10   and then are considered in selecting among
11   various strategies to meet the primary and
12   secondary standards.
13               However, shortly after EPA
14   announced its proposed new ozone standard, the
15   agency issued its associated regulatory impact
16   analysis, which includes cost information.
17   Although EPA reiterated that it did not use
18   the cost analysis in selecting the proposed
19   ozone standards, we think the publication of
20   such cost calculations during the comment
21   period is a distraction to the key issue of
22   public health.  Nevertheless, we note from the
23   RIA that in a comparison of the average of the
24   range of EPA's estimated benefits with the
25   average of the range of estimated costs, the
0112
 1   benefits of a revised NAAQS would
 2   significantly outweigh the costs.  We also
 3   note that while the RIA purports to assess the
 4   overall societal costs of new controls
 5   required to achieve a new standard balanced
 6   against the health benefits of the standard,
 7   the EPA has seriously undermined that
 8   assessment by eliminating from consideration
 9   any reductions that go beyond EPA's Clean Air
10   Interstate Rule.  The RIA already excludes, as
11   a matter of policy, any additional controls
12   from the electric-generating sector, which are
13   highly cost-effective compared to many other
14   control options.
15               As we prepare for these new
16   requirements, a critical issue in the
17   implementation of any new ozone standard that
18   addresses the regional nature of the ozone
19   problem is the designation of regional
20   non-attainment areas.  In designating ozone
21   non-attainment areas, it is critical that EPA
22   look at ozone air sheds in the largest
23   geographic area.  The boundaries of the
24   non-attainment areas should not be limited by
25   Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas
0113
 1   and state lines.  An appropriate
 2   non-attainment area designation scheme should
 3   allow for a broad enough area to be designated
 4   such that most, if not all, sources
 5   contributing to the non-attainment status of
 6   the area are included.  Another critical
 7   consideration in the implementation of a new
 8   ozone standard is to identify --
 9                       - - -
10               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
11                       - - -
12               MS. GARCIA:  -- and implement
13   cost-effect controls on a regional basis,
14   since the local controls do not achieve
15   attainment.
16               I'll submit the rest.
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
18   and thank you for coming here today.
19               MS. GARCIA:  Thank you.
20               MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are
21   Elizabeth Haney and Deborah Shprentz.
22               Welcome.  Elizabeth, you're
23   first.
24               MS. HANEY:  Hello, my name is Liz
25   Haney and I'm here today representing the
0114
 1   board of directors for the Annapolis Center
 2   for Science-Based Public Policy.  We are a
 3   501(c)3 non-profit organization that supports
 4   and promotes peer-reviewed science in public
 5   policy decision-making.
 6               In my submitted written
 7   testimony, I have included a copy of the
 8   center's newest publication, "The science and
 9   Health Effects of Ground Level Ozone."  This
10   was also submitted to the EPA as comments.
11   This report was peer-reviewed by highly
12   qualified scientists and medical doctors and
13   reviewed by the board of directors of the
14   Annapolis Center.  I will quickly review the
15   following major summary points from the
16   report.
17               Since EPA last reviewed the
18   national ozone air quality standards in 1997,
19   there have been limited, if any, developments
20   in epidemiology, toxicology, or the background
21   science that would support a revision of the
22   standards.
23               The recommendations regarding
24   primary and secondary standards in the EPA's
25   final Ozone Staff Paper and the CASAC's
0115
 1   October 24th of 2006 letter to the
 2   administrator are premised on estimates of
 3   health risks from exposure to concentrations
 4   of ambient ozone.  However, the estimates
 5   considered were based on an incomplete
 6   assessment of the uncontrollable background
 7   levels of ozone.  EPA assumes that there will
 8   be zero emissions from human activities in
 9   North America.  This results in an
10   overstatement of health risks.
11               EPA and CASAC have overestimated
12   the magnitude and consistency of -- and
13   underestimated the uncertainty in -- the
14   results of acute epidemiologic studies,
15   especially for emergency room visits and
16   hospitalizations for asthma and other
17   respiratory disorders, school absences, and
18   mortality.  In addition, EPA overstates the
19   likelihood of causality, particularly in the
20   more serious endpoints and at lower ozone
21   concentrations.
22               With respect to the primary
23   standard, the Annapolis Center's reports found
24   that:  Ozone is a respiratory irritant, but
25   the risk of respiratory effects is now lower
0116
 1   than thought in 1997; the EPA and its science
 2   advisors have recommended a tightening of the
 3   standard relying on an inappropriate computer
 4   model to estimate the uncontrollable
 5   background of ozone; the EPA has
 6   misrepresented the Adams 2006 clinical study,
 7   the only controlled study that allegedly
 8   supports making the existing primary standard
 9   more stringent.  These studies are
10   inconsistent, provide a biologically
11   implausible range of results, and do not
12   establish cause and effect.
13               With respect to the secondary or
14   welfare standard, the report found:  The staff
15   recommendation to consider the addition of a
16   unique seasonal standard to protect vegetation
17   does not sufficiently address the
18   uncertainties and the limitation of such a
19   standard; since no new data has been presented
20   since 1997 to reduce the uncertainties and
21   limitations of a cumulative seasonal standard,
22   there is no compelling reason to change the
23   current secondary standard.
24               I ask you to not only review the
25   science in this report, but truly consider its
0117
 1   findings when making your decision.  A hasty
 2   decision to impose more stringent ozone
 3   standards based upon a flawed review will
 4   serve no one and will have unforeseen
 5   implications and staggering costs.
 6               Thank you.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 8   comments.
 9               Ms. Shprentz?
10               MS. SHPRENTZ:  Good morning.  I'm
11   Deborah Shprentz, and I serve as a technical
12   consultant to the American Lung Association on
13   the review of the ozone standard.  My time is
14   limited, so with apologies to David Letterman,
15   I've drawn up a list of just the top ten
16   studies demonstrating adverse effects of ozone
17   at low concentrations.
18               Number 10.  Koken (2003):  This
19   study tracked cardiovascular hospital
20   admissions of seniors at 11 Denver county
21   hospitals over a four-year period.
22   Researchers found that ozone increased the
23   risk of hospitalization even at levels that
24   meet federal air quality standards.  Daily
25   average ozone concentrations were 25 parts per
0118
 1   billion, and the maximum concentrations in
 2   this study were 40 parts per billion.
 3               Number 9.  Brunekreef (1994):
 4   This study looked at the effects of ozone in
 5   amateur bicyclists.  Researchers collected
 6   lung function measurements before and after
 7   summer training sessions or competitive races.
 8   Ozone concentrations were low on most
 9   occasions, with an average of 43 parts per
10   billion.  These low concentrations were
11   significantly associated with a decline in
12   lung function and an increase in respiratory
13   symptoms, especially shortness of breath.  The
14   effect persisted even after removing all
15   observations with hourly ozone concentrations
16   greater than 60 parts per billion.
17               Number 8.  Medina-Ramon (2006):
18   A very large study of Medicare recipients in
19   36 US cities evaluated the effect of ozone on
20   respiratory hospital admissions in the elderly
21   over a 13-year period.  The analysis found
22   that the risk of daily hospital admissions for
23   COPD and pneumonia increased with short-term
24   increases in ozone concentrations.  The 8-hour
25   mean ozone concentrations ranged from 15 parts
0119
 1   per billion to 63 parts per billion, with most
 2   cities in the 40 to 55 part per billion range.
 3               Number 7.  Dales (2006):  This
 4   study examined 15 years of data on newborns in
 5   11 large Canadian cities to determine the
 6   influence of gaseous air pollutants on daily
 7   hospitalizations for respiratory causes.
 8   Ozone concentrations were extremely low,
 9   ranging from a 24-hour mean of 13 to 23 parts
10   per billion.  Although hospital admissions for
11   respiratory diseases are relatively uncommon
12   in newborns compared with adults, this study
13   found a strong association with ozone.  In
14   fact, the study suggests that air pollution at
15   ambient levels seen in Canada could account
16   for 15 percent of hospital admissions in
17   newborns.
18               Number 6.  Naeher (1999):
19   Scientists examined the relationship between
20   air pollution and daily changes of lung
21   function in 500 non-smoking women in Roanoke,
22   Virginia.  A 30 part per billion increment in
23   daily average ozone was associated with a
24   decrease in respiratory function.  Ozone
25   concentrations in this study were well below
0120
 1   the current 8-hour standard.  The daily mean
 2   maximum 8-hour concentration was 54 parts per
 3   billion, and concentrations never exceeded 88
 4   parts per billion.
 5               Number 5.  Brauer (1996):  A
 6   study of the effect of ozone exposure on lung
 7   function of outdoor farm workers was
 8   undertaken in British Columbia.  The mean
 9   workshift concentrations were low, just 26
10   parts per billion, with a maximum of 54 parts
11   per billion.  The study found that exposures
12   were associated with decreased lung function
13   over the day, which persisted to the following
14   day.  Even after excluding all days when the
15   ozone was greater than just 40 parts per
16   billion, investigators still observed reduced
17   lung function.
18               Number 4.  Chan (2005):  This
19   study reported acute lung function decline in
20   mail carriers exposed to ozone concentrations
21   below the current standard.  The average
22   8-hour concentrations of ozone in this study
23   was 36 parts per billion, and the maximum
24   concentration was 65 parts per billion.  Each
25   10 part per billion increase in the 8-hour
0121
 1   concentration decreased the respiratory peak
 2   flow rate in the evening hours.
 3               Number 3.  Mortimer (2002):  The
 4   effect of daily air pollution was examined in
 5   a cohort of asthmatic children in eight urban
 6   areas in a long-term study.  The 8-hour
 7   average daytime ozone concentrations were 48
 8   parts per billion, with a range across cities
 9   of 34 to 58 parts per billion.  Adverse
10   effects were observed in all cities.
11                       - - -
12               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
13                       - - -
14               MS. SHPRENTZ:  The summertime
15   ozone at levels below the current standards
16   was significantly related to respiratory
17   symptoms and decreased pulmonary function in
18   children with asthma.
19               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
20   for your comments, and we'll obviously enter
21   the rest of your testimony into the record, as
22   we will with all others.  Thank you very much.
23               The next speakers Walter Tsou and
24   Lorraine Krupa-Gershman.
25               Mr. Tsou, you are our next
0122
 1   speaker.
 2               MR. TSOU:  Thank you.  I'm Dr.
 3   Walter Tsou, past president of the American
 4   Public Health Association and currently a
 5   public health consultant.  I will be speaking
 6   today on behalf of APHA.
 7               We strongly support the goal of a
 8   0.060 parts per million 8-hour ozone standard
 9   and the reinstatement of the one-hour primary
10   ozone standards for peak emissions.  These
11   standards are consistent with the margin of
12   safety needed to protect sensitive populations
13   as required by the Clean Air Act.
14               Ground-level ozone is a main
15   ingredient of smog and is created by the
16   chemical reactions between the oxides of
17   nitrogen and volatile organic compounds under
18   sunlight.  Its harmful medical effects are
19   well-documented and include chest pain,
20   coughing, throat irritation, and congestion,
21   even in healthy individuals.  According to the
22   EPA, it can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and
23   asthma and also can reduce lung function and
24   inflame the lining of the lungs.  Repeated
25   exposure may permanently scar lung tissue.
0123
 1               Multiple studies have examined
 2   the effect of our current ozone standard of
 3   0.080 parts per million on healthy individuals
 4   and have found evidence of reactive airway
 5   disease, inflammation of the lung, and reduced
 6   lung function.  For ethical reasons, these
 7   experiments are not done on people with known
 8   compromised lung function or children, but we
 9   can anticipate that an even lower threshold is
10   needed to protect these sensitive populations.
11               Your own Clear Air Scientific
12   Advisory Council ozone panel came to a similar
13   conclusion to support tighter standards below
14   0.070, as expressed in October 24th, 2006
15   letter to your agency and reaffirmed in a
16   March 26th, 2007 letter.
17               Several other organizations have
18   also examined public studies and have
19   recommended lowering the ozone standard, most
20   notably, the World Health Organization to
21   0.051 parts per million, and the California
22   Air Resources Board, which has recommended a
23   level of 0.070 parts per million.
24               We believe that the current
25   standard of 0.080 parts per million fails to
0124
 1   protect the public's health.  As you are
 2   aware, the rounding loophole means that the
 3   0.080 parts per million standard is treated in
 4   practice as 0.085.  The American Lung
 5   Association, as you have heard just a few
 6   minutes ago, their extensive review of the
 7   health effects of the current standard
 8   concludes that harmful lung effects can be
 9   found at the 0.080 parts per million level and
10   even lower and that we need to reduce the
11   NAAQS ozone level to ensure an adequate margin
12   of safety, especially for seniors, children,
13   outdoor workers, asthmatics, and those with
14   other lung diseases.
15               We also support a reinstatement
16   of the one-hour primary standard for areas
17   that may meet the 8-hour standard but have
18   high peak emissions.  This ensures a level of
19   expected protection for the public.
20               Thank you for the opportunity to
21   express our strong support of stronger ozone
22   standards for our country and your efforts to
23   protect the health of the public from
24   environmental pollution.
25               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
0125
 1   comments.
 2               Ms. Krupa-Gershman?
 3               MS. KRUPA-GERSHMAN:  Good
 4   morning.  My name is Lorraine Krupa-Gershman,
 5   and my statement is on behalf of the American
 6   Chemistry Council, herein referred to as ACC.
 7               ACC represents the leading
 8   companies engaged in the business of
 9   chemistry.  We believe that EPA's existing
10   ozone standard, through a series of
11   significant emission control programs, will
12   continue to provide ample protection of public
13   health.
14               ACC believes in appropriately
15   peer-reviewed sound science and would support
16   a new standard if the science demonstrated
17   that it is justified.  We do not believe that
18   the current scientific evidence clearly
19   supports lowering of the ozone standard at
20   this time.  Thus, EPA and states should focus
21   on fully implementing the existing ozone
22   standard before adopting any lower standard,
23   such as those proposed on June 20th, 2007.
24               ACC members understand and value
25   the importance of clean air, and we support
0126
 1   protecting public health and the environment,
 2   as demonstrated by the industries significant
 3   and continued progress in reducing our
 4   emissions through our responsible air program.
 5   More broadly, the nation's air quality has
 6   significantly improved and continues to
 7   improve with new voluntary and regulatory
 8   programs being implemented, as documented in
 9   EPA's own Air Trends Report.
10               I'm here to focus on the science
11   used to evaluate the ozone standard.  An
12   ongoing and thorough review of the science
13   evidence does not support the EPA's conclusion
14   that the existing standard needs to be made
15   stricter to protect public health.  There are
16   numerous questions regarding the state of the
17   science, and in particular, whether or not
18   there have been any significant developments
19   in the past ten years that would warrant
20   further tightening of the standard.  Recent
21   studies contain inconsistent or conflicting
22   data and consequently do not support a
23   particular numeric change in the current
24   standard.
25               I'll briefly touch on some of
0127
 1   these concerns with the science.  With respect
 2   to mortality, the evidence presented does not
 3   confirm that ozone exposure causes premature
 4   death.  There are inconsistent findings and
 5   weaknesses in some studies, different lag
 6   times were used in the analyses, and
 7   co-pollutants were inadequately addressed in
 8   many studies and overall not adequately
 9   addressed by the EPA in the analysis.  This is
10   not sound science.  It's inconclusive with
11   respect to proving cause and effect.
12               For Adams Chamber Studies, the
13   Adams' publication show no specifically
14   significant difference at 60 or 40 ppb.  EPA
15   mischaracterizes the Adams' results in the
16   staff paper and uses them to provide support
17   for a (inaudible) that significant lung
18   function effects are found at concentrations
19   less than 80 ppb.  This is an erroneous
20   misinterpretation by the EPA and poor
21   characterization of the science.
22               Dr. Adams himself clearly
23   disagreed with EPA, as evidenced by his
24   statement at the March 2007 CASAC meeting.
25   Neither the individual studies nor EPA's
0128
 1   analysis adequately takes into account
 2   possible confounding by pollutants other than
 3   ozone.  Sound scientific analysis requires
 4   adequate consideration of confounders in order
 5   to identify the true cause/effect
 6   relationship.
 7               Sound scientific analysis also
 8   requires consideration and quantification of
 9   all major sources of uncertainty.  EPA has not
10   adequately evaluated the uncertainty of the
11   quantitative estimates.  The agency included
12   only one source of uncertainty in its
13   calculations and ignored many others, such as
14   differences in (inaudible), the time period,
15   and a lot of uncertainties.
16               Revising the ozone standard would
17   have significant consequences for the country.
18   These consequences should be borne if there
19   were truly a public health benefit, which the
20   science has not shown, if the standard is
21   lowered.  If the standard is revised to the
22   lower end of the CASAC recommended range, the
23   numbers of counties designated as being
24   non-attainment would triple from today's
25   number and would include both rural and urban
0129
 1   counties.  Being designated as non-attainment
 2   can adversely impact communities, making it
 3   more difficult to attract and retain industry
 4   and sustain economic growth and vitality.  For
 5   industry, being located in a non-attainment
 6   area often results in increased operating
 7   costs, permitting delays, and restrictions on
 8   expansion.
 9               EPA's RIA indicates that 27
10   states will have regions projected by the EPA
11   to be unable to achieve the lower range of the
12   proposed 70 ppb standard even with application
13   of all known control measures.  Adopting a new
14   lower standard for ozone, which EPA projects
15   would be unattainable using presently
16   available controls, would be detrimental to
17   states as a struggle to implement and achieve
18   the current standard.
19               Finally, I want to mention the
20   increased energy costs of lowering the
21   standards.  We've already seen firsthand the
22   skyrocketing costs of energy in the country,
23   both for automotive fuel as well as natural
24   gas, which is increasingly used to heat our
25   homes and fuel our electrical-generating
0130
 1   capacity.  Revising the ozone standard as
 2   proposed would increase the demands on our
 3   nation's already burdened natural gas supply.
 4               In conclusion, our review of the
 5   science does not support changing the current
 6   ozone standard.  ACC recommends that EPA
 7   retain the current standard and not
 8   significantly lower the standard further as
 9   proposed.  Implementation of the current
10   standard will continue to provide necessary
11   health protection.  As the science develops
12   further, EPA will once again have the
13   opportunity to determine if any additional
14   actions would be warranted in the future.
15               Thank you very much.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
17   statement.
18               Our next speakers are Dr. Gregory
19   Kane and Ben Dunham.
20               Dr. Kane, you're our next
21   speaker.
22               DR. KANE:  Thank you very much.
23               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
24               DR. KANE:  I appreciate the
25   opportunity to be here and to address you on
0131
 1   this very important topic.  I have some
 2   comments which I would like to read, and then
 3   I would like to tell you a personal story
 4   about a patient or two who have been adversely
 5   affected by ozone pollution right here in our
 6   beloved city of Philadelphia.
 7               As we know, ozone pollution
 8   threatens public health.  It's a powerful
 9   oxidant which can burn the lungs, burn the
10   airways, and affects seniors, adults, and
11   children all across the nation.  The more we
12   have learned about ozone pollution, the more
13   we understand about how dangerous it is.
14               The Clean Air Scientific Advisory
15   Committee, the EPA's own independent science
16   advisors, reviewed a 2,000-page summary of the
17   scientific research and the health impacts of
18   ozone and unanimously concluded that the
19   current ozone standard is not adequate to
20   protect human health.
21               The WHO, the American Academy of
22   Pediatrics, the State of California's EPA, and
23   others have called for stricter ozone
24   standards, particularly, bringing the standard
25   from the current 0.080 parts per million down
0132
 1   to at least 0.060 parts per million.  We have
 2   devastating evidence that there is an effect
 3   of ozone at the current standards that is
 4   harmful for our patients.
 5               I want to tell you just about a
 6   couple patients that I treat in my own
 7   practice that I believe are adversely affected
 8   by ozone.  To protect the patient's
 9   confidentiality, I won't use their complete
10   name.  But Jennifer is a mother of four.  She
11   lives in South Philadelphia, some 10 to 15
12   blocks from where we are right now.  She has
13   severe asthma, and since relocating to
14   Philadelphia with her husband for his
15   professional activities, she has seen an
16   increasing frequency of flare-ups.  When she
17   has a flair, she has sometimes had to ask her
18   young son to call 911 to get the fire rescue
19   squad so she can come to the hospital.  During
20   the last three years, despite good medical
21   care, she has visited our emergency room on
22   three separate occasions.  She does not have
23   pets in her home.  She has taken all of the
24   measurable steps that a patient with asthma
25   could take to protect herself, and yet she
0133
 1   continues to suffer with frequent
 2   exacerbations that have increased since she
 3   has moved into the heart of the city, where
 4   levels of ozone pollution, particularly in the
 5   summer months, are at increased levels.  It's
 6   because of vulnerable patients like Jennifer
 7   that we have to adopt a stricter standard to
 8   protect the public health.
 9               Elizabeth is an African-American
10   woman with bad COPD who is also in my
11   practice.  She is no longer smoking
12   cigarettes.  She requires home oxygen because
13   of the severity of her lung disease.  And
14   while the majority of her lung disease was
15   probably created by exposure to cigarette
16   smoke, her exacerbations and flares vary
17   precipitously depending on the ambient
18   pollutant levels in Philadelphia and, in
19   particular, the high levels of ozone during
20   the summer months.
21               When I see these patients suffer
22   and I look at the scientific evidence that's
23   accumulated, I believe that it's the duty of
24   the EPA to take a stronger step to protect the
25   citizens of this country, and I believe that
0134
 1   they should adopt a 0.060 parts per million
 2   threshold, as one that gives us a safe margin
 3   for error to ensure that we protect our
 4   patients and our citizens.
 5               Thank you very much for allowing
 6   me to come today.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 8   comments.
 9               Mr. Dunham?
10               MR. DUNHAM:  Good afternoon.  My
11   name is Ben Dunham, and I'm probably on your
12   schedule for the 2:20 slot, but I just
13   couldn't wait to get up here.
14               I'm the associate legislative
15   counsel for the Earth Justice Legal Defense
16   Fund.  We're associated to the national
17   non-profit law firm founded in 1971 as the
18   Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.  Earth Justice
19   represents, without charge, hundreds of public
20   interest clients, large and small, in order to
21   reduce water and air pollution, prevent toxic
22   contamination, safeguard public lands, and
23   preserve the endangered species and wildlife
24   habitat.
25               I'm here today to urge the EPA to
0135
 1   fulfill the mandate of the Clean Air Act to
 2   protect the public health with an adequate
 3   margin of safety by strengthening the 8-hour
 4   ozone standard to no greater than 0.060 parts
 5   per million.
 6               Breathing ozone-polluted air has
 7   been compared to rubbing sandpaper in the
 8   lungs.  Ozone is a powerful respiratory
 9   irritant associated with increased risk of
10   asthma attacks, inflammation of the lung
11   lining, wheezing, coughing, shortness of
12   breath, and chest pain.  There's now even
13   evidence that ozone pollution can kill.
14               A 14-year study of 95 US cities
15   linked short-term increases in ozone pollution
16   to increased deaths from heart and lung
17   problems.  Even at levels below the current
18   standard, the relationship between smog and
19   early death was evident.
20               Ozone also contributes to global
21   warming.  EPA has concluded that ozone is a
22   potent greenhouse gas, and new research shows
23   that by blinding leaves (ph) and reducing the
24   rate of photosynthesis, ozone can stunt plant
25   growth, thus reducing plant facilities that
0136
 1   act as a sink for greenhouse gas.
 2               The Clean Air Act, when used as
 3   its framers intended, is one of the most
 4   effective environmental laws ever written.
 5   Each year the Clean Air Act prevents well over
 6   a few hundred thousand premature deaths, more
 7   than 650,000 cases chronic bronchitis, over
 8   200,000 hospital admissions, more than 200
 9   million respiratory ailments, and over 22
10   million lost work days.
11               Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is
12   responsible for promulgating National Ambient
13   Air Quality Standards to protect public health
14   with an adequate margin of safety.  The
15   Supreme Court has held that in setting or
16   advising air pollution standards, EPA cannot
17   consider implementation costs.  Only health
18   impacts.  Courts have also found that NAAQS
19   must be set at levels that protect not just
20   healthy adults, but also sensitive populations
21   like elderly and children.
22               In short, the Clean Air Act was
23   intended to make the air safe for all
24   Americans to breathe.  The current standard of
25   0.080 parts per million does not fulfill that
0137
 1   mandate, nor would the proposed standard of
 2   0.070 to 0.075 parts per million.  The most
 3   recent science shows that a standard of 0.060
 4   parts per billion is necessary to protect
 5   public health with an adequate margin of
 6   safety.
 7               EPA's Clean Air Scientific
 8   Advisory Committee, an independent board of 23
 9   scientists that advise the EPA on the latest
10   research and scientific findings, found that
11   the current standard for ozone is not strong
12   enough to protect public health.  The
13   committee specifically found that, quote,
14   retaining the current standard would continue
15   to put large numbers of individuals at risk
16   for mortality.  The science studied a broad
17   range of studies that found, quote, an
18   increase in mortality reported at exposure
19   levels well below the current standard.  As a
20   result, the committee unanimously recommended
21   that EPA set the ozone standard at 0.060 to
22   0.070 parts per million.
23               The EPA's Children's Health
24   Advisory Committee went a step farther and
25   recommended setting the standards at 0.060
0138
 1   parts per billion, citing children's
 2   sensitivity to ozone.  Experts from public
 3   health, including the American Thoracic
 4   Society, the American Lung Association, and
 5   the American Public Health Association have
 6   also called for a standard of 0.060 parts per
 7   million.
 8               In this day and in this country,
 9   we ought to be able to provide an environment
10   where it's safe for kids to play outside
11   without parents having to worry that they'll
12   end up in a hospital just from breathing the
13   air.  The same goes for senior citizens that
14   want to take a walk in the park.
15               The Clean Air Act provides all of
16   us with a right to air that is safe to
17   breathe, and it is EPA's job to adopt
18   standards that make that right a reality.  In
19   light of the recommendations of dozens of
20   public health groups and scientific studies
21   showing adverse health effects at levels below
22   0.060 parts per million, Earth Justice urges
23   the EPA to put an 8-hour ozone standard no
24   greater than 0.060 parts per million.
25               Thank you.
0139
 1               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 2   comments.
 3               Our next speakers are Janet
 4   MacNeille and Michael Seilback.
 5               It occurs to me I may have messed
 6   up both of those names, so if I did, please
 7   correct me.
 8               Janet, you're our first speaker.
 9               MS. MACNEILLE:  Yes.  And my name
10   is Jeanette MacNeille.
11               MR. PAGE:  Jeanette, all right.
12               MS. MACNEILLE:  I'd like to thank
13   Dr. Kane for coming.  He's one of my former
14   doctors.  I live in this area -- a very good
15   one, I might add.  I live in this area, and,
16   you know, some years ago, I heard on the radio
17   a talk by a man who came from a think tank out
18   in St. Louis.  He said that if you had asthma
19   and wanted to walk, the trick was to readjust
20   your schedule so that you would walk at 5:30
21   in the morning, when the ozone level's just a
22   little bit lower, instead of 8:30 in the
23   morning, when it's higher.
24               He had it wrong.  It's not a
25   question of scheduling.  It's a question of
0140
 1   being able to walk.  I want to walk.  If the
 2   phone rings in my house, I want to be able to
 3   get up and walk and go pick it up.  If the
 4   doorbell rings, the same thing.  I would like
 5   to be able to walk to work.  If I can't do
 6   that and I have to drive, I'd like to be able
 7   to walk up the front steps -- there's a total
 8   of ten at my old office -- and I want to be
 9   able to do it without having to rest for 45
10   minutes before I walk to the second floor.
11               If go to 8th Street on the
12   subway, because I have to get down to
13   Jefferson, to the hospital, I do not want a
14   crisis if the elevator isn't working.  I want
15   to be able to walk up the steps, and I do not
16   want to have an elderly lady with white hair
17   and a cane stop to offer me help because I
18   appear to be so sick.
19               I can go on like this.  You know,
20   if I come to a crosswalk and I want to cross
21   the street, I am perfectly willing to press
22   the button and wait for the light to change so
23   it's clear it's my turn to walk, but I'd like
24   to be able to get to the other side before the
25   light changes again, and I do not want to be
0141
 1   honked at by drivers who do not understand
 2   that I am walking at my maximum speed.
 3               If I go to the emergency room,
 4   quite frankly, I would prefer to walk in.  I'd
 5   like to walk.  And if I'm in the hospital, I
 6   do not want to be pushed by a person, a
 7   volunteer, who is twice my age.  It's
 8   humiliating and unwelcome.
 9               I could give you lots and lots
10   and lots of examples.  Quite frankly, in
11   addition to the ability -- now I'm getting
12   greedy.  In addition to the ability to be able
13   to walk, I would like to be able to run.  On a
14   good day, I'd like to be able to run.  I'd
15   love to play basketball.  I'd like to bicycle.
16   I'd like to go cross-country skiing.  I like
17   ultimate Frisbee.
18               I like all these things, and I'd
19   like to be able to do them too, but I'd give
20   up every one of them if you would yield me the
21   right to walk, the ability simply to walk.
22   And, therefore, for that reason, I'd like to
23   ask on my own behalf and that of millions of
24   other Americans that you lower the ozone
25   standard to 0.060 parts per million, as
0142
 1   requested by the EPA scientists.
 2               Thank you.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 4   comments.
 5               Michael?
 6               MR. SEILBACK:  Good morning.  My
 7   name is Michael Seilback, S-E-I-L-B-A-C-K,
 8   senior director of Public Policy and Advocacy
 9   for the American Lung Association of New York
10   State.  I'm also speaking on behalf of the
11   American Lung Association of the City of New
12   York.  Thank you to the EPA for giving us the
13   opportunity to speak today about proposed
14   strengthening of the National Ambient Air
15   Quality Standard for ozone.
16               While we're pleased that the EPA
17   is taking a step towards cleaner air, this
18   proposal fails to adequately protect public
19   health from this widespread and dangerous air
20   pollutant.  We urge you to set a much more
21   protective health-based standard for ozone.
22               Ozone is a serious lung irritant
23   that burns our lungs and airways, causing them
24   to become inflamed, reddened and swollen, can
25   trigger asthma attacks, cause coughing and
0143
 1   chest pain, reduce lung function, and increase
 2   emergency room visits.  Breathing ozone can
 3   lead to premature death, even at levels which
 4   are considered safe today.
 5               New research has shown us the
 6   devastating effects of ozone even at levels
 7   below EPA's current standard, which indicates
 8   that the current standards are far too weak to
 9   protect public health.  According to the Clean
10   Air Act, air quality standards must be set at
11   levels that protect public health with an
12   adequate margin of safety.  The standards must
13   be based solely on the health effects of
14   ozone.
15               Currently within my state of New
16   York, larger regions are in non-attainment for
17   ozone.  Additionally, the American Lung
18   Association's 2007 State of the Air Report
19   found that of the counties in New York which
20   had ozone monitors, almost 40 percent received
21   a grade of an "F."  From the top of Niagara
22   Falls to the tip of Long Island, far too many
23   New Yorkers are being exposed to unhealthy
24   levels of ozone pollution, and we must do even
25   more to protect them.
0144
 1               As you know, in October 2006, the
 2   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
 3   gathered to review the most up-to-date
 4   research on ozone science.  This committee was
 5   unanimous that there's no scientific basis to
 6   keep the current ozone standard.  They
 7   recommended tightening the range to 0.060 to
 8   0.070 parts per million.  EPA's current
 9   proposal, while certainly a vast improvement,
10   is much less productive than what EPA's own
11   advisory committee recommended is necessary to
12   adequately protect health.  While the proposed
13   standard would certainly improve air quality,
14   it would still leave millions -- it certainly
15   leaves millions of individuals forced to
16   breathe unhealthy levels of ozone.
17               The largest problem with the
18   EPA's proposal is that it leaves the option to
19   retain the current standards.  Overwhelmingly,
20   scientists have said that the current standard
21   doesn't protect public health.  According to
22   EPA Administrator Johnson's own words, and I
23   quote, the impact of ozone is much more
24   significant than we previously thought, end
25   quote.
0145
 1               We urge the EPA to stand up to
 2   the pressure being put on them from polluters
 3   or politicians who'd like to keep the status
 4   quo.  In response to critics today, there's
 5   question that we could both continue to
 6   decrease ozone pollution and fine particle
 7   pollution at the same time.  We must also rely
 8   on sound science, not on public policy centers
 9   who receive vast amounts of funding from the
10   very polluters who are going to benefit from
11   the status quo.
12               The health effects of ozone
13   pollution are clear, and the existing ozone
14   standard fails to protect public health.  The
15   American Lung Associations of New York State
16   and the City of New York urge the EPA to
17   strengthen the standards, follow the
18   recommendations of your advisory committee,
19   and follow the requirements of the Clean Air
20   Act.  Set the 8-hour primary standard for
21   ozone at 0.060 parts per million.  This
22   standard will protect public health with an
23   appropriate margin of safety.  We must not
24   accept anything else.
25               Thank you again for the
0146
 1   opportunity to speak today.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 3   both for coming today.
 4               Our next speakers are John Sherry
 5   and Paul Miller.
 6               Welcome both of you.  Thank you
 7   for coming today.
 8               MR. SHERRY:  My name is John
 9   Sherry, and I am the environmental policy
10   representative to Allyson Schwartz of
11   Pennsylvania, and I am here to submit
12   testimony on her behalf today.
13               Mr. Chairman and members of the
14   panel, I am pleased to submit this testimony
15   on the need to strengthen the Environmental
16   Protection Agency's standards for ozone
17   pollution.
18               As one of the City of
19   Philadelphia's Representatives to the United
20   States House of Representatives, I have been a
21   constant advocate for policies to clean our
22   air and create new sources of home-grown
23   energy, and generally improve our environment.
24               I believe that the United States,
25   as one of the world's leading industrialized
0147
 1   nations, has a responsibility to set a strong
 2   example for the rest of the world when it
 3   comes to environmental protection.  The
 4   proposed rule that we are considering today
 5   should be an excellent chance to set such an
 6   example.
 7               Instead, the Environmental
 8   Protection Agency's June 20th proposal to set
 9   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
10   ozone pollution between 0.070 parts per
11   million to 0.075 parts per million
12   unfortunately misses this important
13   opportunity.  This proposal ignores the
14   unanimous recommendation of the EPA's own
15   scientists, who have concluded that a standard
16   of 0.060 parts per million is needed to
17   protect human health.
18               Scientific studies show that
19   ozone can lead to shortness of breath, chest
20   pains, inflammation of the lung lining,
21   wheezing and coughing, increased risks of
22   asthma attacks, and chronic obstructive
23   pulmonary disease.  In the long term, it can
24   lead to a reduced lung capacity and
25   potentially result in premature death.
0148
 1   Breathing ozone is particularly harmful for
 2   the most vulnerable in our society:  children,
 3   senior citizens, and people with preexisting
 4   respiratory disease.
 5               One-third of the United States'
 6   population resides in counties that have
 7   unhealthful levels of ozone.  Unfortunately,
 8   Southeastern Pennsylvania is one of those
 9   regions where ozone poses a threat to human
10   health.  The American Lung Association
11   recently gave Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester,
12   Delaware, and Montgomery counties "F" grades
13   for their exposure to ozone.  This is simply
14   unacceptable.  Our communities need the EPA to
15   step in and set a standard that will help
16   protect lives and the health of my
17   constituents.
18               That is why I am asking you today
19   on behalf of my constituents and citizens of
20   Pennsylvania to set the standard for ozone
21   pollution at the level recommended by the
22   EPA's scientific advisors.  This action will
23   save lives and ensure cleaner air for our
24   future generations.
25               I appreciate the opportunity to
0149
 1   present my views to you today.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
 3               Mr. Miller?
 4               DR. MILLER:  Good morning.  My
 5   name is Paul Miller.  I am the deputy director
 6   of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
 7   Use Management.  As a change of pace, my
 8   comments will focus entirely on the secondary
 9   ozone NAAQS.
10               Our organization, NESCAUM,
11   spelled N-E-S-C-A-U-M, is an association of
12   state air quality agencies in the six New
13   England states, New Jersey, and New York.  I
14   am speaking today on behalf of NESCAUM's
15   member states on EPA's proposal to revise the
16   secondary National Ambient Air Quality
17   Standard.
18               The secondary NAAQS is a
19   potentially useful air quality management tool
20   that the agency has neglected in recent years,
21   but which is clearly needed in this case to
22   protect vegetation from adverse effects of
23   cumulative seasonal ozone exposures that are
24   not addressed by a shorter term primary ozone
25   NAAQS.
0150
 1               Of the two options proposed by
 2   EPA, NESCAUM supports the option of
 3   establishing a secondary NAAQS in a different
 4   form than the primary.  The secondary NAAQS
 5   based on cumulative seasonal ozone exposure is
 6   much more relevant to protecting economically
 7   or ecologically important crops, forests, and
 8   other sensitive vegetation.  The Clean Air
 9   Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC,
10   strongly endorsed the EPA Staff Paper
11   recommendation that protection of crops and
12   ecosystems, quote, requires a secondary ozone
13   NAAQS that is substantially different from the
14   primary ozone standard in averaging time,
15   level, and form.  In light of the EPA staff
16   and CASAC recommendations and the extensive
17   body of historical and recent monitoring and
18   research data upon which they are based, the
19   option of equating the ozone secondary NAAQS
20   with the 8-hour primary is inappropriate and
21   clearly not supportable by the weight of
22   scientific evidence.
23               We strongly encourage the agency
24   to avoid the flawed rationale employed in the
25   previous 1997 ozone NAAQS review -- that many
0151
 1   of the benefits of a secondary NAAQS would be
 2   achieved if the primary NAAQS were obtained.
 3   This logic is flawed in at least two ways:
 4   First, ozone damage to vegetation persists in
 5   areas that attain the primary NAAQS; and
 6   second, the relationship between short-term
 7   8-hour peak concentrations and longer-term
 8   seasonal aggregation is not constant, but
 9   varies over space and time.
10               Scientific research shows that
11   long-term cumulative exposure to ozone reduces
12   forest productivity.  Recent estimates of
13   seasonal reductions in stem growth for many
14   important eastern US tree species exceeded 30
15   percent in average ozone years, with
16   additional growth decrements of 50 percent in
17   a high-ozone year.  A recent study also finds
18   that increased water transpiration from forest
19   canopies due to chronic exposure to current
20   ambient ozone levels in the eastern United
21   States is linked to decreased stream flow.
22   This indicates that ozone pollution exposure
23   aggregated over the summer growing season not
24   only exacerbates the effects of drought upon
25   forest growth, but upon stream health as well.
0152
 1   In the eastern US, chronically high ozone
 2   occurs across large areas that are important
 3   for agriculture, with crop yield reductions of
 4   5 to 10 percent as ozone level reach 0.050 to
 5   0.070 parts per million, depending on a crop's
 6   sensitivity, and the crop losses continue to
 7   increase with higher ozone concentrations.
 8               For the ozone secondary NAAQS,
 9   NESCAUM supports the concentration-weighted
10   form proposed by EPA, commonly called W126.
11   Furthermore, NESCAUM supports the secondary
12   NAAQS that is within the CASAC recommended
13   range of 7 to 15 parts per million-hours.
14   Adverse effects on forests and crops have been
15   observed with seasonal ozone exposures below
16   the upper end of the range proposed by EPA.
17   For example, trained observers in the national
18   Forest Health Monitoring program routinely
19   observe foliar ozone damage symptoms in
20   sensitive tree species in areas of the NESCAUM
21   region and elsewhere in the eastern US that
22   are in attainment of the current ozone primary
23   and secondary NAAQS and that do not typically
24   experience W126 levels as high as 21 parts per
25   million-hours, which is the upper end of EPA's
0153
 1   proposed range.
 2               As noted by CASAC, and I quote,
 3   the absence of clear-cut lower effects
 4   thresholds for sensitive vegetation combined
 5   with the lower recent estimates of
 6   policy-relevant background emphasizes the
 7   importance of efforts to reduce low- to
 8   mid-range environmental exposures below 0.060
 9   parts per million.  Based on Figures 7B-1 and
10   7B-2 in the Appendices to the EPA Staff Paper,
11   ozone concentrations in this range correspond
12   most closely to the lower end of the proposed
13   EPA and CASAC recommended ranges for the W126
14   form.  The upper end of EPA's proposed range
15   is simply not protective.  Because there could
16   be vegetation effects from ozone exposures
17   occurring at night and during months of the
18   growing season that fall outside of EPA's
19   assumed three-month window, NESCAUM encourages
20   the agency to consider a secondary NAAQS
21   toward the lower end of the CASAC recommended
22   range.
23               NESCAUM will be submitting more
24   detailed written into the docket, and we thank
25   you for your attention to our oral testimony
0154
 1   today.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 3   comments and thank you for coming today.
 4               Our next speakers are Dr. James
 5   Plumb and Peter Javsicas.
 6               Thank you all for coming.  Dr.
 7   Plumb you're next in the order.
 8               DR. PLUMB:  Thank you.  My name
 9   is Dr. James Plumb.  That's P-L-U-M-B.  I'm
10   associate professor of Family and Community
11   Medicine at Jefferson, and I am currently
12   president of Philadelphia Physicians for
13   Social Responsibility.
14               As a practicing physician here in
15   Philadelphia, I am deeply concerned about the
16   health of the public and the impact that the
17   environment has on my patients, and I'm
18   chronically and sadly perplexed why our
19   government supports policies that affect the
20   health and well-being of so many citizens,
21   citizens who I see who have little to no idea
22   about the environmental impact of laws and
23   regulations promulgated by the EPA.
24               I have patients that I saw this
25   morning, both adults and children, who feel
0155
 1   that they are in charge of their health.
 2   They've immunized their children, they've
 3   stopped smoking, they're using their inhalers,
 4   following their diets, taking their
 5   medications, and yet they do not know that
 6   they remain at risk for symptom exacerbation,
 7   more frequent hospitalizations, and premature
 8   death because of the quality of the air they
 9   breathe.
10               I'm working on two major projects
11   in Philadelphia, one of them related to
12   childhood obesity, another in stroke
13   prevention in African-American men.  We are
14   teaching the value of exercise and screening.
15   People are listening.  They're trying to do
16   the right thing.  But walking in this city --
17   the best, most affordable, the most
18   sustainable form of exercise -- may, in fact,
19   be harmful.  Folks are taking their medicines,
20   but the ozone levels may be interfering with
21   optimal control.  Mothers and mothers-to-be
22   are trying their best to ensure healthy
23   children, but their medication use rises, the
24   costs rise, and more side effects of the
25   medication occurs, and this is unacceptable.
0156
 1               Folks in my practice must go
 2   outside to play, to work, and to worship.  It
 3   is our responsibility to protect the lives of
 4   our citizens, and it is my responsibility to
 5   speak up for my patients and my neighbors.  I
 6   teach medical and public health students.
 7   They challenge me to be scientific and
 8   prepared to give them the best information
 9   available.  The evidence of the negative
10   effects of ozone and the health of future
11   patients and clients is mounting.  I tell my
12   students to look at the studies and
13   peer-reviewed publications to learn the
14   physiological and biochemical consequences of
15   ozone.  I tell them that under the Clean Air
16   Act, the EPA must set air quality standards
17   that protect the public health, review these
18   standards every five years, and update them as
19   needed.  I show them that there exists a
20   consensus among medical, nursing, scientific,
21   and public health communities that the current
22   daily and average standards for ozone are not
23   protective of the public's health.
24               It is my responsibility as a
25   physician to ask for myself, my patients, and
0157
 1   my students that the EPA strengthen the 8-hour
 2   ozone standard to 0.060 parts per million.
 3   For the administration and the Environmental
 4   Protection Agency not to do this is an
 5   injustice.
 6               Thank you.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 8               MR. JAVSICAS:  Good morning.  My
 9   name is Peter Javsicas.  I'm the executive
10   director of Pennsylvanians for Transportation
11   Solutions, a statewide advocacy group, and I
12   would like to speak to the issue of airborne
13   pollution, including ozone, from vehicles --
14   trucks and cars -- in Pennsylvania and how
15   this applies nationwide.  I think it's quite
16   relevant to the actions that EPA has under
17   consideration.
18               The costs associated with vehicle
19   emissions are very large.  A growing body of
20   research confirms that exposure to several
21   pollutants produced by cars and trucks have
22   negative health effects, including increases
23   in premature mortality.  Because the amount of
24   emissions generated is not fully justified by
25   the private benefits attributable to the
0158
 1   transportation that caused it, the result is
 2   what economists call a deadweight loss for the
 3   overall economy.  The deadweight loss is the
 4   loss to American consumers resulting from the
 5   misallocation of resources associated with
 6   failure to charge for the cost of vehicular
 7   pollution.  The deadweight loss associated
 8   with failing to price vehicle emissions in
 9   Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania alone, is estimated
10   to be over $70 million, while the total amount
11   of health costs attributable to emissions in
12   Pennsylvania alone is estimated to exceed $1.8
13   billion annually.
14               Currently these vehicle emissions
15   costs are not borne by drivers.  Existing
16   highway user fees -- primarily gasoline and
17   registration fees -- currently collected do
18   not cover the full costs of highway
19   infrastructure, and thus cannot be viewed as
20   taxes that pay for the health costs of
21   emissions.  Charging a user fee on vehicles
22   that reflects the external cost of their
23   emissions would lead to a reduction in driving
24   to a level that more closely reflects the
25   social costs imposed.
0159
 1               Besides reducing the social costs
 2   associated with these unpriced emissions, an
 3   emissions fee could be used to enhance
 4   transportation choices; in particular, the fee
 5   could provide a new, relatively stable source
 6   of funding for public transportation, not only
 7   in cities but in rural areas and small towns
 8   as well.
 9               Proceeds of such a vehicle
10   emission fee in Pennsylvania could exceed
11   $1.67 billion annually.  Of particular
12   significance for Pennsylvania is that a
13   vehicle emissions fee could be expended for
14   non-highway purposes without violating the
15   Pennsylvania constitutional restriction that
16   applies to motor fuels taxes, and that's true
17   of 29 other states as well that have that kind
18   of restriction.  Implementing such a fee
19   apparently could be accomplished without
20   adding a new layer of bureaucracy associated
21   with additional testing of individual cars and
22   trucks.
23               Charging users an emissions fee
24   that reflects the health costs imposed on all
25   Pennsylvanians would generate $1.67 billion --
0160
 1   close to current State revenues derived from
 2   gas taxes.  In this way, a virtuous cycle
 3   could be engendered -- that's a term
 4   economists gave me -- whereby emissions fee
 5   revenues are used to increase transportation
 6   alternations whose pollution impacts are
 7   lower.  Further, the transportation
 8   alternatives would be provided in primarily
 9   urban areas served by transit, precisely the
10   areas where emissions costs are most
11   significant.
12               Although improvements in
13   technology are reducing emissions per mile of
14   travel, this positive development must be
15   weighed against the continued upward trend in
16   vehicle miles traveled leading to increased
17   emissions and associated emissions tax
18   revenues.
19               Our estimate of health costs in
20   Pennsylvania focuses exclusively on emissions
21   generated in urban areas.  In the year 2000,
22   total urban vehicle miles in Pennsylvania were
23   estimated to reach over 66 billion miles, of
24   which 57 billion are attributable to passenger
25   cars, 2.5 billion to heavy trucks, and 5
0161
 1   billion to light trucks.  Given our estimate
 2   of health costs per mile for cars and trucks,
 3   the implied health cost is $1,869,000,000.
 4   The Surface Transportation Policy Project in
 5   Washington, a national advocacy group,
 6   estimates costs for metropolitan areas in
 7   Pennsylvania of roughly 1.1 billion.
 8                       - - -
 9               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
10                       - - -
11               MR. JAVSICAS:  If we base the
12   analysis on the lower STTP health costs, the
13   deadweight would be 42 million and the
14   emission fee revenues would be $980 million
15   instead of 1.67 billion.
16               Is that my bell?
17               MR. PAGE:  Yes, but we'd like to
18   have your whole testimony and enter it into
19   the document.
20               MR. JAVSICAS:  I will submit
21   that, and I want to point out that this is
22   derived from a paper published called "Vehicle
23   Emissions:  the Cost and the Opportunity," by
24   Pierre Vilain.
25               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Thank you very
0162
 1   much, sir.
 2               Our next speakers are Dr. Henry
 3   Weis and Dr. Allen Lefohn.
 4               Good morning, gentlemen.  Dr.
 5   Weis, you're our next speaker.
 6               DR. WEIS:  Thank you.  I am
 7   speaking for myself and do not represent any
 8   group or organization.
 9               The EPA should develop strict
10   rules and measures to reduce and prevent air
11   pollution and should have the cooperation of
12   other parts of our government to enforce them.
13   Relaxing the rules and/or enforcement will
14   sicken more people, and the profit from
15   relaxation will be shared primarily among a
16   few executives and directors of the polluters
17   and some pharmaceutical corporation.
18               Also, the spurt in growth of
19   ethanol is a bad way to reduce pollution.  How
20   much additional energy is used to grow and
21   process ethanol, with all the energy used to
22   grow and process the corn?  I believe we have
23   a negative result here.  More pollutants are
24   created, and less usable energy created than
25   is made available in the ethanol.
0163
 1   Additionally, the cultivation of corn or other
 2   grains for ethanol reduces the food supply and
 3   will increase starvation and malnutrition
 4   worldwide.
 5               The EPA should be encouraged to
 6   stimulate research in energy from molecular,
 7   solar, wind, and geothermal sources.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much,
 9   sir.  Appreciate your coming here today.
10               MR. LEFOHN:  Thank you very much.
11   My name is Allen S. Lefohn.  I received a
12   Ph.D. in 1969 at the University of California
13   at Berkeley.  I perform research in the areas
14   of air quality characterization and exposure-
15   and dose-response on both human health and
16   vegetation effects.  I have published over 100
17   papers in the peer-review literature.
18   Government, industry, and environmental groups
19   support and rely on the research I perform.  I
20   was a senior author for the EPA's Ozone
21   Criteria Document and am the scientist who
22   developed the W126 exposure index, which, as
23   you know, the EPA is currently proposing as
24   one form of the vegetation ozone standard.
25               I'm testifying today on the
0164
 1   application of science and its use in the
 2   current national debate on ozone standards.
 3   Many times in the political and policy arena,
 4   science is applied in inappropriate ways.  I
 5   believe such has occurred in the area of the
 6   human health risk that was performed by the
 7   agency.
 8               The unfortunate decision by the
 9   EPA not to utilize the available ozone
10   background monitoring data has resulted in
11   large overestimates of the number of
12   individuals who suffer sickness and even
13   premature deaths from ozone exposures.  In
14   addition, at this time there is insufficient
15   evidence to draw conclusions about the effects
16   of ozone below 0.080 using the human
17   laboratory experiments.  Given the current
18   information available, it is my opinion that
19   the EPA cannot rely on either the community
20   time-series results or the human laboratory
21   experimental studies for assessing the effects
22   of ozone on human health below 0.080.
23               You have heard and will continue
24   hear in the news about the number of
25   individuals who suffer sickness and even
0165
 1   premature deaths from ozone exposures.  The
 2   generation of the numbers is mostly associated
 3   with health risk analyses to utilize, one,
 4   community epidemiological time-series and,
 5   two, human laboratory experimental studies.
 6   One of the key inputs into the risk analysis
 7   is the range of background ozone
 8   concentration.  On the left, if EPA
 9   underestimates background ozone, then, in a
10   reverse way, the agency overestimates; in
11   other words, the background needs to go higher
12   because of an underestimate, the effects go
13   down in prediction.
14               Starting in 2005, evidence was
15   presented to EPA's CASAC that monitoring data
16   existed for identifying background ozone
17   (Oltmans and Lefohn, 2005) and that EPA's
18   modeled estimates were too low.  In February
19   2006, in its Ozone Criteria Document, EPA
20   concluded that no background monitoring sites
21   existed in North America, and, therefore, the
22   agency had no choice but to use a model to
23   estimate background ozone levels.  In January
24   2007, EPA changed its opinion and reported in
25   its Staff Paper that background ozone
0166
 1   monitoring data do exist.  In its March 26,
 2   2000 letter to the EPA administrator, CASAC
 3   concluded that EPA did not provide sufficient
 4   evidence to support its estimates of
 5   background ozone.
 6               EPA's model underestimated
 7   background ozone, and as a result, the agency
 8   overestimated the number of sick individuals
 9   and premature deaths associated with ozone
10   pollution.  Using EPA's criterion for its
11   sensitivity analysis using different
12   background levels, I estimated that by
13   modifying EPA's estimated ozone background
14   levels by 5 ppb -- in other words, increasing
15   it -- for Los Angeles there would be as much
16   as 86 percent reduction in the estimates for
17   non-accidental mortality for the agency's
18   various alternative proposed standards.  If
19   the agency had used actual background data
20   which shows observed actual background at
21   Trinidad Head, California, the top curve, at
22   levels as much as 22 ppb higher than modeled
23   background, it is my opinion that the 86
24   percent reduction for non-accidental mortality
25   would have been even greater.
0167
 1               This figure represents the
 2   exposure-response curve used in estimating the
 3   number of individuals exhibiting lung function
 4   decrements.  The EPA, to assess the effects on
 5   school age children and asthmatic school age
 6   children, use this curve.  Focus, please, on
 7   the green line, that is the line at 0.080.
 8   For the 0.060 ppm level, only one subject out
 9   of 30 experienced and FEV-1 greater than/equal
10   to 10 percent for the constant 0.060
11   concentration, while two subjects out of 30
12   responded to FEV-1 greater than 10 percent for
13   the variable 0.060.  By the way, I designed
14   these exposures for Bill Adams.
15               Research results published by
16   Bill Adams, a colleague of mine, formed the
17   basis for these data points.  Adams 2002 and
18   2006 reported no statistically significant
19   effects for lung function decrements at either
20   0.040 or 0.060.
21               Adams reported no subjects who
22   experienced and FEV-1 greater than 10 --
23                       - - -
24               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
25                       - - -
0168
 1               MR. LEFOHN:  -- percent at the
 2   0.040 in 2006, but he did -- there was one
 3   reported, but rare data.
 4               I will report the rest of this
 5   testimony for you.  Thank you.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 7               Our next speakers are John
 8   Kinsman and Howard Feldman.
 9               Thank you for coming today.  Mr.
10   Kinsman, you're next.
11               MR. KINSMAN:  My name is John
12   Kinsman, and I am director, Air Quality
13   Programs at the Edison Electric Institute.  It
14   is the association of US shareholder-owned
15   electric companies.  Our members represent
16   about 70 percent of US electric power
17   industry.
18               The electric power sector emits
19   about 10 percent of the combined national
20   emissions of nitrogen oxides, NOx, and
21   volatile organic compounds, VOCs, the two
22   primary precursors to the formation of ozone.
23               Numerous Clean Air Act programs
24   have reduced eastern US summer ozone-season
25   NOx emissions by 70 percent since 1990 from
0169
 1   power plants.  The EPA's Clean Air Interstate
 2   Rule, CAIR, will reduce annual NOx emissions
 3   further starting in 2009 and again in 2015.
 4               Our testimony today highlights
 5   our concerns with the EPA's proposed revisions
 6   to the primary standard which would cause
 7   hundreds of counties to become non-attainment
 8   or fail the standard.
 9               While public health is paramount,
10   EPA needs to be sure that any additional
11   regulations imposed on the states will produce
12   real health benefits.  Dr. Roger McClellan,
13   past Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
14   chair, testified before the US Senate in July
15   and stated:  In my professional judgment, the
16   administrator's proposed decision to revise
17   the existing 8-hour ozone primary standard by
18   lowering the level to within the range of
19   0.070 to 0.075 ppm is a policy judgment based
20   on a flawed and inaccurate presentation of the
21   science.
22               In 1997, EPA established the
23   current 8-hour standard which it defined has
24   requisite to protect public health.  There
25   have been no significant developments since
0170
 1   1997 that support changing the standard.
 2   Claims supporting significant effects of ozone
 3   on healthy adults below the current standard
 4   and linking ozone to premature mortality have
 5   significant limitations.
 6               The EPA is misinterpreting the
 7   only clinical study that allegedly supports
 8   lowering the existing standard.  A 2006
 9   peer-reviewed study conducted by Dr. William
10   Adams, of the University of California at
11   Davis, which found no statistically
12   significant impact on lung functions from
13   exposure to ozone at levels below the current
14   standard.  However, EPA, over the objections
15   of Dr. Adams, used a different analytical
16   methodology to reach a different conclusion.
17               And the EPA downplays the large
18   uncertainty associated with epidemiological
19   studies.  Almost all of these studies on which
20   the EPA relies in recommending a more
21   stringent ozone standard are based on data
22   from ambient monitors from which there is a
23   poor correlation to actual ozone exposure.
24   And further, the health effects of ozone often
25   are not statistically significant when these
0171
 1   studies consider the effects of multiple air
 2   pollutants.
 3               In fact, the EPA's own draft
 4   Regulatory Impact Analysis concludes that most
 5   of the benefits from reducing ozone actually
 6   are attributable to reducing fine particles, a
 7   totally different air quality issue.
 8               While the science and benefits
 9   are uncertain, the other impacts of tightening
10   the standard are certain and dramatic.
11   Currently, over 400 counties will fail the
12   standard.  Hundreds of counties that finally
13   achieve ozone attainment status in the
14   2007-2009 period are likely to be thrown back
15   into non-attainment in 2010, and hundreds more
16   would join them in non-attainment for the
17   first time ever.
18               In order to meet tighter
19   standards, state and local officials from each
20   of the new non-attainment counties will have
21   to seek emission cuts, not just from large
22   industrial sources, but from a wide range of
23   smaller sources, such as factories, gas
24   stations, small businesses.  Even sources far
25   away from non-attainment areas could be swept
0172
 1   into new regional programs of states and EPA.
 2   The total cost, billions to tens of billions
 3   of dollars.  In fact, EPA's draft Regulatory
 4   Impact Analysis finds that annual costs in
 5   2020 may outweigh benefits by as much as $20
 6   billion.
 7               There are other substantial
 8   penalties on facilities in states that fail
 9   the standard.  New and modified sources in a
10   non-attainment area must offset all of their
11   emissions, plus some, which will discourage
12   existing businesses from expanding and new
13   businesses from investing in hundreds of
14   counties.  To illustrate just how scarce and
15   prohibitively expensive offsets can be, an
16   air-quality agency in California recently
17   decided that sulfur dioxide allowances would
18   cost $34,000 per pound for new electric
19   generators.  A tighter standard will result in
20   higher energy and consumer product costs,
21   which would be especially burdensome for
22   people with low or fixed incomes.
23               Finally, the power sector is
24   concerned about the impacts that a revised
25   ozone standard would have on current NOx
0173
 1   emission control activities under EPA's NOx
 2   SIP call and CAIR programs for the power
 3   generators.  EPA, state environmental and
 4   energy regulators, state legislatures, and our
 5   industry has spent years planning and
 6   implementing strategies for how best to
 7   cost-effectively implement the NOx reductions
 8   in a manner that maintains a reliable power
 9   supply.
10                       - - -
11               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
12                       - - -
13               MR. KINSMAN:  A revised strategy
14   could undo much of that planning, unraveling
15   plans related to trading and controls in small
16   sources.  In conclusion...
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
18   Kinsman.  We'll read your conclusion in the
19   record.  Appreciate your comments today.
20               Mr. Feldman?
21               MR. FELDMAN:  Thank you.  Good
22   afternoon.  I'm Howard Feldman, director of
23   Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at API.  API
24   is the primary trade association for the oil
25   and gas industry, with more than 400 members,
0174
 1   and as you all know, we've been very active in
 2   the ozone processes through the years.  See
 3   any lawsuits that you want to find.
 4               I want to make three points
 5   today:  First, the oil and gas industry is
 6   helping the air get cleaner today and in the
 7   future; second, there's actually far more
 8   debate on the science than what EPA is
 9   representing in this rule-making; and third,
10   the proposed new standards will impose real
11   costs that will not have necessarily
12   commensurate benefits.
13               So API wants to thank -- so far,
14   we're doing a bang-up job, all of us
15   societally, improving the air quality.  Since
16   1990, the oil and gas industry has invested
17   more than $148 billion -- that's billion, with
18   a "B," over there, okay -- towards improving
19   the environmental performance of its products,
20   facilities, and operations.  We've put in
21   place cleaner gasoline and cleaner diesel, and
22   these fuels, along with cleaner equipment,
23   cleaner cars, trucks, and buses are really
24   leading to and will continue to lead to
25   cleaner air quality.  We've also worked with
0175
 1   local and state governments to reduce the
 2   emissions from our facilities.
 3               As you can see from EPA's
 4   figures, my favorite of EPA's figures, which
 5   shows that the emissions from six criteria air
 6   pollutants dropped by 54 percent between 1970
 7   and 2006, while VMTs went up 177 percent.  So
 8   we're seeing real progress, real growth, and
 9   we see how pollution moves, so that's very
10   good.
11               According to TRI, EPA's
12   inventory, shows that since 1998 releases and
13   transfers of toxic chemicals from the
14   petroleum industry has decreased by 66
15   percent.  So all this progress is going to
16   continue.  EPA has already put in place
17   programs that will lead to power plant
18   reduction in the eastern US of 60 percent in
19   the reduction in emissions.  Cleaner gasoline
20   in cars and trucks will lead to 77 to 95
21   percent cleaner products, including lower
22   emissions going forward.  And reductions will
23   come into place as the engines turn to Ultra
24   Low Sulfur Diesel; that will effectively be a
25   90 percent reduction due to Ultra Low Sulfur
0176
 1   Diesel.  So we see progress will continue.
 2               On to my second point, on the
 3   science.  We know that the science is
 4   uncertain and variable.  We've already heard
 5   from Dr. Lefohn very clearly about the issue
 6   of background pollution, so that's out there,
 7   and EPA has not taken that into account
 8   properly.
 9               With respect to health effects,
10   it is -- there's really been only one
11   significant toxicological study since the last
12   rule-making.  This study found no
13   statistically significant lung function
14   impairment at levels below the existing
15   standard.  Nonetheless, EPA staff went on and
16   reanalyzed selected portions of the data,
17   reported finding significant lung functions
18   below the standard.  So EPA appears to be
19   relying on this unpublished, unreviewed staff
20   analysis, one that contradicts the original
21   author's paper, to help support a call for the
22   tighter standard.
23               There's also a lot of
24   inconsistencies within the epidemiology, and
25   Bell, et al. found statistically significant
0177
 1   associations between ozone and mortality in
 2   only 6 of 95 studies.  So this is like going
 3   forward -- it's like analogous to having an
 4   exit poll that shows one candidate leading
 5   with 50 percent, one with 49 percent, plus or
 6   minus, and you're trying to figure out, what
 7   do we know and what don't we now.  But EPA in
 8   this context -- EPA is professing that there's
 9   sufficient scientific certainty to establish
10   the ozone-mortality link, when there's really
11   a lot of uncertainty.
12               Moving on to my third point, a
13   more stringent ozone standard will burden
14   states with new and difficult targets.  Fuels,
15   as I already indicated, we're making
16   tremendous progress with cleaning our air, but
17   at the same time VMT increases and our economy
18   expands.  Many local communities will be
19   saddled with new costs that will hurt both
20   large and small businesses and prevent
21   expansion and growth in many urban and rural
22   counties.  Hurting local economies and
23   citizens without a clear scientific basis for
24   selecting a different numeric standard is not
25   a prudent use of resources.
0178
 1               In closing, API wishes to once
 2   again acknowledge the efforts of EPA, the
 3   states and local communities in providing
 4   cleaner air.  Looking forward, further
 5   improvements will come through current
 6   regulations designed to meet the existing
 7   standards, such as cleaner fuels described
 8   above.  Of course, we all know that the Clean
 9   Air Act mandates that the ozone NAAQS be
10   established based solely on science.
11   Nevertheless, the significant economic impacts
12   of tightening this standard should highlight
13   the importance of getting the science, and the
14   inherent uncertainty in the current science
15   does not support imposing further costs for
16   the uncertain benefits proposed.
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
18   comments, Mr. Feldman.  Thank you all for
19   coming in today.
20               Our next two speakers are
21   Reverend Sandra Strauss and David Friedman.
22               Welcome both of you.  Reverend
23   Strauss, you will be first.  Thank you.
24               REVEREND STRAUSS:  I'm Reverend
25   Sandra L. Strauss, director of Public Advocacy
0179
 1   for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches.  As
 2   an organization made up of 43 member bodies
 3   representing a number of Protestant
 4   communions, we represent thousands of persons
 5   of faith throughout the Commonwealth.  I'm
 6   here to testify today with respect to an issue
 7   that is of significant concern to our
 8   constituents.
 9               As stated in the council's
10   Principles for Public Advocacy, we believe
11   that in a health society, the well-being of
12   all is a priority.  To this end, we join with
13   colleagues like the American Lung Association,
14   the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
15   American Thoracic Society, Public Health
16   Association, and others in calling for an
17   ozone standard of at least 0.060 parts per
18   million as the best means of protecting public
19   health.
20               I understand that the EPA's own
21   scientific advisors have called for a more
22   stringent ozone pollution standard than that
23   which is currently proposed.  Many other
24   medical and consumer interest organizations
25   believe the level must be reduced to at least
0180
 1   a standard of 0.060 parts per million in order
 2   to protect public health.  Therefore, we
 3   believe the current EPA proposal to move to a
 4   range of 0.070 to 0.075 ppms does not do
 5   enough to truly protect the health of all our
 6   citizens.  For us, making the well-being of
 7   all a priority means that the current ozone
 8   standard of 0.080 ppm must be reduced to a
 9   level that scientific and medical experts and
10   even EPA's own experts agree is sufficient to
11   protect citizens from the negative impacts of
12   elevated ozone pollution.
13               We know that ozone pollution is
14   known to present a serious health threat to
15   tens of thousands, if not millions, of
16   Americans.  The American Lung Association
17   estimates that one-third of the country's
18   population lives in areas where ozone
19   concentration reaches levels that threaten the
20   health of many persons.  Certain populations,
21   including children and youth, senior citizens,
22   and those with health problems, especially
23   lung disease, are particularly vulnerable to
24   the negative health effects of ozone.  Most
25   obvious among the dangerous health impacts is
0181
 1   that ozone acts as an irritant to the lungs
 2   and airways -- causing inflammation,
 3   reddening, and swelling.  This alone is more
 4   than enough to endanger those whose health
 5   status is less than perfect and increase the
 6   chance of premature death among those
 7   affected.
 8               However, healthy persons are not
 9   immune from the harmful effects of ozone
10   pollution.  Studies show that at the current
11   level of 0.080 ppm, and even below, healthy
12   persons exhibit negative health outcomes,
13   including decreased lung function and
14   respiratory symptoms ranging from inflammation
15   to infection.
16               The bottom line is that we are
17   concerned that the proposed standard ignores
18   the vulnerability of Americans by failing to
19   strengthen the standard to a level that will
20   do a much better job protecting public health,
21   and we wonder about how the value of lives can
22   be weighed in truly meaningful ways against
23   industry revenues and cost-benefit analyses
24   that claim that the costs are too high.
25               We're concerned that the EPA,
0182
 1   despite its own research and recommendations
 2   to the contrary, would consider bowing to the
 3   demands of certain groups and special
 4   interests.  We believe that this kind of
 5   catering is indicative of a brand of politics
 6   that places the interests of business and
 7   profits over the health and welfare of
 8   individuals.  We believe we have a strong
 9   moral obligation to set standards that protect
10   all people, and we believe that the proposed
11   ozone standard does not.
12               From the perspective of a faith
13   community, those who live in the wrong places,
14   those who work in environments where they are
15   made vulnerable to the impacts of ozone
16   pollution are -- that it's simply wrong to
17   sacrifice their health for a lesser standard.
18   We have the legal obligation as well.  We
19   believe our own Clean Air Act requires that
20   air quality standards be set at levels that
21   protect public health.  Ignoring this
22   obligation in light of our greater knowledge
23   concerning the health effects of ozone
24   pollution violates the law and is immoral.
25               We believe in a society that
0183
 1   works for the wholeness of all people.  We
 2   believe that wholeness is achieved when those
 3   persons know themselves to be worthy of
 4   respect simply because they are, each one,
 5   made in the image of God.  This proposed
 6   standard does not respect the worth of all
 7   Americans and places greater value on some
 8   than others.  Value should not be based on
 9   monetary worth or power of position, upon
10   abilities or disabilities, or upon particular
11   demographic characteristics, but rather upon
12   each person being a part of the human family.
13               We respectfully call upon the EPA
14   to follow the recommendations of its own
15   scientists.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much,
17   Reverend Strauss.
18               David?
19               MR. FRIEDMAN:  Thank you.  I'm
20   David Friedman, director of Environmental
21   Affairs for the National Petrochemical &
22   Refiners Association.  We are a national trade
23   association comprised of about 450 companies,
24   including virtually all of US refiners and
25   petrochemical manufacturers.  The proposed
0184
 1   NAAQS for ozone will have a great impact on
 2   our members, and I thank the EPA for the
 3   opportunity to present our views today.
 4               First of all, my first point is
 5   to reiterate what we've heard earlier this
 6   morning, and that is that air quality is
 7   improving.  According to the EPA, between 1970
 8   and 2006, total emissions for the six
 9   principal air pollutants dropped by 54
10   percent.  Also according to the EPA, between
11   1980 and 2006, the national average for ozone
12   levels decreased by 21 percent.  These
13   accomplishments indicate that the current
14   ozone NAAQS standard is working and that air
15   quality is steadily improving.
16               Our members have significantly
17   reinvested in efforts to improve air quality
18   in the US over the past two decades.  The
19   petrochemical and refining industries have
20   invested billions of dollars to reduce
21   emissions from their facilities.  The refining
22   industry alone spent nearly 50 billion -- as
23   Howard said, that's with a "B" -- to remove
24   sulfur from gasoline and diesel fuels and in
25   providing reformulated gasoline that has
0185
 1   contributed to national air quality benefits.
 2               The cleaner fuels brought to
 3   market and continuing in the future will
 4   result in cleaner air for decades to come as
 5   cleaner engines are put in place.  This
 6   progress will continue.  According to the EPA,
 7   current federal regulations will significantly
 8   reduce ground-level ozone-causing emissions
 9   over the next two decades.  Emissions from
10   power plants will be cut in half by 2015, and
11   emissions from cars and trucks will be reduced
12   by more than 70 percent by 2030.  The current
13   standard is working and will continue to
14   protect public health in the future.
15               However, the science behind
16   lowering the standard is uncertain and
17   variable, and, therefore, this is not the
18   right time to change it.  There are many
19   questions regarding the state of the science,
20   and in particular, whether or not there have
21   been any significant developments over the
22   past decade that would warrant further
23   revision to the standard.  Recent studies
24   present inconsistent or conflicting data, and
25   they do not point to a particular numeric
0186
 1   change to the current standards.
 2               For example, EPA's modifications
 3   in the way it calculated naturally occurring
 4   and other existing ground ozone inflates the
 5   benefits of a new standard by as much as 90
 6   percent.  Even the agency's CASAC, Clean Air
 7   Scientific Advisory Committee, indicated that
 8   EPA did not provide a sufficient base of
 9   evidence to provide that this new method was
10   the best choice.
11               In addition, EPA is relying on
12   highly uncertain epidemiological studies and
13   information as a basis for lowering the
14   standard.  Given the large uncertainty, the
15   evidence the agency is relying upon should not
16   be used to lower the current standard.
17               The EPA's Regulatory Impact
18   Analysis indicates the proposed standard to be
19   unachievable with application of all known
20   measures in many areas of the US.  EPA then
21   extrapolates the application of unknown
22   measures in an attempt to achieve the proposed
23   standard.  In addition, the agency admits that
24   existing technologies are insufficient to meet
25   the proposed standard and simply assumes that
0187
 1   new technologies will become available that
 2   can double emission reductions.
 3               The EPA's own analysis for
 4   revision of this standard shows huge costs
 5   without corresponding benefits.  There is
 6   great uncertainty regarding both benefits and
 7   costs of tightening the standard, with the
 8   agency unable to draw conclusions about
 9   whether the nation would gain or lose as a
10   result of the proposed revision.  EPA's
11   benefits estimates range from $2.5-$33 billion
12   per year, and the cost estimates range from
13   $10-$22 billion per year.  EPA's estimated
14   costs for the proposed rule would make it
15   among the most expensive federal regulations
16   ever issued, environmental or otherwise.
17               For these reasons, NPRA supports
18   retention of the primary standard.  At this
19   time, based on the state of the science,
20   replacing EPA's current NAAQS for ground-level
21   ozone to 0.080 ppm is unnecessary.  Many
22   states have not yet completed plans to attain
23   the current standard, so EPA should focus on
24   helping communities meet the current standard.
25   In other words, don't move the goal posts in
0188
 1   the middle of a football game.
 2               Results from mobile and
 3   stationary source emission reductions that are
 4   already on the books must be allowed to come
 5   into effect before a new standard is
 6   considered.  New non-attainment area
 7   designations will hurt both large and small
 8   businesses and prevent expansion and growth in
 9   many urban, suburban, and rural communities.
10   Hurting local economies without a clear
11   scientific basis for selecting a different
12   standard really makes little sense.
13               With the extremely uncertain
14   health benefits, no identification of
15   reasonable prospects to attain the proposed
16   standard changes, and the excessive costs
17   identified in the RIA, we weigh the evidence
18   presented and conclude the proposal is an
19   unacceptable policy recommendation.
20               Again, we're grateful for the
21   opportunity to present our views, and we will
22   be providing written comments further outlying
23   our positions in October.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
25   very much.  Thank you for coming today, both
0189
 1   of you.  Appreciate your comments.
 2               At this time, we're going to take
 3   a break until 2:00 and resume the public
 4   hearing.  For those of you who are in the room
 5   who have testified and came here today, thank
 6   you again.  We appreciate the trouble you've
 7   gone to.  As we said in our opening remarks,
 8   we will take all of this testimony, both the
 9   oral and the submitted written testimony, and
10   it will be a part of the record and it will be
11   reviewed at EPA thoroughly before final
12   decisions are made.
13               We will resume then at 2:00.
14   Thank you.
15                       - - -
16               (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was
17   taken from 12:42 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
18                       - - -
19               MR. PAGE:  Good afternoon.  Thank
20   you for being here.  You're at the public
21   hearing on the EPA's proposed rule regarding
22   revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
23   Standards for ozone.  If you're in the wrong
24   room, you ought to run, because it's going to
25   be an afternoon of testimony by the public,
0190
 1   and we're here to listen.
 2               For those of you who were not at
 3   the first part of this, you are going to be
 4   treated to a special reading of EPA's proposal
 5   and the ground rules for the hearing, and then
 6   after that, we'll start hearing our first
 7   speakers.  So if you will indulge me a couple
 8   of minutes, we're required to do a reading
 9   here, and then we'll get right to you.
10               I'm Steve Page, and I am the
11   director of the Office of Air Quality,
12   Planning, and Standards, which is part of
13   EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.  I
14   appreciate the fact that you all have come and
15   taken the trouble to be here.  Some of you
16   have come from great distances.  We had
17   speakers almost every five minutes this
18   morning representing a variety of views, and
19   we appreciate the effort that people have made
20   coming to this.  We at the EPA consider this
21   to be a very important part of our process.
22   We're here today to listen to your comments on
23   the proposed NAAQS for ozone, and it's your
24   chance, as I said, for you to comment on the
25   EPA's proposed rules.
0191
 1               The panel members, who I'll
 2   introduce in a minute, may answer a question
 3   that seeks to clarify what we have proposed
 4   from you, but we're really here to listen to
 5   your comments, not to discuss or debate the
 6   proposals.  The EPA's proposal is out in the
 7   form of the Federal Register notice that was
 8   issued on July 11th, 2007.  In that regard,
 9   I'd like to kind of summarize that proposal,
10   and then we'll start in with the speakers.
11               Ground-level ozone is the primary
12   component of smog.  It's formed through the
13   reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile
14   organic compounds in the presence of sunlight.
15   Exposure to ozone is associated with an array
16   of respiratory problems, including aggravated
17   asthma, increased susceptibility to
18   respiratory infection, increased doctors'
19   visits, increased emergency department visits
20   and hospital admissions, and premature death.
21               In addition, ground-level ozone
22   can have harmful effects on sensitive plant
23   species -- including trees and crops -- and on
24   the ecosystems they inhabit.  It has been
25   shown that both the level of ozone to which
0192
 1   plants are exposed and the duration of
 2   exposure are important factors in determining
 3   plant response.  The most significant effects,
 4   including biomass loss and yield reductions,
 5   result from the accumulation of ozone
 6   exposures throughout the growing season, with
 7   higher concentrations of ozone producing
 8   greater impacts.
 9               Based on careful review of the
10   large body of scientific evidence now
11   available regarding the health and welfare
12   effects associated with exposure to ozone, the
13   administrator of the EPA has concluded that
14   the current ozone standards are not adequate
15   to protect public health and welfare.  A
16   number of new health studies have been
17   conducted indicating that adverse effects
18   occur following exposure to ozone at levels
19   below the current standard.  Furthermore,
20   these studies indicate that people with
21   respiratory illnesses such as asthma are
22   particularly sensitive to these adverse
23   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies
24   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely
25   affects the growth of sensitive plant species
0193
 1   and may increase their susceptibility to
 2   disease and pests.
 3               After careful consideration of
 4   this scientific evidence, advice for EPA's
 5   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, known
 6   as CASAC, and public comments, the
 7   administrator has proposed to revise both the
 8   primary ozone standard, designed to protect
 9   human health, and the secondary standard,
10   designed to protect welfare, such as
11   vegetation and crops.  Currently, the primary
12   and secondary ozone standards are identical.
13   An 8-hour standard of 0.080 parts per million,
14   which is effectively 0.084 when you do your
15   rounding, that's primary standard.  Under
16   EPA's proposal, each of these standards would
17   be revised, and the form of a secondary
18   standard might change so that it is no longer
19   identical to the primary.  EPA has requested
20   comments on all aspects of its proposal and on
21   alternatives to the proposed revisions.
22   Specifically:
23               With respect to the primary
24   standard to protect public health, the
25   administrator's proposal included:
0194
 1               1.  Revising the level of the
 2   standard to within the range of 0.070 to 0.075
 3   parts per million.  The agency has also
 4   requested comment on alternative levels down
 5   to 0.060 ppm and up to and including retention
 6   of the current standard of 0.084 ppm.
 7               2.  Specifying the level of the
 8   primary standard to the third decimal place is
 9   something we're proposing as well because
10   today's monitors can detect ozone that
11   accurately.
12               With respect to the secondary
13   standard to protect public welfare, EPA
14   proposed two alternations:
15               1.  One option would be to
16   establish a new form of the standard called
17   the W126 that is designed specifically to
18   cumulate ozone exposures and give more weight
19   to higher concentrations.  This form of the
20   standard would add together weighted hourly
21   ozone concentrations measured during the
22   12-hour daylight window from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
23   across the consecutive 3-month period with the
24   highest ozone levels.  EPA is moving to set
25   the level of this cumulative standard within
0195
 1   the range of 7 to 21 parts per million-hours.
 2               2.  Another option that we're
 3   taking comment on would be to revise the
 4   secondary standard so that it is identical to
 5   the proposed primary 8-hour standard the way
 6   it is now.
 7               Additional information on the
 8   proposed rule can be found in the fact sheet
 9   available in the registration area.
10   Publication of the rule, as I mentioned
11   earlier, was on July 11th, 2007, and it marked
12   the beginning of the 90-day public comment
13   period, which closes on October 9th, 2007.  We
14   have handouts available in the registration
15   area with detailed information for how to
16   submit written comments, and we welcome your
17   comments either today or between now and
18   October 9th.  In addition, we have prepared a
19   list of all the topics in the proposed rule
20   that agency is seeking comment on, and this
21   handout is also available in the registration
22   area.  We expect to issue the final rule March
23   12th, 2008.
24               Now let me turn to the comment
25   portion of today's hearing.  This hearing is
0196
 1   one of five public hearings we're holding
 2   across the country.  Today, hearings are being
 3   held in Los Angeles, California, here in
 4   Philadelphia.  Next Wednesday, September 5th,
 5   additional hearings will be held in Houston,
 6   Chicago, and Atlanta.  We will be preparing a
 7   written transcript of each hearing.  The
 8   transcripts will be available as part of the
 9   official record for each rule.
10               Today's hearing will work as
11   follows:  I will call the scheduled speakers
12   to the microphone in pairs.  Please state your
13   name and your affiliation, and it helps the
14   court reporter out a lot if you also spell
15   your name.
16               In order to be fair to everyone,
17   we're asking that you limit your testimony to
18   five minute each and to remain at the
19   microphone until both speakers in a pair have
20   finished.  After you finish your testimony, a
21   panel member may ask clarifying questions.  As
22   I mentioned, we're transcribing today's
23   hearing, and each speaker's oral testimony
24   will become part of the official record.
25   Please be sure to give a copy of any written
0197
 1   comments to our staff at the registration
 2   table, and we'll put the full text of your
 3   written remarks into the docket for you, in
 4   case you don't finish in your oral statement.
 5               We have a timekeeping system
 6   consisting of green, yellow, and red lights.
 7   When you begin speaking -- they're the lights
 8   over here on the corner of this table.  When
 9   you begin speaking, the green light will come
10   on.  You will have five minutes to speak, as I
11   mentioned.  The yellow light will signal that
12   you have two minutes left.  We'll ask you to
13   stop speaking when the red light comes on.
14               We will try to ensure that
15   everyone has an opportunity to comment, and if
16   necessary, we'll stay well into the evening to
17   listen to public comments.  If you would like
18   to testify but have not registered to do so,
19   please sign up at the registration table.  We
20   will take periodic breaks, maybe one this
21   afternoon and then around dinner time.
22               For those of you who have already
23   registered to speak, we've tried to
24   accommodate your requests for specific time
25   slots.  We ask for your patience as we proceed
0198
 1   through the list.  We may need to make some
 2   minor adjustments as the day progresses.
 3               At this point I'd like to
 4   introduce the EPA representatives on our
 5   panel.  To my right and your left is Rosalina
 6   Rodriguez.  She is the associate director of
 7   the Health and Environmental Impacts Division
 8   within the Office of Air Quality Planning and
 9   Standards.  It's Rosalina's office that
10   actually does the drafting and the compiling
11   of the work to present to the administrator.
12               On my left and your right is Judy
13   Katz, the director of the Air Protection
14   Division here in EPA's Region 3.  Judy is a
15   well-known person in the Philadelphia area, as
16   well as through the mid-atlantic; perhaps even
17   nationally and internationally.  She's been a
18   while, just like I have myself.  I've been in
19   the air business for a long time.
20               I'd like to again thank you all
21   for coming today, and at this point I'd like
22   to get started.  Thank you for indulging me in
23   reading the statement.
24               So if the first pair would come
25   up, it's Thomas Au and Mr. Charles Hooker.
0199
 1   And as I said this morning, if I've
 2   mispronounced your name, please feel free to
 3   correct me.  I think the court reporter would
 4   like the spelling as well as the
 5   pronunciation.
 6               Mr. Au, you're our first speaker,
 7   please, sir.
 8               MR. AU:  Thank you for the
 9   opportunity to appear.  I am Thomas Au --
10   that's spelled A-U -- representing the Clean
11   Air Board of Central Pennsylvania, 528 Garland
12   Drive, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
13               The Clean Air Board was formed in
14   the fall of 2005, after over a hundred
15   Cumberland County physicians signed and
16   published in a newspaper an open letter
17   informing community of the growing danger of
18   ozone and particulate pollution.  Initially a
19   small group of people gathered for the
20   position of educating the community and
21   advocating for cleaner air.  We have grown to
22   include not only that base community, but also
23   people in the transportation business,
24   teachers, lawyers, parents, and the medical
25   community.  Our members include people who
0200
 1   suffer ailments from breathing polluted air.
 2               (Inaudible) Valley is in the
 3   receiving end of an ozone-transport corridor
 4   which originates several hundred miles away.
 5   Even on days when an ozone alert has not been
 6   declared, people suffer respiratory problems.
 7   You will hear from two of our members, Charles
 8   Hooker, Jr. and Dee Delp.
 9               The Clean Air Board agrees with
10   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
11   that the primary ozone standard should be
12   between 0.060 ppm and 0.070 ppm and should
13   include an adequate margin of safety to
14   protect the public health.
15               This summer, the ozone monitoring
16   station closest with (inaudible) valley in
17   Harrisburg recorded only two instances when
18   the 8-hour ozone measurement was above 0.080
19   ppm, but recorded 46 instances when the 8-hour
20   ozone measurement was above 0.060.  Now,
21   Cumberland County itself does not have an
22   ozone monitoring station.
23               The EPA needs to adopt a standard
24   that is truly protective for public health.
25   And the Clean Air Board will submit additional
0201
 1   written comments before the closing of the
 2   comment period.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 4               Mr. Hooker?
 5               MR. HOOKER:  I'm Charles Hooker,
 6   Jr.  My son also lives in the area, and he's
 7   Charles Hooker, III, so we have to make the
 8   distinction.  I'm a retired Presbyterian
 9   minister.  I moved down to Mechanicsburg three
10   years ago to be nearer my son and found to my
11   dismay that the air quality in our area was
12   dismal.  That's why I joined the Clean Air
13   Board and have been active in helping them
14   promote their agenda.
15               As Tom says, we live in
16   Cumberland County.  There is no monitor there
17   for ozone, so the nearest is Harrisburg, of
18   course, and I generally check the ozone and
19   the other particular matter before exercising
20   or doing anything -- making any particular
21   exertion.
22               I have had asthma since
23   childhood, chronic obstructive pulmonary
24   disease for probably around 50 years, an
25   aortic valve replacement 12 years ago, and I'm
0202
 1   on medication of Advair, Singulair, and
 2   Albuterol when necessary, and, of course,
 3   aspirin for the heart condition.  I need to
 4   exercise, and if I can't do it outside, I do
 5   have to do it inside.  The pollution does
 6   aggravate the asthma, and as I have said, we
 7   hope that this particular standard may be
 8   adopted.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming.
10   We appreciate it.
11               Oh, and I guess Dee is also --
12   okay.  Very good.
13               MS. DELP:  I'm Dee Delp, and I've
14   been a school crossing guard for 38 years, and
15   I live in Cumberland County, Carlisle, and I
16   have asthma, and I've had it for eleven years,
17   I have diabetes for seven, and cancer for
18   seven, and I'm on Albuterol and Prednisone for
19   my asthma, and Glucophage and so forth for
20   diabetic.
21               I think the trucks and cars
22   emissions is so bad.  We need to go lower.
23   And on days -- I know it's bad trying to stay
24   in.  I'm trying to cross the children, and
25   cars and trucks get too much; I have to put my
0203
 1   hand up over my nose and face, you know,
 2   because I enjoy the children.  And if you have
 3   to stay in, I do.  But there's a few days that
 4   it's not -- you know, the ozone's not too bad,
 5   but you still have a little congestion.  My
 6   chest gets heavy and I can't breathe, and, you
 7   know, it's really bad.
 8               Thank you.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
10   we appreciate it.
11               Our next speakers are Josephine
12   Faass and Leighanne DiCicco.
13               And Leighanne, I guess you're
14   first in the order I was given here, so we'll
15   stick to an orderly process here.
16               MS. DICICCO:  Good afternoon.  My
17   name is Leighanne DiCicco, and that's
18   L-E-I-G-H-A-N-N-E, D-I-C-I-C-C-O.  I am here
19   on behalf of Temple University School of
20   Medicine.  I'm a second-year medical student.
21   I will first, I guess, testify on behalf of my
22   status as a medical student.
23               With the time that I've spent at
24   Temple, Children's Hospital, in the outpatient
25   pediatric clinic, we've seen numerous children
0204
 1   come in with respiratory illnesses that are
 2   exacerbated by smog.  And while I can't give
 3   you any figures or any cost statistics or
 4   anything like that, I can ask for stricter
 5   standards from the EPA, especially with the
 6   0.060 parts per million standard, because
 7   every part per million that you bring it down
 8   translates into one less inhaler, one less
 9   interrupted football game, one more day
10   outside that one of these little guys or girls
11   can play.
12               Secondly, I'll testify on behalf
13   of somebody who has a pair of lungs and enjoys
14   their usage.  I've been running long distance
15   for ten years now, and I've always had to
16   train in a major city, and when I was younger
17   than I am and even more naive, I always
18   thought, oh, well, if I train in a situation
19   that has a lot of smog, then that's only
20   making my lungs better.  So I have wizened up
21   a little bit with my schooling, and,
22   obviously, the more that you run in an
23   environment that is polluted, it doesn't
24   really help your lungs at all, it just really
25   hurts it.
0205
 1               So I do ask that the EPA follow
 2   their scientists' recommendations with
 3   stronger standards.
 4               Thank you.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 6               MS. FAASS:  Hi.  My name is
 7   Josephine Faass.  That's F-A-A-S-S.  I'm a
 8   Ph.D. student.  I study environmental policy
 9   at Rutgers, at the Edward J. Bloustein School
10   of Planning and Public Policy.  I also work as
11   a research assistant at the National Center
12   For Neighborhood and Brownfields
13   Redevelopment.  I want to start by thanking
14   you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
15               Basically, my reasons for being
16   here right now are twofold.  First, I want to
17   express my distress at the proposed standard,
18   which sets the allowable level of ozone at the
19   highest level found sufficiently protective of
20   public health.  More alarmingly, this proposal
21   leaves open the possibility of allowing the
22   current standard to remain in place, despite
23   the fact that it's been proven unsatisfactory.
24               Second, I'd like to encourage the
25   EPA to do away with the fudge factor that's
0206
 1   built into the current monitoring in which
 2   communities are permitted to round their
 3   reported ozone levels down by as much as 0.040
 4   parts per million.
 5               I'll start by speaking to the
 6   current issue of setting the NAAQS for ozone.
 7   However, I'm not going to delve too deeply
 8   into any particular studies because I believe
 9   you guys know all that science.  I'm here
10   today only to ask that you would heed the
11   advice of independent scientists and select
12   the course of action that will be sufficiently
13   protective of public health.
14               As everyone gathered here today
15   is aware, ozone is a dangerous compound which
16   negatively impacts the health and welfare of
17   American families.  For this reason, ozone was
18   named among the seven criteria pollutants in
19   the Clean Air Act, a law whose enforcement has
20   allowed the EPA to bring about substantial
21   improvements in the nation's air quality, as
22   well as considerable reductions in
23   trans-boundary pollution, including acid rain.
24               Since the current standard of
25   0.080 parts per million was set in 1997, some
0207
 1   1,700 peer-reviewed studies have been
 2   published, all of which point to the
 3   inescapable conclusion that this permissible
 4   ozone level should be reduced from the current
 5   standard to between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per
 6   million, as we've all been saying.  This range
 7   has been identified as appropriate, given that
 8   prevention of deaths and respiratory illnesses
 9   caused by ozone exposure is the primary goal
10   of this regulatory effort.  Although there's
11   evidence that a reduction to 0.070 to 0.750
12   parts per million would result in an
13   appreciable decrease in ozone-related
14   mortality and morbidity, setting the standard
15   equal to the lower amount of this range, 0.060
16   parts per million, would yield even greater
17   benefits in this regard.
18               In its standard setting, the EPA
19   must historically assume a conservative stance
20   so as to ensure that the maximum protections
21   are afforded to the United States' citizenry.
22   It seems only appropriate, therefore, that
23   this approach, while undoubtedly unpopular
24   among polluters, has proven a Godsend to the
25   people of this nation, be adopted in
0208
 1   determining the current standard.
 2               Unfortunately, the proposal we're
 3   here to consider today is for a primary ozone
 4   standard of 0.070 parts per million.  Apart
 5   from the possibility of cost savings, this
 6   decision makes little sense.  However, the
 7   Clean Air Act is notable in that it's one of
 8   the few and (inaudible) laws for which
 9   Congress has specifically forbade
10   consideration of cost in its enforcement;
11   rather, the legislative intent was for
12   standards to be set conservatively.  Levels
13   sufficient for the protection of the average
14   American's health were not deemed sufficient.
15   Instead, (inaudible) takes its most vulnerable
16   members of society -- children and the elderly
17   -- were to be embraced.  I, therefore, urge
18   the EPA to set the new ozone standard at 0.060
19   parts per million, the level identified as
20   ideal by independent scientific investigation.
21               The second point I'd like to make
22   is that the rounding loophole which is now
23   afforded to communities in monitoring their
24   ozone levels should be done away with.  At the
25   present time, communities are permitted to
0209
 1   round down their reported ozone levels by as
 2   much as 0.004 parts per million from the level
 3   registered on their monitoring equipment, as
 4   we were saying before.  While this may have
 5   been an adequate solution for the lack of
 6   precision which characterized early
 7   technology, there is no place in today's
 8   environmental regulation, given the accuracy
 9   of today's equipment.  This provision merely
10   acts to endanger the health and welfare of the
11   many Americans who live and work in
12   communities where ozone levels are
13   consistently above the current standard, which
14   as I mentioned before has been shown to be
15   insufficient to protect health.
16               Since its inception in 1970, the
17   EPA, more than any other organization, has
18   been instrumental in protecting the nation's
19   environment for citizens' health and in
20   punishing those who would act to harm either
21   one.  I sincerely hope that you will heed the
22   advice of independent scientists and the
23   desires of the people who have come today to
24   urge you to set the -- to set and reliably
25   enforce an ozone level that will be truly
0210
 1   protective of public health and to do away
 2   with the loophole which has for so long
 3   permitted unsafe amounts of ozone to remain in
 4   our nation's air.
 5               Thank you for you time.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Wow.  You were right
 7   on the button.
 8               Thank you all very much.
 9   Appreciate your comments, and thank you for
10   coming today.
11               Our next speakers are Dr. Arthur
12   Frank and John Harmon.
13               Good afternoon, gentlemen.  Thank
14   you for coming.  Dr. Frank, you're next on the
15   list here.
16               DR. FRANK:  Thank you.  I am
17   Arthur L. Frank, and that's F-R-A-N-K, MD,
18   PhD, and serve as a professor at the Drexel
19   University School of Public Health, and I
20   chair the Department of Environmental and
21   Occupational Health.  Today I am representing
22   and presenting comments on behalf of the
23   American Thoracic Society, of which I am a
24   member.
25               The American Thoracic Society is
0211
 1   an international medical professional society
 2   dedicated to respiratory health.  As such, the
 3   American Thoracic Society is deeply committed
 4   to protecting the public from the danger of
 5   air pollution.  The American Thoracic Society
 6   strongly recommends that the EPA administrator
 7   issue the following National Ambient Air
 8   Quality Standard for ozone:
 9               First, that the level of the
10   primary standard should be established at
11   0.060 parts per million; secondly, the degree
12   of precision for the standard should be
13   expressed at the thousandth part per million;
14   and thirdly, the form of the standard should
15   be constructed as a three-year average of the
16   annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
17   average ozone concentration.
18               The American Thoracic Society
19   believes that EPA Administrator Johnson has
20   correctly stated that, beyond any degree of
21   scientific uncertainty, convincing and
22   compelling evidence has demonstrated that
23   exposure to ozone at levels below the current
24   standard is responsible for measurable
25   significant adverse health effects in terms of
0212
 1   both morbidity and mortality.  We strongly
 2   support the administrator in his efforts to
 3   issue a more stringent standard and absolutely
 4   reject any efforts to maintain the current
 5   standard.
 6               However, in proposing a revised
 7   standard between 0.075 and 0.070 parts per
 8   million, EPA Administrator Johnson has failed
 9   to truly appreciate the dangers of ozone posed
10   to our nation's health.  Furthermore, EPA
11   appears to be using scientific uncertainty as
12   a justification for not establishing a more
13   stringent standard.
14               The ATS is concerned that
15   throughout the public process of evaluating
16   the available science, EPA has consistently
17   overemphasized any scientific uncertainty
18   surrounding the known health effects of ozone
19   exposure.  EPA senior appointees adopted a
20   similar approach during the rule-making for
21   particulate matter, and ultimately EPA
22   Administrator Johnson cited scientific
23   uncertainty as a reason for EPA not issuing a
24   more protective particulate matter standard.
25   It appears EPA may once again use scientific
0213
 1   uncertainty as an excuse for failing to act
 2   decisively.  We need to be more protective of
 3   the health of our populations.
 4               In drafting the Clean Air Act,
 5   Congress realized that perfect information
 6   about exposure-response relationships would
 7   not be available in setting National Ambient
 8   Air Quality Standards.  The Clean Air Act is
 9   founded on the precautionary principle and
10   directs EPA, in cases of scientific
11   uncertainty, to err in favor of protecting the
12   public health.  EPA again seems to be turning
13   the precautionary principle on its head and
14   using scientific uncertainty as justification
15   for inaction.  Any uncertainty should be
16   weighed towards protecting health, not risk
17   excessive numbers of people becoming ill.
18               There is overwhelming scientific
19   certainty regarding the adverse health effects
20   of ozone air pollution and health.  Ozone
21   worses symptoms for people with respiratory
22   diseases like asthma and COPD, as we've just
23   heard.  Ozone cause premature mortality
24   through respiratory and cardiovascular
25   illness.  It leads to lower birth weight in
0214
 1   infants, and ozone causes lung inflammation in
 2   health adults.  All of these effects have been
 3   observed at levels below the current standard
 4   and at levels below that now recommended by
 5   EPA.
 6               Based on the strength of the
 7   scientific knowledge base regarding the
 8   adverse health effects of ozone air pollution
 9   and the magnitude of public health impact such
10   pollution has on the US population, the
11   American Thoracic Society has recommended that
12   the EPA take action now to issue a stricter
13   ozone standard of 0.060 ppm for 8 hours.  This
14   recommendation is consistent with that of a
15   number of other prominent expert scientific
16   panels, including the EPA's own Children's
17   Health Protection Advisory Committee and Clean
18   Air Scientific Advisory Committee.  Any less
19   stringent action is a failure to adequately
20   protect the health of the public.
21               Thank you.
22               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
23               Mr. Harmon?
24               MR. HARMON:  Thank you and good
25   afternoon.  I'm John Harmon, H-A-R-M-O-N.  I'm
0215
 1   president and CEO of the Metropolitan Trenton
 2   African-American Chamber of Commerce, also
 3   know as MTAACC, and a member of the board of
 4   directors of the National Black Chamber of
 5   Commerce.  I appreciate the opportunity to
 6   appear today to set forth on behalf of over
 7   200 businesses and members of MTAACC and as a
 8   board member on behalf of the National Black
 9   Chamber of Commerce our views and concerns
10   regarding the EPA's recently announced notice
11   of proposed rule-making to review the National
12   Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
13               MTAACC supports the EPA
14   regulatory policies that are intended to
15   improve our nation's air quality in a manner
16   that is cost-effective for our communities and
17   based on sound science.
18               Because of such EPA policies and
19   the coordinated efforts of state and local
20   governments, industry and the business
21   community, substantial progress has been made
22   over the past 25 years in meeting the Clean
23   Air Act's air quality goals.  While more
24   progress is needed in selected areas in New
25   Jersey and other communities across the
0216
 1   country, we should make no mistake that the
 2   Clean Air Act is working as it was intended.
 3   EPA's own data shows that between 1970 and
 4   2006, total emissions of the six principal air
 5   pollutants dropped by 54 percent.
 6               While MTAACC supports the EPA's
 7   continuing efforts to ensure clean air for all
 8   Americans through policy decisions that are
 9   based on sound science and which reflect a
10   realistic assessment of the nation's air
11   quality needs, we are also concerned with the
12   unintended consequences of federal policies
13   that can adversely impact the welfare of the
14   communities its members represent and those
15   small and minority and black-owned businesses
16   that are operating within them.  In
17   particular, we are concerned about the
18   potential adverse impact on the communities in
19   which our members operate should EPA decide in
20   its final ruling to adopt a more stringent
21   NAAQS standard for ozone.
22               My understanding is that
23   currently there are 21 counties in the state
24   of New Jersey classified as non-attainment for
25   ozone.  Each is working diligently to reach
0217
 1   full compliance.  Under EPA's preferred range
 2   of 0.070 to 0.075 ppm, the number of counties
 3   designated as non-attainment for ozone could
 4   substantially increase.  Many communities
 5   will, for the first time, experience the
 6   stigma and compliance challenges of being
 7   designated as non-attainment for ozone.
 8   Moreover, the 21 counties that are currently
 9   designated as ozone non-attainment will be
10   faced with identifying and implementing more
11   demanding compliance strategies even before
12   they've had an opportunity to fully implement
13   the plans to comply with the present 0.080 ppm
14   standard, on which they are now working.
15               The designation of a county as
16   non-attainment for ozone triggers a second
17   process in which affected states must develop
18   and submit to the EPA a state implementation
19   plan that demonstrates compliance with the new
20   standard within a certain time frame.  The
21   emission control strategies required to make
22   such a demonstration will significantly impact
23   the economies of local communities, including
24   jobs and future growth.
25               Such impacts manifest themselves
0218
 1   in the form of increased costs to industry,
 2   permitting delays, restrictions in industrial
 3   expansion within an area, impacts on
 4   transportation planning, and increased costs
 5   to communities for commercial and consumer
 6   products.  In addition, each community will
 7   face continuing oversight by the EPA until the
 8   area has met and maintained this standard for
 9   the required period of years.  These aspects
10   have very real impacts of communities.
11               In closing, MTAACC is committed
12   to a clean environment and improved air
13   quality for our communities.  However, air
14   quality is not the only thing that impacts the
15   health of the people of New Jersey.  The
16   health and welfare of communities our members
17   operate in depend on the economic stability
18   and the business expansion and investment that
19   provides good jobs and economic growth and the
20   quality of life that goes with it.
21               MTAACC believes that the current
22   NAAQS for ozone should not be more stringent
23   at this time.  MTAACC encourages the EPA to
24   make a realistic assessment of our air quality
25   needs and give careful consideration to the
0219
 1   potential adverse impact of a lower standard
 2   on our local communities and the welfare of
 3   those who work and live there, including the
 4   small and minority and black-owned businesses
 5   that operate and provide services in these
 6   areas.
 7               Thank you.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
 9   today.  We appreciate it.
10               The next two speakers are Francis
11   McKee and Marvin Lewis.
12               I guess Mr. McKee will try to do
13   a PowerPoint presentation and break a land
14   speed record for a five-minute PowerPoint
15   presentation.  We won't start your time until
16   the presentation is ready to go.
17               MR. McKEE:  Thank you.
18               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Lewis, we won't
19   start your time until you get a seat at the
20   table.
21               MR. LEWIS:  I can speak standing
22   up.  I have no problem about that.
23               May I?
24               MR. McKEE:  Please, sir.
25               MR. LEWIS:  My name is Marvin
0220
 1   Lewis, L-E-W-I-S.  Look, I've been around for
 2   quite a while.
 3               MR. PAGE:  You can move the
 4   microphone down -- there you go.  Okay.
 5               MR. LEWIS:  Okay.  Marvin Lewis,
 6   L-E-W-I-S.  I've been around for quite a while
 7   and wish to thank the EPA and Specialist
 8   Tricia Crabtree for scheduling a time slot
 9   that I could make.
10               I've been a commenter for EPA
11   ozone standards for many years.  I still have
12   the schedule for the NOx budget hearing from
13   September 4, 1997.  That allows me an aside to
14   point out that ozone does not do its damage
15   alone, and all other contaminants must be
16   considered synergistically:  The sum often
17   outstrips the harm caused by any one of its
18   parts.  Auto exhaust and ozone are obnoxious
19   individually, but together in sunlight, they
20   are smog.  Smog endangers COPD sufferers and
21   may kill.
22               I agree with many of the
23   commenters that ozone levels need to be
24   controlled.  I agree that controlling ozone
25   can lead to cost savings in health care and in
0221
 1   reducing our dependence on foreign oil.  I do
 2   have a bone to pick on certain approaches of
 3   the EPA and the environmental community.
 4   Nobody gets away.
 5               Back decades ago,
 6   environmentalists and the EPA found a compound
 7   which looked really good at controlling ozone.
 8   I was called MTBE, or methyl tert butyl
 9   alcohol.  MTBE soon was to found to poison our
10   water and was banned, as Canada sued us