard

             11   should be expressed in the thousandths part per

             12   million.  The 0.06 parts per million is needed to

             13   protect the nation from the effects of the ozone.

             14              There have been several studies and the

             15   primary national scale of immunologic study has

             16   shown that premature mortality and ozone exposures

             17   below the current level are highly correlated.

             18   Control human exposure studies of healthy adults

             19   have demonstrated reduced lung function, increased

             20   expiratory systems, changes in airway

             21   responsiveness and increased airway inhalation for

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

             23              Recent studies, this is Schwartzman and

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

              1   have also demonstrated that people, some of these

              2   people tested have adverse effects at the 0.6 level

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

              4   recommending that level.

              5              In short, this is -- as other speakers

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

              7   for all Americans and we strongly encourage that

              8   you do so.  Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             10              Mr. Giedrius Ambrozaitis.

             11           STATEMENT OF GIEDRIUS AMBROZAITIS.

             12        MR. AMBROZAITIS:  Thank you very much.  I

             13   would just like to make a slight correction.

             14   Unfortunately, this is not the Lieutenant Governor

             15   of Illinois sitting to my left, this is my

             16   colleague John Heuss of Air Improvement Resource.

             17              Good morning.  My name is Giedrius

             18   Ambrozaitis and I'm here today representing the

             19   Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Alliance.

             20   The Alliance is a trade association of nine car and

             21   light truck manufacturers, including BMW Group,

             22   Chrylser LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors,

             23   Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.

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

              1   dependent on the automotive industry.

              2              The Alliance members share the concerns

              3   of our customers and the American public about this

              4   nation's air quality and recognize the importance

              5   of assuring clean air that protects public health.

              6   Our air is cleaner today than it was a generation

              7   ago and air quality is continuing to improve.

              8   Meanwhile, gross domestic product, vehicle miles

              9   traveled and energy consumptions have all

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

             11   percent cleaner than vehicles of the 1970s.

             12   Further, significant additional emissions

             13   reductions will occur over the next 20 years as a

             14   result of already promulgated regulations for

             15   mobile sources.

             16              According to EPA's own statistics,

             17   emissions from cars and trucks are expected to be

             18   reduced by an additional 70 percent by 2030.  These

             19   reductions will help to reduce ozone concentrations

             20   across the country and will improve the air quality

             21   as a result of these reductions, will occur

             22   regardless of whether the existing ozone standards

             23   is revised.

             24              The Alliance cannot support changing the                                                                      36

              1   current ozone NAAQS due to continued uncertainties

              2   in the science and the likelihood that many of the

              3   additional health benefits cited by EPA will not

              4   occur.  The Alliance continues to believe that the

              5   current form and level of the primary and secondary

              6   ozone standards at .08 ppm is protective of public

              7   health and welfare.

              8              Similar to 1997, the science today does

              9   not support lowering the ozone NAAQS below .08 ppm

             10   and continues to show much scientific uncertainty.

             11   There have been limited, if any, new developments

             12   in scientific data, such as clinical data,

             13   epidemiology or toxicology that would support a

             14   division of the ozone standards.

             15              The available data supports retaining

             16   the current standard.  EPA cites one clinical study

             17   that supports lowering the existing standards, the

             18   Adams 2006 study.  Whether the small changes

             19   reported in this study are statistically

             20   significant or not is a matter of contention

             21   between EPA and Adams, and more importantly, the

             22   small changes are not medically significant using

             23   the EPA's own guidelines.

             24              Further, EPA's criteria document                                                                      37

              1   acknowledges that the toxicological effects are

              2   transient, of a reflexive nature, and reversible.

              3   Clearly, the evidence does not support lowering the

              4   standard.

              5              The Alliance believes that federal and

              6   state resources would be better served by focusing

              7   on meeting the current standard.  States are now

              8   just finalizing plans to meet the current standard

              9   and should have the opportunity to implement these

             10   plans.

             11              Despite having spent billions of dollars

             12   on reducing air pollution, several metropolitan

             13   areas have concluded that they will not be able to

             14   meet the current standard even if they close every

             15   major stationary course in their cities.  The EPA

             16   should focus on helping these communities meet the

             17   existing standard before imposing new standards

             18   that are not scientifically justified, not

             19   achievable and, more important, not likely to

             20   provide the benefits that EPA asserts.

             21              Thank you very much.

             22        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, gentlemen.

             23              Questions from the panel?

             24        MR. RICHMOND:  No.                                                                      38

              1        MS. TYSON:  No.

              2        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much and please

              3   put the written testimony on the table.

              4              We do have the Lieutenant Governor now,

              5   Pat Quinn.

              6               STATEMENT OF PATRICK QUINN

              7        MR. QUINN:  I appreciate the opportunity to be

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

              9   Governor of Illinois.  I was elected in 2002 and

             10   reelected last year and my office is charged with a

             11   number of responsibilities in Illinois, a number of

             12   them relate to the environmental issues, and I want

             13   to commend the United States EPA for coming here to

             14   Chicago to have this hearing, to listen to everyday

             15   people on an important issue.

             16              I am testifying in favor of

             17   strengthening the standards with respect to ozone

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

             19   proposed standard is insufficient to protect public

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

             21   think the standard should be much stronger.

             22              From my point of view, our office has

             23   worked a great deal with citizens who suffer from

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

              1   epidemic, almost 1 million people in Illinois

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

              3   have lost more people to losing their lives to

              4   asthma than any other place in the United States

              5   and it's exceptionally important that our area and

              6   our country have standards to protect people who

              7   suffer from this very serious chronic disease.

              8   Respiratory disease is something that we should all

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

             10   question that it is a very severe hardship on

             11   people with respiratory ailments, chest pain and

             12   asthma and so on.

             13              We have ozone alert days so it's

             14   important I think that all of us in our state

             15   families, individuals, businesses, governments,

             16   make a strong effort to reduce the level of ozone

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

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

             19   It looks at scientific studies and I think the

             20   science in this case shows that a stronger standard

             21   lowering the amount of ozone allowed is necessary.

             22   By having such a strong standard, I realize that

             23   there may need to be adjustments made by businesses

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

              1              Right now we have a great debate in our

              2   state concerning public transit and how to finance

              3   public transit, and clearly that is a relationship

              4   to reducing the level of ozone in our particular

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

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

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

              8   important that the EPA through the provisions of

              9   the Clean Air Act adopt a standard, a strong

             10   standard that we must aspire to.

             11              I think the Supreme Court of our country

             12   has made it crystal clear when we talk about the

             13   Clean Air Act and public health issues that we

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

             15   standard only to the person who may be in good

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

             17   many of our fellow citizens may suffer from

             18   particular ailments or they may be of a certain age

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

             20   susceptible to respiratory disease.

             21              So I think in looking at these standards

             22   that the EPA should pronounce and promulgate.  The

             23   current proposal is insufficient with respect to

             24   protecting the public health, especially those who                                                                      41

              1   are most vulnerable.

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

              3   leader with respect to standards of our power

              4   plants regarding mercury.  We have a much stronger

              5   standard than the federal standard, we've had

              6   voluntary compliance and agreements with the major

              7   utilities in Illinois on that issue and we were

              8   proud to announce that last year.  We want to

              9   continue that strong path toward an environmental

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

             11   I think it would be most beneficial for the United

             12   States Environmental Protection Agency to take

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

             14   advocates of having a lower standard of ozone to be

             15   permitted than what is currently being proposed.

             16              Thank you very much.

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

             18              Harvey, do you have a question?

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

             20   there a specific range that you were advocating or

             21   supporting?

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

             23   and I think that should be the final standard

             24   adopted by the EPA in concert with scientific                                                                      42

              1   recommendations.

              2        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

              3              Mary Pat, any questions?

              4        MS. TYSON:  No.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thanks.  Our next two speakers

              6   are Tim Montague and Becki Clayborn.

              7              Again, let me remind you to please spell

              8   your names for our reporter.

              9                STATEMENT OF TIM MONTAGUE

             10        MR. MONTAGUE:  Thank you very much for the

             11   opportunity to testify about the US Environmental

             12   Protection Agency's proposed revisions to the

             13   nation's ambient air quality standard for

             14   ground-level ozone.

             15              My name is Tim Montague,

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

             17   Environmental Research Foundation, a national

             18   non-profit science-based environmental

             19   organization.  We specialize in translating

             20   scientific and medical information into terms

             21   that ordinary people can understand and use to

             22   further protect their local environment and public

             23   health.

             24              When Congress established the Clean Air                                                                      43

              1   Act in 1970, it commanded that the National Ambient

              2   Air Quality Standards be based upon public health

              3   considerations alone.  The economic implications of

              4   meeting those health-based standards were

              5   secondary.  This two-step process has proven

              6   extremely effective both in terms of improving air

              7   quality and fostering economic growth.

              8              Some examples of the success of the

              9   Clean Air Act:  Nitrogen oxides, which are

             10   implicated in the formation of ground-level ozone,

             11   and particulate pollution have been lowered nearly

             12   one quarter since 1970.  Volatile organic

             13   compounds, which form ground-level ozone and are

             14   often comprised of toxic contaminants, have been

             15   reduced by over 50 percent since 1970.  And sulfur

             16   dioxide, which forms particulate pollution, has

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

             18   contaminants have been significantly reduced all

             19   because of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

             20              During the period that these remarkable

             21   emissions reductions have been achieved, the

             22   nation's economy has grown dramatically.  Our

             23   gross domestic product has increased 174 percent in

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

              1   effect.

              2              Each year, the Clean Air Act prevents

              3   well over 200,000 premature deaths, more than

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

              5   hospital admissions, more than 200 million

              6   respiratory ailments and over 22 million lost

              7   workdays.  According to research by the EPA, the

              8   monetary benefits to society have outweighed the

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

             10              The EPA's proposed ozone decision:  The

             11   EPA Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee,

             12   hereafter CASAC, unanimously and unambiguously

             13   advised EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, quote,

             14   "There is no scientific justification for retaining

             15   the current primary eight-hour NAAQS of 0.08 parts

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

             17   needs to be substantially reduced to protect human

             18   health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations."

             19   The committee also unanimously agreed upon a

             20   recommended range, quote, "Therefore, the CASAC

             21   unanimously recommends a range of 0.06 to .070 ppm

             22   for the primary ozone of NAAQS."  These

             23   recommendations leave no room for

             24   misinterpretation.                                                                      45

              1              The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory

              2   Committee stated, quote, "There is no longer

              3   significant scientific certainty regarding the

              4   CASAC's conclusion that the current eight-hour

              5   primary NAAQS must be lowered.  A large body of

              6   data clearly demonstrates adverse human health

              7   effects at the current level of the eight-hour

              8   primary ozone standard."  Retaining this standard

              9   would continue to put large numbers of individuals

             10   at risk for respiratory effects and/or significant

             11   impact on quality of life, including asthma

             12   exacerbations, emergency room visits, hospital

             13   admissions and mortally.

             14              In sum, CASAC unequivocally found there

             15   is no basis in public health considerations for EPA

             16   to retain the current standard.  Ozone pollution is

             17   a serious threat in public health.  It burns our

             18   lungs and airways causing inflammation and

             19   increases asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.  The

             20   scientific consensus is clear.  Retaining the

             21   current standard would ignore a decade of

             22   scientific evidence and recklessly subject millions

             23   of Americans to unsafe levels of ozone pollution.

             24   We encourage the EPA to finalize an ozone standard                                                                      46

              1   of 0.06 parts per million, which is consistent with

              2   the range recommended by the EPA's Clean Air

              3   Scientific Advisory Board.

              4              Thank you very much.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions?

              6        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

              7        MS. TYSON:  No.

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

              9              Ms. Clayborn.

             10              STATEMENT OF BECKI CLAYBORN.

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

             12   I'm a regional representative with the Sierra

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

             14   the oldest and largest national environmental group

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

             16   water and air for our approximately 800,000 members

             17   in the U.S.

             18              For the past five years, Sierra Club has

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

             20   plants, specifically here in the midwest, Illinois

             21   and Chicago.  We do this through the permitting

             22   process and we push for what's called best

             23   available control technologies.  Those control

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

              1   as technology but also has to do with what

              2   scientists have agreed in terms of public health

              3   and what protection is needed for public health.

              4              Up to this point, many of these power

              5   plants for the past 40 to 100 years have been

              6   grandfathered in and have basically been operating

              7   without pollution controls or with very minimal

              8   pollution controls.  These pollutants are one of

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

             10   talk about today.

             11              The technologies do exist to clean out

             12   these plants and strong standards from the EPA

             13   would increase the use of such technologies.  And

             14   without the strong standards, the power plants will

             15   continue to us our air as not the proper solution

             16   that leads to ozone pollution and therefore health

             17   problems for everyone.

             18              I have a little story.  I moved to

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

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

             21   medication until I moved to the Chicagoland area.

             22   The air pollution in Chicago I have noticed

             23   personally has had an effect on my respiratory

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

              1   city, you have worse air quality than anywhere

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

              3   stronger standards from our industry, our power

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

              5   to push for those things.

              6              The Sierra Club encourages the EPA to

              7   adopt the standard that was recommended by science

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

              9   protect our public health.

             10              I thank you.

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

             12   again, put copies of your testimony in the

             13   registration if you haven't already provided them.

             14   Thank you very much.

             15              Our next presenter is David Sykuta and

             16   Charles Pierce, Dr. Charles Pierce.

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

             18   I apologize for the mispronunciation, as I'm

             19   certain I did.

             20              STATEMENT OF DAVID SYKUTA

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

             22   Just about right on the money.

             23              Good morning, my name is David Sykuta,

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

              1   Illinois Petroleum Council.  The Petroleum

              2   Council represents Illinois' large integrated oil

              3   industry.  Illinois is the fourth largest refining

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

              5   producer in the transportation hub of the nation

              6   for energy.

              7              Nearly 50,000 Illinois citizens earn

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

              9   worked closely with the United States EPA on both

             10   the existing standard and debate on this new

             11   standard.  Looking forward, we continue to engage

             12   the USEPA and our belief is that great gains will

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

             14              I believe there's three points that need

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

             16   and gas industry is helping to make the air

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

             18   of debate as to the methodology behind the proposed

             19   changes of the United States EPA is suggesting, and

             20   third, the proposed changes will have significant

             21   both economic and lifestyle impact on normal

             22   citizens, so we need to think very closely about

             23   what we're doing.

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

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

              2   forward talking about where we should go, I think

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

              4   interesting thing here, some of the previous

              5   speakers have spoken about this, in the past

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

              7   vehicle miles have gone way up, the economy has

              8   gone up, the population has gone up almost 50

              9   percent, despite all those going up.  The amount

             10   of pollution, at least the six major ones measured

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

             12   point here being that we're making great progress

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

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

             15   programs that are already in place that have not

             16   been completely implemented, particularly the low

             17   sulfur diesel program that one of the other

             18   speakers spoke of and continuing improvements in

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

             20   under the existing standards.

             21              I come at these with kind of two hats,

             22   because as well as being the spokesman for the

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

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

              1   with both a personal hat and a professional hat.

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

              3   made, as an asthma sufferer myself, everybody

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

              5   look at the whole range of factors that affect

              6   asthma.

              7              For example, everyone agrees that the

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

              9   much cleaner than it was ten years ago,

             10   specifically here in Chicago.  Yet while the air is

             11   getting cleaner, the incidence of asthma continues

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

             13   play besides just the ozone standards as far as the

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

             15   to make.

             16              As far as our questions with the

             17   methodology, you know, there's always disagreement

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

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

             20   USEPA suggesting lowering the standard or making

             21   the standard more strict was using that that was

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

             23   question with that.

             24              The third comment, as you know, inside                                                                      52

              1   the Chicago metropolitan area and the four counties

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

              3   With this standard going into place a number of

              4   other counties in the state would most likely also

              5   become non-attainment areas.  There are real life

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

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

              8   should be applied before we raise everybody's

              9   gasoline prices in these area, before we reduce

             10   economic activity and before we have the economic

             11   impacts that could affect everyone.  At the same

             12   time, we need to continue to move forward making

             13   all of our citizens more healthy.

             14              I look forward to participating in this

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

             16   questions.  Thank you very much.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions to Mr. Sykuta?

             18        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             19        MS. TYSON:  No.

             20        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             21              Dr. Pierce.

             22          STATEMENT OF CHARLES PIERCE, MD

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

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

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

              2   my gray hair -- educating both students and

              3   physicians.  Asthma is my area of medical

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

              5   Directors of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based

              6   Public Policy.  I'm hear today representing that

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

              8   organization that promotes and supports

              9   peer-reviewed science in public policy

             10   decision-making.

             11              In my submitted written testimony,

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

             13   publication peer-reviewed, the Science and Health

             14   Effects of Ground Level Ozone.  This report was

             15   peer-reviewed by high qualified scientists,

             16   physicians and reviewed by the entire board of

             17   directors of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based

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

             19   quickly review the following major summary points

             20   from the report.

             21              Since the U.S. Environmental Protection

             22   Agency last reviewed the national ozone air quality

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

             24   developments in epidemiology, toxicology or the                                                                      54

              1   background science that would support a revision of

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

              3              The recommendations regarding primary

              4   and secondary standards in the EPA's final ozone

              5   Staff Paper and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

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

              7   administrator are premised on estimates of health

              8   risk from exposures to concentrations of ambient

              9   ozone.  However, the estimates considered were

             10   based on an incomplete assessment of the

             11   uncontrollable background levels of ozone.  EPA

             12   assumes that there will be zero, zero emissions

             13   from human activities in North America.  This

             14   results in a gross overstatement of health risks.

             15              EPA and CASAC continue to overestimate

             16   the magnitude and consistency of and --

             17   underestimate the uncertainty in -- the results of

             18   acute epidemiological studies especially for

             19   emergency room hospital admissions from asthma and

             20   other respiratory disorders, school absences and

             21   mortally among them.  In addition, the EPA

             22   overstates the likelihood of causality,

             23   particularly for the more serious endpoints and at

             24   lower ozone concentrations.                                                                      55

              1              With respect to the primary or health

              2   standard, our peer-reviewed report found that,

              3   yes, ozone is the respiratory irritant but the risk

              4   of respiratory effects is now lower than that in

              5   1997.

              6              Second, the EPA and its science advisors

              7   have recommended a tightening of the standard

              8   relying on an inappropriate computer model to

              9   establish the uncontrollable background of ozone.

             10              Third, the EPA has misinterpreted the

             11   report of 2006 by Adams and Group, that clinical

             12   study, the only controlled study that allegedly

             13   supports making the existing primary standard more

             14   stringent.  These studies are inconsistent, provide

             15   a biological and implausible range of results and

             16   do not establish a cause and effect.

             17              With respect to the secondary or welfare

             18   standard, the report found that the staff

             19   recommendation to lower the addition of unique

             20   seasonal standard to protect vegetation does not

             21   sufficiently address the uncertainties and

             22   limitations of such a standard.

             23              Since no new data has been presented

             24   since the 1997 review to reduce the uncertainties                                                                      56

              1   and limitations of the cumulative seasonal

              2   standard, there is no compelling reason to change

              3   the current secondary standard.

              4              In conclusion, I ask you to not only

              5   review the science in this report but truly

              6   consider its findings when making your decision.  A

              7   hasty decision to impose more stringent ozone

              8   standards based upon a very flawed review will

              9   serve no one and will have unforeseen implications

             10   and a staggering cost.

             11              I thank you for your time and I stress

             12   again, please let science, not emotion be our

             13   guiding light in this thought process.

             14              Are there any questions?

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions, Harvey?

             16        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             17        MS. TYSON:  No.

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

             19              Thank you Mr. Sykuta.

             20              Our next speakers are Mr. Joseph

             21   Suchecki and Angela Tin.

             22             STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SUCHECKI.

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

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

              1   Engine Manufacturers Association, EMA.  EMA is the

              2   international trade association representing the

              3   major manufacturers of internal combustion engines.

              4   EMA's 29 member companies manufacture diesel,

              5   gasoline and alternative fueled engines that power

              6   much of the transportation and distributed

              7   generation infrastructure in the US.

              8              First, it's important to recognize that

              9   the efforts to reduce ozone levels across the

             10   country are working, and ambient ozone

             11   concentrations have decreased by about 21 percent

             12   over the past 16 years while economic and

             13   manufacturing output has increased significantly.

             14   The ambient ozone levels are likely to improve

             15   further as industry implements existing regulations

             16   to reduce ozone precursors, so a more stringent

             17   ozone NAAQS is not really needed in order to

             18   achieve better air quality.

             19              For our part, engine manufacturers have

             20   significantly reduced emissions of NOx and

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

             22   diesel trucks and buses emit PM and hydrocarbon at

             23   essentially near-zero levels, and NOx emissions

             24   have reduced by about 90 percent.  Concurrently                                                                      58

              1   we're working on introducing new technologies to

              2   further reduce NOx emissions by another 80 percent

              3   by 2010.

              4              Requirements for similar reductions are

              5   already on the books for non-road equipment and

              6   stationary engines and will soon be finalized for

              7   small non-road locomotive and marine engines; none

              8   of these improvements depends on revising the

              9   current standards, because our friends at EPA

             10   regulate us on the best available technology and

             11   putting that technology into use, so it really

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

             13   best and the most improvement we can.

             14              From our viewpoint, the relevant

             15   question is whether there is sound scientific

             16   evidence that reducing the code of standards from

             17   the range of 0.06 to 0.07 will improve public

             18   health.

             19              On that question, there's a great deal

             20   of scientific uncertainty regarding the health

             21   effects at ozone at levels below the current

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

             23   lower the current standard is based on both human

             24   exposure studies and epidemiology studies.  The                                                                      59

              1   epidemiology studies of ozone provide very mixed

              2   signals with wide variations and often negative

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

              4   appears to be no relationship between ozone and

              5   mortality.

              6              What epidemiology evidence there is

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

              8   However, there are many unresolved problems with

              9   such studies related to model selection, what lag

             10   times that we choose to create the greatest effects

             11   and compounding with other pollutants and

             12   non-air pollution factors.  Results from

             13   time-series studying epidemiology studies are

             14   really are not adequate to establish a NAAQS

             15   standard.  The most relevant studies are the human

             16   exposure studies where volunteers are exposed to

             17   various ozone concentrations in experimental

             18   chambers, and it was these studies that we were

             19   used to establish the current ozone standard.  Do

             20   these studies show negative health effects from

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

             22              The only way that any physiological

             23   effects from exposure to low levels are observed is

             24   if the researchers force the subjects to vigorously                                                                      60

              1   exercise several hours in the ozone chamber.  And

              2   then, the results are minor, temporary and

              3   reversible change in selecting lung function

              4   indices.  There is a small immeasurable effect but

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

              6   questionable whether the changes are adverse health

              7   effects.

              8              Certainly, the special and extreme

              9   conditions required to elicit an ozone effect at

             10   concentrations at or below today's NAAQS cannot be

             11   generalized to apply to the general population.

             12   Such chamber tests also show that the elderly and

             13   children are actually less sensitive to ozone.

             14              As summarized by the EPA staff report,

             15   quote, "There is some limited indication that lung

             16   function and respiratory system effects, as well as

             17   mortality effects, may be occurring in areas that

             18   likely would have met the current standards."  Such

             19   a weak and qualified statement on the science of

             20   ozone health effects is not sufficient to conclude

             21   that the current standards are not adequate to

             22   protect public health.

             23              Since we have been successful in

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

              1   another important issue is that atmospheric

              2   chemistry of ozone formation has changed.  Our

              3   previous assumptions about what was needed to

              4   further lower ozone concentrations may be no longer

              5   valid.  For example, the ambient ozone levels are

              6   stabilized or are decreasing more slowly in areas

              7   where states have achieved significant reductions

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

              9   adequately addressed the issue of ozone formation

             10   nor considered how the changing control strategies

             11   affect the attainment of the proposed ozone

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

             13   order to understand what ambient levels of ozone

             14   are achievable and what the best path is to assure

             15   further reductions in ozone concentrations.  We

             16   would certainly recommend a comprehensive review of

             17   this topic be undertaken by the EPA and the

             18   National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with

             19   any action on the ozone.

             20              Thank you.

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

             22   clarifying question.  Did you say that the elderly

             23   and children are less susceptible to ozone and what

             24   was the basis that you quoted?                                                                      62

              1        DR. PIERCE:  The chamber studies that were

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

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

              4   levels of ozone actually found that there was less

              5   of a response from the children and the elderly in

              6   the chamber studies.  And there's references

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

              8   of those studies.

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

             10   studies, not six-hour studies.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Any other questions?

             12        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             14              Ms. Tin.

             15              STATEMENT OF ANGELA TIN

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

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

             18   for the American Lung Association of the metro

             19   Chicago area and of the upper midwest.

             20              The United States EPA proposed

             21   provisions for the ozone standards are our first

             22   step towards cleaner air.  Currently in Illinois

             23   there are two areas designated non-attainment for

             24   ozone, Chicago and metro east.  These two                                                                      63

              1   non-attainment areas consist of nine counties and

              2   several additional townships.

              3              In 2005 Illinois EPA monitored ozone at

              4   36 stations throughout Illinois.  Ten sites had

              5   ozone readings that exceeded the current standard,

              6   the highest level was 90 parts per billion in

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

              8   Louis.

              9              Between May and August of 2007, we in

             10   Illinois experienced 15 days for the ambient air

             11   monitoring networks recorded ozone concentrations

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

             13   As other speakers have mentioned, ozone has

             14   significant adverse health impact on children and

             15   seniors who suffer from emphysema and chronic

             16   bronchitis due to ozone exposure.  Clinical studies

             17   show that even healthy adults develop increased

             18   lung function and increased respiratory problems.

             19              The scientific advisory committee has

             20   emphasized the need for stronger standards.  There

             21   is no scientific justification for keeping the

             22   tighter level.  The Clean Air Act requires that the

             23   air quality standards be set to protect human

             24   health, including the health of sensitive                                                                      64

              1   populations with an adequate margin of safety.  We

              2   understand that economic impacts are not to be

              3   considered in the standard setting process,

              4   however, we feel that economic benefits will occur

              5   if health impacts are reduced.

              6              The American Lung Association recommends

              7   that EPA takes the next step towards cleaner air

              8   by following the recommendations of its own

              9   scientific advisors and tighten the eight-hour

             10   ozone standard.

             11              Thank you.

             12        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Any questions from the panel?

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

             14              The next two speakers are Dr. Willard

             15   Fry and Ms. Helen Costello.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Dr. Fry.

             17             STATEMENT OF WILLARD FRY, MD

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

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

             20   Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan

             21   Chicago.  I'm a professor emeritus of clinical

             22   surgery at Northwestern University School of

             23   Medicine and for many years I was head of the

             24   section of general thoracic surgery at Evanston                                                                      65

              1   Hospital and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare.

              2              Ozone is the irritant to the lining of

              3   airway, our lungs.  There is not an effective

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

              5   People with underlying airway disease, such as

              6   asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema are

              7   particularly affected.

              8              Chicago has already documented in top

              9   level scientific publications to have an excessive

             10   amount of particular matter in the ambient air.

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

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

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

             14   abnormally high incidence of asthma and the highest

             15   infant mortally rate for asthma in African-American

             16   children in America.

             17              This is a bad marker on our city.  We

             18   must mobilize all appropriate means to reduce the

             19   concentration of ozone in the air we breathe in

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

             21   strengthen the ozone standard to protect the public

             22   health.  The EPA's own clean air scientific

             23   advisory committee has even included that the

             24   current ozone standard is not adequate.  The EPA                                                                      66

              1   needs to hope to heed its own independent

              2   scientific advisory committee's advice.  Even the

              3   United States Supreme Court has ruled that the

              4   EPA's sole responsibility in setting the ozone

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

              6   setting the recommended ozone standard at 0.060

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

              8   a great service.

              9              The Clean Air Act is for the benefit of

             10   all of us.  Its recommendations should be followed.

             11   The EPA has already had voluminous scientific

             12   presentations to support this new ozone standard.

             13   You are here today for comments from American

             14   citizens.  The National Ambient Air Quality

             15   Standards for ozone, the NAAQS, needs to be

             16   tightened, and I would submit with my presentation

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

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

             19   from the American Journal of Respiratory and

             20   Critical Care Medicine, the leading chest disease

             21   journal in the world.

             22              Thank you very much.

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

             24              Questions from the panel?                                                                      67

              1        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

              2        MS. TYSON:  No.

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

              4   written testimony with the attached editorial.

              5              Next is Helen Costello and a young

              6   guest.

              7             STATEMENT OF HELEN COSTELLO.

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

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

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

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

             12              I feel that in our society a lot of

             13   decisions are made for the sake of business and the

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

             15   the exclusion of other major concerns.  And the

             16   consequences of these choices can be very serious,

             17   and I believe that accepting pollution for the sake

             18   of avoiding heavy expenses calls for this type of

             19   decision.

             20              Our health is just as important as the

             21   economy.  The environment should be even more

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

             23   have health or business if our environment and

             24   circumstances fail.  This is the principle that                                                                      68

              1   guides my questions on pollution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

             11   ozone silently damaging my lung cells, my

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

             13   had asthma and my husband is an emergency room

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

             15   result of ozone in our air.

             16              I've also learned that ozone is one of

             17   the most toxic air pollutants to plant life

             18   damaging plant cells and interfering with growth.

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

             20   a journal called Nature.  It reported that rising

             21   levels of ozone pollution erode the ability of

             22   plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

             23   which contributes to global warming.

             24              We have the opportunity here to correct                                                                      69

              1   past mistakes about ozone levels and help save our

              2   environment and to better protect ourselves from

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

              4   The American Thoracic Society is recommending a

              5   level of 60 parts per billion, the Chicago

              6   Respiratory Health Association also recommends 60,

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

              8   advisory committee is recommending 60 to 70.

              9              While I personally wish that we were

             10   here to discuss how to achieve 50 parts per

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

             12   medical, environmental and government agencies are

             13   supporting the current standard of 85 anymore.

             14   That standard is outdated and that definitely needs

             15   to be lowered.  These agencies exist to protect and

             16   promote our health.  I respect the work of industry

             17   representatives, but I ask EPA to listen to the

             18   health environment and government experts and lower

             19   us from this clearly harmful level.  That is what

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

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

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

             23   lower standard.

             24              That's my position.  Thank you.                                                                      70

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

              2   Mia and Dr. Fry.

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

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

              5                  (WHEREUPON, a recess was had from

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

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

              8   EPA's proposed rule regarding the revisions to the

              9   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone,

             10   and my co-chair panel members are Harvey Richmond

             11   from the Office of the Air Quality Planning and

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

             13   My name is Rosalina Rodriguez from the Office of

             14   Air Quality Planning and Standards, also the EPA.

             15              We will resume and I will start calling

             16   the presenters in pairs to the table across from

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

             18   spell your names and I apologize for mispronouncing

             19   any names here.

             20              I'll quickly go through the logistics

             21   here.  We had a timekeeping system consistent of

             22   green, yellow and red lights.  When we begin

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

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

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

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

              3   We'll try to assure that everyone has an

              4   opportunity to comment, if necessary we'll stay

              5   into the evening tonight.  If you would like to

              6   testify but have not registered yet, please sign up

              7   at the registration table outside.  We will take a

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

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

             10   lunch.

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

             12   speakers, Karen Stacey and Bryan Brendle to the

             13   table, please.

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

             15             STATEMENT OF KAREN STACEY.

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

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

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  You may want to adjust your

             19   microphone.

             20        MS. STACEY:  Is that better?

             21              I'm here as a private citizen

             22   representing myself, my own interests as far as the

             23   EPA's draft on ozone pollution standards.  Thank

             24   you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.                                                                      72

              1              I'm here because of the ozone alerts.

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

              3   the weather is hot and sticky, the National Weather

              4   Service advises "that those with breathing

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

              6   indoors, I had to come here.

              7              I have to pay attention to these alerts

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

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

             10   outdoors or exercise outdoors, for that matter, and

             11   most certainly I do not have a preexisting

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

             13   responder, one who is otherwise healthy but has a

             14   sensitivity to ozone.  When an alert happens, I

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

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

             17   breathe, it feels like I have an elephant sitting

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

             19   deep breathe.

             20              The first time this happened I went to

             21   my doctor because I thought I walked through a fog

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

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

             24   opportunity to address the EPA about the ozone that                                                                      73

              1   is nearest the earth.  With this opportunity, I

              2   started reading about ozone pollution harms your

              3   health from the American Lung Association.  I

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

              5   it quite alarming to find that ozone could be

              6   deadly as well.

              7              The EPA is aware of the effect ozone

              8   has.  In 2005, EPA commissioned researchers to redo

              9   all the research regarding death associated with

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

             11   used their own means of confirming the data and all

             12   came to the same conclusion, a small but robust

             13   association between daily ozone levels and

             14   increased death.  Writing a commentary on these

             15   reviews, David Bates, MD, explained how these

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

             17   capable of causing inflammation of the lung at

             18   lower concentrations than any other gas.  Such an

             19   effect would be a hazard to anyone with health

             20   failure and pulmonary congestion and would worsen

             21   with the function of anyone with advanced lung

             22   disease."

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

             24   five groups who are vulnerable to the effects of                                                                      74

              1   breathing ozone, children, elderly, people who work

              2   or exercise outside, people who already have

              3   breathing difficulties and responders.

              4              Since discovering I'm a responder, I was

              5   happy to learn that the EPA is taking action to

              6   strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality

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

              8   EPA had its own scientific advisors recommending a

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

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

             11   enforce the Clean Air Act, which states that the

             12   Environmental Protection Agency must set National

             13   Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone that

             14   protect public health, including a health of

             15   sensitive populations, with an adequate margin of

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

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

             18   Why hire the scientists if the information is

             19   ignored anyway.  Even though the Clean Air

             20   Scientific Advisory Committee, the EPA's

             21   independent science advisors, completed an

             22   extensive review of the research published over the

             23   last ten years and unanimously concluded that there

             24   is no scientific justification for retaining the                                                                      75

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

              2   million.  EPA staff scientists also stated that the

              3   overall body of evidence clearly calls into

              4   question the adequacy of the current standard.  Air

              5   quality standards must be strong enough to protect

              6   sensitive groups, not just average healthy

              7   individuals.  Significant public health benefits

              8   can be achieved by setting stronger standards.

              9              This would not be a first time that the

             10   EPA has failed to use available science research in

             11   regulatory decisions.  In 2005 the Agency --

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

             13   take your written testimony and make sure it gets

             14   submitted in its entirety into the record.  Thank

             15   you very much.

             16        MS. STACEY:  Thank you.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Brendle.

             18             STATEMENT OF BRYAN BRENDLE

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

             20   and I'm with the National Association of

             21   Manufacturers.  Thank you very much for an

             22   opportunity to come here to Chicago today to talk

             23   about the ozone standards.

             24              The NAM is the nation's largest                                                                      76

              1   industrial trade association in the United States

              2   representing a sector that employs more than 14

              3   million American workers.  In Illinois, that number

              4   exceeds 675,000 with an average salary for the

              5   average worker 50,000 per year.  This annual

              6   compensation is almost 20 percent higher than the

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

              8              After analyzing EPA's latest proposal,

              9   the NAM has concluded that any recommendation to

             10   revise the current ozone standard will provide

             11   uncertain benefits will burdening the nation's

             12   economy.  We therefore support preservation of

             13   existing ozone standard.

             14              The current standard establishes limits

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

             16   has not been fully implemented.  Many states have

             17   until June 2013 to attain the current standard and

             18   therefore improve their regional air quality.

             19              According to the EPA's own studies,

             20   average ozone concentrations dropped by more than

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

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

             23   emissions from the six key air pollutants criteria

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

              1   air quality was actually improving under current

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

              3   Report, current regulations will significantly

              4   reduce ground level ozone causing emissions to drop

              5   over the next two decades.  Power plant emissions

              6   will drop by more than 50 percent by 2015 and

              7   mobile source emissions will drop by more than 70

              8   percent 2030.

              9              There are unfortunately many questions

             10   remaining regarding the state of science and

             11   especially whether there have been any significant

             12   developments during the past decade that would

             13   warrant a stricter standard.  In developing the

             14   proposed revision to the current standard, EPA

             15   changed the way it calculated naturally occurring

             16   and other existing ground level ozone to inflate

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

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

             19   manmade activity cannot do to further reduce the

             20   emissions of the ozone.  If you actually look at

             21   certain maps that project new areas of

             22   non-attainment that EPA will designate, many of

             23   those areas are actually rural, there's no

             24   industrial activity whatsoever, but there are other                                                                      78

              1   sources of ozone that industry cannot reduce

              2              A 2006 study conducted by the NAM shows

              3   that US pays the equivalent of 5.2 percent tax or

              4   structural cost in order to comply with pollution

              5   abatement regulations.  This cost differential

              6   undermines competitiveness and has contributed to

              7   the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs

              8   in the United States between 2000 and 2004,

              9   according to the Congressional Budget Office.

             10   Studies showed that even though most people lose

             11   manufacturing jobs, are actually employed by six

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

             13   percent of their former wage.  These new jobs they

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

             15   believe that again poses a significant health risk

             16   to the American public.

             17              Furthermore, the EPA estimates that

             18   current Clear Air Act regulations will cost about

             19   $27 billion annually in 2010 and $180 billion

             20   overall.  The additional 10 to $20 billion annual

             21   cost the proposed standard will further increase

             22   costs to businesses which consumers will likely see

             23   reflected in the cost of everyday items.

             24              If employers don't pass on the added                                                                      79

              1   expense to consumers, they'll likely shift

              2   operations to lower cost areas of production.  In

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

              4   paying manufacturing jobs disappear between 2000

              5   and 2006.

              6              There is no sound policy justification

              7   for changing the current standard.  EPA's current

              8   ozone standard continues to improve -- thank you

              9   very much for the opportunity to come out.

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

             11   also take your testimony and submit it to the

             12   written record.

             13        UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  May I ask a question?

             14        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Sure.

             15        UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  Where do you get your

             16   statistics that the ozone is Illinois is going

             17   down?  According to the American Lung Association,

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

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

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

             21   concentrations nationwide have dropped

             22   significantly for ozone.

             23        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             24              Our next two speakers are Terry Josie                                                                      80

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

              2   spell your names for the reporter.  Thank you.