1              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

            2

            3

            4

            5

            6

            7

            8        PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE REGARDING

            9    REVISIONS TO THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

           10                           FOR OZONE

           11

           12

           13

           14

           15                    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

           16                   THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007

           17                                  18                                  19                                  20                                  21                                  22                                  23                                  24    REPORTED BY:                  LISA N. MEDNIS            25    CSR NO. 12960                  JOB NO: 555254

                                                                                1

            1      LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007

            2                           9:15 A.M.                               3                             * * *                                   4

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  GOOD MORNING.  I THINK WE'LL GET THE

            6    HEARING STARTED NOW.

            7             THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ATTENDING THE

            8    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HEARING ON OUR

            9    PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD.

           10             BEFORE I READ THE OPENING STATEMENT, I JUST

           11    WANTED TO ASK IF WE HAVE ANY PRESS IN THE ROOM, AND IF

           12    THERE ARE, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELVES TO EITHER

           13    FRANCISCO ARCANTE, WHO'S STANDING OVER THERE, OR JOHN

           14    MILLER, WHO'S SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE.  OKAY.  SEEING

           15    NONE, WE WILL PROCEED.

           16             I RECOGNIZE MANY OF YOU HAVE TRAVELED A LONG

           17    DISTANCE TO COME TO THE HEARING THIS MORNING, AND I WANT

           18    TO THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE EFFORT TO DO THAT.  WE VERY

           19    MUCH APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE TO

           20    ATTEND THE HEARING THIS MORNING.

           21             MY NAME IS LYDIA WEGMAN, AND I AM THE DIRECTOR

           22    OF THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DIVISION OF THE

           23    OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS IN NORTH

           24    CAROLINA.  IT'S PART OF EPA'S OFFICE OF AIR AND

           25    RADIATION.  I WILL BE CHAIRING THE HEARING TODAY, AND WE

                                                                                2

            1    ARE HERE TODAY, OF COURSE, TO LISTEN TO YOUR COMMENTS ON

            2    OUR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE OZONE STANDARD.

            3             AS A REMINDER, THIS HEARING IS AN OPPORTUNITY

            4    FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON OUR PROPOSED RULE.  THE

            5    PANEL MEMBERS MAY ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE SEEKING

            6    CLARIFICATION OF ELEMENTS OF OUR PROPOSAL, BUT WE ARE

            7    NOT HERE TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THE PROPOSAL.

            8             I WANT TO ALSO INTRODUCE MY FELLOW PANEL

            9    MEMBERS.  THIS IS JOHN HANNON, WHO'S WITH OUR OFFICE OF

           10    GENERAL COUNSEL IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND MATT HABER, WHO

           11    IS WITH OUR REGION 9 OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

           12             BEFORE WE START THE COMMENT PERIOD, I'M GOING

           13    TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OUR PROPOSED RULE WHICH IS THE

           14    SUBJECT OF TODAY'S HEARING.  IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE

           15    FEDERAL REGISTER ON JULY 11TH.

           16             GROUND LEVEL OZONE IS THE PRIMARY COMPONENT OF

           17    SMOG.  IT IS FORMED THROUGH THE REACTION OF NOX,

           18    NITROGEN OXIDES, AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, VOC'S,

           19    IN THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT.  EXPOSURE TO OZONE IS

           20    ASSOCIATED WITH A WIDE ARRAY OF RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS,

           21    INCLUDING AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO

           22    RESPIRATORY INFECTION, INCREASED DOCTOR'S VISITS,

           23    INCREASED EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS, HOSPITAL

           24    ADMISSIONS, AND PREMATURE DEATH.

           25             IN ADDITION, GROUND LEVEL OZONE CAN HAVE

                                                                                3

            1    HARMFUL EFFECTS ON SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES, INCLUDING

            2    TREES AND CROPS AND ON THE ECO SYSTEMS THEY INHABIT.  IT

            3    HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT BOTH THE LEVEL OF OZONE TO WHICH

            4    PLANTS ARE EXPOSED AND THE DURATION OF THE EXPOSURE ARE

            5    IMPORTANT FACTORS IN DETERMINING PLANT RESPONSE.  THE

            6    MOST SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, INCLUDING BIOMASS LOSS AND

            7    YIELD REDUCTIONS, RESULT FROM THE ACCUMULATION OF OZONE

            8    EXPOSURES THROUGHOUT THE GROWING SEASON WITH HIGHER

            9    CONCENTRATIONS OF OZONE PRODUCING GREATER IMPACTS.

           10             BASED ON OUR CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE LARGE BODY

           11    OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, WHICH IS NOW AVAILABLE

           12    CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED

           13    WITH OZONE, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

           14    PROTECTION AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT THE CURRENT OZONE

           15    STANDARDS ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND

           16    WELFARE.

           17             A NUMBER OF NEW HEALTH STUDIES HAVE BEEN

           18    CONDUCTED INDICATING THAT ADVERSE EFFECTS OCCUR

           19    FOLLOWING EXPOSURE TO OZONE AT LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT

           20    STANDARD.  FURTHERMORE, THESE STUDIES INDICATE THAT

           21    PEOPLE WITH RESPIRATORY ILLNESS, SUCH AS ASTHMA, ARE

           22    PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THESE ADVERSE IMPACTS.  IN

           23    ADDITION, NEW SCIENTIFIC STUDIES CONFIRM THAT EXPOSURE

           24    TO OZONE ADVERSELY EFFECTS THE GROWTH OF SENSITIVE PLANT

           25    SPECIES AND MAY INCREASE THEIR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DISEASE

                                                                                4

            1    AND PESTS.

            2             AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC

            3    EVIDENCE AND THE ADVICE OF OUR CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC

            4    ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE,

            5    THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROPOSED TO REVISE BOTH THE

            6    PRIMARY STANDARD, WHICH IS THE STANDARD DESIGNED TO

            7    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, AND THE SECONDARY STANDARD

            8    DESIGNED TO PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE.

            9             THE CURRENT -- CURRENTLY, THE PRIMARY AND

           10    SECONDARY OZONE STANDARDS ARE IDENTICAL, AN EIGHT-HOUR

           11    STANDARD OF 0.08 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY

           12    .084 WITH OUR CURRENT ROUNDING CONVENTION.  UNDER OUR

           13    PROPOSAL, THE -- BOTH THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

           14    STANDARDS WOULD BE REVISED AND THE FORM OF THE SECONDARY

           15    STANDARD MAY CHANGE SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER IDENTICAL TO

           16    THE PRIMARY.

           17             SPECIFICALLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIMARY

           18    STANDARD, WE PROPOSE TO REVISE THE LEVEL OF THE STANDARD

           19    TO WITHIN THE RANGE OF .070 TO .075 PARTS PER MILLION

           20    AND REQUESTED COMMENT ON ALTERNATIVE LEVELS DOWN TO .060

           21    PARTS PER MILLION AND UP TO AND INCLUDING RETENTION OF

           22    THE CURRENT STANDARD.  WE ALSO PROPOSE TO SPECIFY THE

           23    LEVEL OF THE PRIMARY STANDARD TO THE THIRD DECIMAL PLACE

           24    BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH OUR MONITORS WORK AND

           25    WE CAN DETECT OZONE TO THAT LEVEL OF ACCURACY.

                                                                                5

            1             CONCERNING THE SECONDARY STANDARD, WE PROPOSE

            2    TWO ALTERNATIVES:  THE FIRST WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH A NEW

            3    FORM OF THE STANDARD CALLED THE W126, WHICH IS DESIGNED

            4    TO CUMULATE OZONE EXPOSURES AND GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO

            5    HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS.  THE FORM OF THE STANDARD WOULD

            6    ADD TOGETHER WEIGHTED HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATION ACROSS

            7    A CONSECUTIVE THREE-MONTH PERIOD WITH THE HIGHEST OZONE

            8    LEVELS.

            9             A SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO REVISE THE

           10    SECONDARY STANDARD TO BE IDENTICAL TO THE PROPOSED

           11    EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD.  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON OUR

           12    PROPOSED RULE CAN BE FOUND IN THE FACTS SHEET THAT'S

           13    AVAILABLE IN THE REGISTRATION AREA.

           14             WHEN WE PUBLISHED THE RULE ON JULY 11TH IN THE

           15    FEDERAL REGISTER, THAT BEGAN A 90-DAY COMMENT PERIOD,

           16    WHICH WILL CLOSE ON OCTOBER 9TH, AND WE HAVE A HANDOUT

           17    AVAILABLE IN THE REGISTRATION AREA THAT HAS DETAILED

           18    INFORMATION FOR SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS.  WE ALSO

           19    HAVE A LIST OF ALL OF THE TOPICS IN THE PROPOSED RULE ON

           20    WHICH THE AGENCY IS SEEKING COMMENT, AND THAT'S ALSO

           21    AVAILABLE AT THE REGISTRATION AREA.  WE ARE REQUIRED

           22    UNDER A CONSENT DECREE TO ISSUE THE FINAL RULE BY MARCH

           23    12TH OF 2008, AND WE INTEND TO MEET THAT DATE.

           24             TURNING TO TODAY'S HEARING, THIS IS ONE OF FIVE

           25    HEARINGS WE'RE HOLDING ACROSS THE COUNTRY ON THE OZONE

                                                                                6

            1    STANDARD.  THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING GOING ON TODAY IN

            2    PHILADELPHIA, AND WE HAVE THREE MORE SCHEDULED NEXT

            3    WEEK, SEPTEMBER 5TH, IN HOUSTON, ATLANTA, AND CHICAGO.

            4    THERE WILL BE A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED OF EACH OF

            5    THE HEARINGS, AND THOSE WILL BE ADDED TO THE DOCKET FOR

            6    THIS RULE MAKING.

            7             THE WAY WE WILL WORK THE HEARING TODAY IS THAT

            8    I WILL CALL THE SCHEDULED SPEAKERS IN PAIRS.  WHEN IT'S

            9    YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR

           10    AFFILIATION AND THAT WILL HELP THE COURT REPORTER WHO

           11    WILL BE WORKING WITH US TODAY, AND WE VERY MUCH

           12    APPRECIATE HER HELP.  WE'RE ASKING THAT TESTIMONY BE

           13    LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES EACH AND THAT YOU REMAIN AT THE

           14    MICROPHONE AFTER YOU FINISH SPEAKING UNTIL BOTH SPEAKERS

           15    IN THE PAIR HAVE FINISHED SPEAKING.

           16             AFTER YOU'VE FINISHED YOUR TESTIMONY, A MEMBER

           17    OF THE PANEL MAY HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.  EACH

           18    SPEAKER'S ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BECOME PART OF OUR

           19    OFFICIAL RECORD BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A TRANSCRIPT, AS I

           20    MENTIONED.  IF YOU DO HAVE A WRITTEN COPY OF YOUR

           21    TESTIMONY, PLEASE GIVE IT TO THE STAFF AT THE

           22    REGISTRATION DESK AND WE'LL PUT THE FULL TEXT OF THE

           23    WRITTEN COMMENTS IN THE DOCKET AS WELL.

           24             WE HAVE A TRADITIONAL TIME-KEEPING SYSTEM HERE

           25    OF GREEN, YELLOW, AND RED LIGHTS.  WHEN YOU BEGIN

                                                                                7

            1    SPEAKING, THE GREEN LIGHT WILL COME ON.  YOU WILL HAVE

            2    FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.  THE YELLOW LIGHT WILL COME ON AT

            3    ONE MINUTE SIGNALING THAT YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT TO

            4    SPEAK.  THEN WE WOULD ASK YOU TO STOP SPEAKING WHEN THE

            5    LIGHT TURNS RED OR FAIRLY CLOSE TO THAT MOMENT.  WE WANT

            6    TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY

            7    TO COMMENT, AND WE WILL BE TAKING SOME BREAKS

            8    PERIODICALLY DURING THE DAY.

            9             LET'S SEE, I THINK I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING WE

           10    NEED TO COVER HERE.  SO I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AGAIN

           11    FOR PARTICIPATING, AND WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST

           12    TWO SPEAKERS JANEA SCOTT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE AND

           13    CARL ZICHOLA FROM SIERRA CLUB.

           14             YOU HAVE TO PRESS AND HOLD THE WHOLE TIME

           15    YOU'RE SPEAKING.

           16        JANEA SCOTT:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS JANEA SCOTT.

           17    THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.  I'M

           18    TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, A

           19    NON-PROFIT, NON-GOVERNMENTAL, AND NON-PARTISAN

           20    ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION WITH MORE THAN 500,000

           21    MEMBERS NATIONWIDE.

           22             SINCE 1967, OUR ORGANIZATION HAS LINKED

           23    SCIENCE, ECONOMICS, AND LAW TO SOLVE TODAY'S MOST

           24    PRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.  TODAY WE RESPECTFULLY

           25    REQUEST THAT EPA SET THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

                                                                                8

            1    STANDARD FOR OZONE AT .060 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH IS

            2    THE PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED

            3    BY THE CLEAN AIR SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AN EPA

            4    APPOINTED PANEL OF THE NATION'S LEADING EXPERTS.

            5             OZONE EFFECTS THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM BY

            6    DAMAGING LUNG TISSUES AND REDUCING LUNG FUNCTION.  AS A

            7    RESULT, IT CAN LEAD TO THE EXACERBATION OF ASTHMA AND

            8    CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AS WELL AS DIMINISHED LUNG

            9    DEVELOPMENT IN GROWING CHILDREN.  MORE RECENT STUDIES

           10    SHOW THAT OZONE EXPOSURES INCREASE THE RISK OF PREMATURE

           11    DEATH.

           12             ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION'S

           13    STATE OF THE AIR 2007 REPORT, EIGHT OF THE TOP TEN MOST

           14    OZONE POLLUTED COUNTIES ARE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.  IN LOS

           15    ANGELES COUNTY ALONE, AIR POLLUTION CONTRIBUTES TO

           16    APPROXIMATELY 760,000 CASES OF ASTHMA AND 288,000 CASES

           17    OF CHRONIC BRONCHITIS.  ACCORDING TO EPA, LOWERING THE

           18    OZONE HEALTH STANDARDS TO LESS THAN .065 PARTS PER

           19    MILLION WOULD HAVE FAR REACHING BENEFITS IN PREVENTING

           20    THE DEATH AND DISEASE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POLLUTION.

           21             THE IMPERATIVE OF PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH FROM

           22    AIR POLLUTION IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  IN

           23    1970 A UNANIMOUS UNITED STATES SENATE, IN

           24    STRAIGHTFORWARD AND PLANE LANGUAGE, PROVIDED FOR AN

           25    EFFECTIVE TWO-STEP PROCESS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST AIR

                                                                                9

            1    POLLUTION.  FIRST, CONGRESS COMMANDED THAT THE MAX BE

            2    BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS.  THEN

            3    SECOND, AFTER THE HEALTH-BASED STANDARDS HAD BEEN SET,

            4    CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT ECONOMICS BE THOROUGHLY

            5    CONSIDERED IN DEVISING THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

            6    STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THE STANDARDS.

            7             SOME IN THE INDUSTRY HAVE LONG PROTESTED THIS

            8    CAREFULLY CALIBRATED DUAL SYSTEM.  THEY ARGUE THAT THIS

            9    TWO-STEP INCREASE SHOULD BE CONFLATED RATHER THAN

           10    DISTINCT AND THAT THE NATION'S HEALTH STANDARDS SHOULD

           11    BE BASED ON ECONOMICS.  THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN TROTTED

           12    OUT TIME AND AGAIN AND RESOUNDINGLY REJECTED OVER THE

           13    PAST 37 YEARS.  IT WAS MOST RECENTLY REJECTED IN 2001 BY

           14    A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT.  THE COURT UPHELD THE BEDROCK

           15    PRINCIPLE THAT NAAQS SHOULD BE PRECAUTIONARY IN

           16    SAFEGUARDING AGAINST ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AND BE BASED

           17    EXCLUSIVELY ON PUBLIC HEALTH.

           18             THEREFORE, AS THE CLEAN AIR ACT PLAINLY STATES,

           19    THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST ESTABLISH OZONE STANDARDS THAT

           20    ARE REQUISITE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN

           21    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THIS

           22    HISTORY, I RAISE A POINT THAT IS TOO OFTEN OVERLOOKED.

           23    NAAQS ARE EFFECTIVE.  THEY WORK.  NAAQS ARE THE

           24    CORNERSTONE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND THEY HAVE

           25    SUCCESSFULLY DRIVEN OUR NATION'S EFFORTS TO SOLVE ITS

                                                                                10

            1    AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS.

            2             SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE NAAQS IN 1970, OUR

            3    NATION HAS MADE STEADY PROGRESS IN CLEANING UP THE AIR.

            4    LEAD, PARTICULATE MATTER, CARBON MONOXIDE, AND SULFUR

            5    DIOXIDE HAVE ALL BEEN REDUCED.  AND OZONE PRECURSORS,

            6    WHICH ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO TODAY'S HEARING, HAVE ALSO

            7    BEEN REDUCED.  IN FACT, OXIDES IN NITROGEN HAVE BEEN

            8    REDUCED BY NEARLY 25 PERCENT, AND VOLATILE ORGANIC

            9    COMPOUNDS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY OVER 50 PERCENT.

           10             AT THE SAME TIME THAT THIS POLLUTION HAS

           11    DECREASED, OUR ECONOMY HAS FLOURISHED.  SINCE 1970, OUR

           12    GDP HAS GROWN BY 174 PERCENT.  THE PAST 37 YEARS HAVE

           13    CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT WE CAN MAKE OUR AIR SAFE TO

           14    BREATHE WHILE GROWING OUR ECONOMY.  GIVEN THE

           15    RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUST IN EPA TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH

           16    FROM OZONE AIR POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CALLS ON

           17    ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON TO BE STEADFAST AND UNWAVERING IN

           18    SETTING THE STANDARD FOR OZONE.  ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON

           19    MUST BASE HIS DECISION EXCLUSIVELY ON WHAT IS REQUISITE

           20    TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF

           21    SAFETY.

           22             CASAC HAS UNANIMOUSLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY ADVISED

           23    ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON THAT, ONE, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC

           24    JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT PRIMARY

           25    EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS; THAT, TWO, THE PRIMARY EIGHT-HOUR

                                                                                11

            1    NAAQS NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED TO PROTECT HUMAN

            2    HEALTH, PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATIONS; AND,

            3    THREE, CASAC ALSO UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED A RANGE OF

            4    .060 TO .070 PARTS PER MILLION FOR THE PRIMARY NAAQS.

            5             THIS CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM CASAC LEAVES NO ROOM

            6    FOR MISINTERPRETATION, BUT EPA HAS NEVERTHELESS PROPOSED

            7    TO SET A STANDARD THAT IS WEAKER THAN THE UNANIMOUS

            8    RECOMMENDATION.  IN ADDITION, EPA HAS ALSO EXPRESSLY

            9    HELD OPEN THE PROSPECT OF RETAINING THE CURRENT OZONE

           10    HEALTH -- CURRENT HEALTH STANDARD FOR OZONE UNCHANGED,

           11    EXPLICITLY SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON SUCH AN OUTCOME.

           12    NEITHER OPTION IS ACCEPTABLE.  IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO

           13    TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE BREATHING HEALTHY AIR WHEN

           14    THEY ARE NOT.

           15             ONE REASON THE CLEAN AIR ACT HAS BEEN A MODEL

           16    OF SUCCESS IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS IS THE

           17    BEDROCK PRINCIPLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT, THAT THE SETTING

           18    OF NAAQS MUST BE BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE.

           19    TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND TO INSURE THE REQUIRED

           20    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

           21    RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT EPA SET THE OZONE HEALTH

           22    STANDARD AT .060 PARTS PER MILLION, THE PROTECTIVE END

           23    OF THE RANGE RECOMMENDED BY CASAC.  WE'LL ALSO BE

           24    SUBMITTING DETAILED WRITTEN COMMENTS, AND I THANK YOU

           25    AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT TODAY.

                                                                                12

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

            2        CARL ZICHOLA:  I'M IMPRESSED, SHE NAILED THE TIME.

            3             I'M CARL ZICHOLA, THE REGIONAL STAFF DIRECTOR

            4    FOR THE SIERRA CLUB OF CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, AND HAWAII.

            5    GOOD MORNING.

            6             THE SIERRA CLUB IS TODAY REAFFIRMING OUR

            7    INSISTENCE THAT EPA ADOPT HEALTH-BASED OZONE STANDARDS

            8    THAT TRULY PROTECT THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE THREATENED BY

            9    DANGEROUS SMOG POLLUTION.  NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES

           10    IS THIS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT IS HERE IN CALIFORNIA

           11    WHERE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIVE IN WHAT ARE THE WORST AIR

           12    QUALITY BASINS IN THE COUNTRY.

           13             WE CALL ON EPA TO ADOPT A STANDARD THAT REDUCES

           14    OZONE CONCENTRATIONS TO .060 FROM THE PRESENT INADEQUATE

           15    STANDARD OF 0.084 PARTS PER MILLION.  OZONE STANDARDS

           16    MUST BE BASED ON THEIR EFFECTIVENESS PROTECTING HUMAN

           17    HEALTH, NOT ON COST TO POLLUTERS.  THE BENEFITS TO THIS

           18    APPROACH ARE WELL DOCUMENTED.  EVEN THE BUSH

           19    ADMINISTRATION, UNDER WHOSE AUSPICES THESE STANDARDS ARE

           20    BEING DRAFTED, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE U.S. CLEAN AIR

           21    REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE OF ALL OF

           22    THE NATION'S EFFECTIVE REGULATORY PROGRAMS.

           23             PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH IS NOT ONLY LEGALLY,

           24    ETHICALLY, AND MORALLY REQUIRED, IT'S COST EFFECTIVE.

           25    THE ARGUMENT OF POLLUTERS TO THE CONTRARY MUST BE

                                                                                13

            1    REJECTED.  PARENTHETICALLY, THE ESTIMATES OF COST

            2    BENEFITS TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY OVER THE 30 YEARS --

            3    FIRST 30 YEARS OF CLEAN AIR REGULATION IN THIS COUNTRY

            4    RANGES FROM M.I.T.'S ESTIMATE OF FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS

            5    TO EPA'S OWN ESTIMATE OF 26 TRILLION DOLLARS IN REPORTS

            6    THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

            7    AGENCY.

            8             WE ARE TODAY DEMANDING THAT EPA DO WHAT ITS OWN

            9    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS TOLD THE

           10    AGENCY IT SHOULD, "SUBSTANTIALLY," IN QUOTES, "TIGHTEN

           11    THE OZONE STANDARDS."  THE BENEFIT OF DOING SO -- THE

           12    BENEFITS OF DOING SO ARE ENORMOUS.

           13             HERE IN LOS ANGELES, EPA'S OWN DATA SUGGESTS

           14    THAT LOWERING THE STANDARDS TO 0.65 WOULD LOWER THE

           15    MORTALITY RATE FROM 14 DEATHS IN A MILLION TO TWO PER

           16    MILLION.  EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT WOULD BE THE REDUCTION IN

           17    SUFFERING FOR PEOPLE WITH CHRONIC AND ACUTE RESPIRATORY

           18    PROBLEMS.

           19             UNFORTUNATELY, OVER THE PAST MORE THAN SIX

           20    YEARS THE CREDIBILITY OF EPA HAS BEEN BATTERED.

           21    ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO WEAKEN CLEAN AIR PROTECTIONS

           22    HAVE RESULTED IN LITIGATION FROM AFFECTED STATES, THE

           23    OPPOSITION OF NUMEROUS GOVERNORS, INCLUDING GOVERNOR

           24    SCHWARZENEGGER, AND EVEN THE REJECTION BY THE UNITED

           25    STATES SENATE OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S MISLEADINGLY NAMED

                                                                                14

            1    "CLEAR SKIES PROPOSAL."

            2             CALIFORNIA, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE STATE'S

            3    MAJOR AIR DISTRICTS, EVEN HAD TO MOVE TO CODIFY THE

            4    PREEXISTING NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM THAT REQUIRES

            5    AGING POWER PLANTS AND INDUSTRIAL SITES TO UPGRADE THEIR

            6    FACILITIES TO COMPLY WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS MET BY

            7    CLEANER NEW SOURCES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE INDUSTRIES.

            8    THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF SUCH SOURCES IN CALIFORNIA AND

            9    EPA'S REGULATION WOULD DRAMATICALLY DEGRADE A PROTECTION

           10    FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.  WITH RARE EXCEPTION, EPA HAS

           11    BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO RELAX PROTECTIONS FOR HUMAN

           12    HEALTH TO ACCOMMODATE THE POLLUTERS.

           13             WHILE THE CORRUPTION HAS BEEN NOTED OF OTHER

           14    AGENCIES, SUCH AS B.L.M. WHERE TOP OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN

           15    IMPLICATED IN CORRUPTION IN ONE AND STEVEN GILES HAS

           16    BEEN SENT TO PRISON HAS, SO FAR IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND AT

           17    EPA.  THE FAVORITISM OF REGULATED INDUSTRIES HAS.

           18             THERE'S AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE HARM OZONE

           19    POLLUTION CAUSES AND THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM REDUCING

           20    AIR POLLUTION GENERALLY.  THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR EPA TO

           21    ALLOW THE STANDARD TO REMAIN AS IT IS AS SOME PROPOSE OR

           22    TO LOWER THE STANDARD ONLY MODESTLY.  IT IS TIME TO MAKE

           23    THE KIND OF SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION RECOMMENDED BY CASAC,

           24    AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO DO SO.  EPA'S MISSION AND

           25    THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DEMAND NO LESS.

                                                                                15

            1             WE CALL ON EPA TO ADOPT A STANDARD THAT REDUCES

            2    OZONE CONCENTRATIONS TO 0.060 FROM THE PRESENT

            3    INADEQUATE STANDARD OF 0.84 PARTS PER MILLION.

            4             THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND YOU FINISHED

            6    WELL IN ADVANCE OF YOUR FIVE MINUTES.  SO THANK YOU

            7    BOTH.

            8        CARL ZICHOLA:  TRUST AND PITHY.

            9        MR. HANNON:  I'M SORRY, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

           10             YOU BOTH RECOMMENDED 60 AND COMMENTED THAT

           11    CASAC HAS RECOMMENDED BETWEEN 60 AND 70, AND I THINK

           12    MS. SCOTT'S RECOMMENDATION HERE WAS THAT IT BE ON THE

           13    PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE.

           14             FOR BOTH OF YOU, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE WHETHER

           15    THAT'S A SCIENCE-DRIVEN RECOMMENDATION OR PUBLIC-POLICY,

           16    HEALTH-DRIVEN RECOMMENDATION, IN BETWEEN 60 AND 70?

           17    CASAC ITSELF DIDN'T -- IT IS A RANGE, SO IT'D BE USEFUL

           18    TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW YOU -- WHAT YOU THINK THE

           19    BASIS WOULD BE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CHOOSE WITHIN

           20    THAT RANGE, IF HE WERE TO CHOSE WITHIN THAT RANGE.

           21        JANEA SCOTT:  WELL, WE PICKED .060 BECAUSE IT IS THE

           22    MORE PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE, AND WE FIGURE THAT

           23    WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN SHOWING,

           24    THAT OZONE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO PREMATURE DEATH AND THAT

           25    TYPE OF THING AND THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN

                                                                                16

            1    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY, THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE

            2    CLEAN AIR ACT, THAT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE SURE TO

            3    COVER THAT, THE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  SO THAT'S WHY WE

            4    PICKED THE LOWER END OF THE RANGE THEY SUGGESTED.

            5        CARL ZICHOLA:  I SHOULD COMMENT THAT WE ALWAYS TRY

            6    TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION HERE.  I THINK THE CLEAN

            7    AIR ACT ITSELF, IN NUMEROUS LOCATIONS, ERRS ON THE SIDE

            8    OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE AMPLE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  THE

            9    AIR TOXIC SECTION HAS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE THAT DOES SO,

           10    AND THE SIERRA CLUB HAS ALWAYS FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO DO

           11    THAT.

           12             HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IT'S ESPECIALLY OBVIOUS

           13    THAT WE NEED TO GO TO THE CAREFUL END OF THE SPECTRUM.

           14    IT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE BEFORE WE EVEN GET THERE.  ONE

           15    IN FIVE CHILDREN IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY HAS ASTHMA.

           16    FRESNO HAS AN ASTHMA RATE FOUR TIMES THE NATIONAL

           17    AVERAGE.  I WAS IN SACRAMENTO THIS WEEK WORKING WITH

           18    LATINOS FROM THE CENTRAL VALLEY LOBBYING FOR CLEAN AIR

           19    PROTECTIONS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, ONE OF WHOM HAS A

           20    GRANDCHILD WHO'S ALREADY HAD TO LOSE A LUNG BECAUSE OF

           21    ASTHMA.  THIS IS NOT SOME THEORETICAL EXERCISE.

           22             WHEN YOU HAVE A RANGE, WE EXPECT IT TO BE AT

           23    THE LOW END OF THE RANGE, THE TIGHTER END OF THE RANGE,

           24    THE MORE PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE, NOT THE END OF THE

           25    RANGE THAT'S THE MOST LACKS AND EASIEST TO COMPLY WITH

                                                                                17

            1    FOR POLLUTERS.  THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING

            2    INTENSELY, MANY OF WHOM -- IN FACT, A YOUNG BOY WHO WAS

            3    GOING TO BE TESTIFYING HERE TODAY COULD NOT BECAUSE HIS

            4    MOTHER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER YESTERDAY OR

            5    PRECANCEROUS LESIONS THAT SHE NEEDS ADDITIONAL TESTING

            6    FOR.

            7             THE PEOPLE OF OUR STATE, THE STATE OF

            8    CALIFORNIA, WE'RE DEMANDING THE TIGHT END OF THE

            9    SPECTRUM.  WE'RE NOT REQUESTING IT.  THANK YOU.

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JESSE

           11    MARQUEZ AND SARAH KIRSCHBAUM.  YOU CAN CORRECT ME,

           12    PLEASE.

           13        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  IT'S OKAY.  I HAVE VERY

           14    AVANT-GARDE PARENTS.  IT'S SARAN, LIKE THE WRAP.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  SARAN, THANK YOU.

           16        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  CAN I GIVE YOU THOSE?

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU CAN.  OKAY.  GREAT.  THANK YOU.

           18        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  DO I NEED THIS?

           19        MR. HANNON:  YOU NEED TO PUSH AND HOLD.

           20        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU NEED TO PUSH AND HOLD FOR PURPOSES

           21    OF THE COURT REPORTER, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

           22        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  OKAY.  MY NAME IS SARAN

           23    KIRSCHBAUM, K-I-R-S-C-H-B-A-U-M, AND I'M WITH THE

           24    COALITION ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND JEWISH LIFE OF SOUTHERN

           25    CALIFORNIA AND THE INTERLEAGUE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL

                                                                                18

            1    HERE.  THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK

            2    ABOUT, OH, OUR AIR QUALITY AND OZONE AND ALL THAT STUFF

            3    WHICH IS NOT IN THE PAPER.

            4             I AM HERE TO URGE THE EPA TO DRAFT A RISK

            5    ASSESSMENT THAT YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE RECOMMENDED IN

            6    SETTING THE OZONE LAYER -- LOWER BEFORE -- THAN .07 OR

            7    WHATEVER ALL THOSE LAYERS ARE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT

            8    HEALTH BENEFITS AND INCLUDING THE DECREASE IN

            9    INDIVIDUAL -- WE ARE GETTING MORE RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS

           10    HERE IN LOS ANGELES AND IN CALIFORNIA, AND THERE ARE

           11    MORE HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN THE SMOG

           12    GOES UP AND REDUCED OZONE LAYERS WOULD REALLY HELP.

           13             NOW, THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, THE TALISMAN SPOKE

           14    OF BALANCING THE COMMUNAL AND THE PRIVATE.  THE

           15    INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMMUNITY.  YOUR JOB IS TO DO JUST

           16    THAT.  THE EPA'S JOB IS TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF

           17    HOW THE ACTIVITIES OF OUR INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AFFECTS NOT

           18    ONLY ITS INDIVIDUALS, BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR

           19    CITIES AND OF OUR COUNTRY AS A WHOLE NOW AND FOR THE

           20    FUTURE.  WE ALSO HAVE A DUTY TO FUTURE GENERATIONS, JUST

           21    AS YOU DO.

           22             ONE STORY ILLUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE

           23    ACTIONS TODAY WITH THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR GENERATIONS TO

           24    COME.  IT'S THE STORY OF HONI THE CIRCLE MAKER, THIS IS

           25    THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, WHO PLANTED CAROB TREES, WHICH

                                                                                19

            1    TAKE ABOUT 50 OR SO YEARS TO PRODUCE.  A MAN WALKED BY

            2    AND LAUGHED AT HIM AND SAID, "OH, MAN, WHY ARE YOU

            3    PLANTING THESE TREES?  YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BEAR THE --

            4    EVER TASTE THE FRUIT."

            5             AND HONI REPLIED, "THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME

            6    PLANTED SO THAT I MIGHT ENJOY, AND I PLANT FOR THOSE WHO

            7    COME AFTER ME."

            8             OUR FAITH TEACHES US TO REFLECT ON OUR PAST AND

            9    PRESENT TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE WHO COME AFTER US.  THIS IS

           10    WHY THE EPA WAS ESTABLISHED, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE WHO

           11    COME AFTER US AND TO PROTECT THOSE OF US TODAY FROM

           12    POLLUTANTS IN OUR AIR AND WATER AND FROM THE

           13    PARTICULATES THAT COME FROM OUR CARS AND THE BURNING OF

           14    FOSSIL FUELS.  TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OZONE LEVELS ARE AS

           15    LOW AS POSSIBLE TO KEEP CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND CITIZENS

           16    OF ALL AGES FROM NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS.

           17             SMOG IS AN ETHICAL AND MORAL ISSUE.  WE EXPECT

           18    MILLIONS MORE IN CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

           19    WE ARE NOW THE 12TH LARGEST GENERATION -- GENERATOR NOW

           20    OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOW.  WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE IN 20

           21    YEARS IF STRICT STANDARDS ARE NOT PUT INTO PLACE NOW?

           22    WE KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES.  WE KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES

           23    WILL BE.  THIS IS WHY THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE.  BY NOT

           24    HAVING STRICT STANDARDS IN PLACE NOW, WE ARE PUTTING

           25    GENERATIONS OF YOUNG AND OLD AT RISK AND THAT IS

                                                                                20

            1    IMMORAL.  IT IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE DECISION.

            2             OUR RESPONSIBILITY, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY,

            3    IS TO LEAVE THIS EARTH IN BETTER SHAPE THAN WE FOUND IT,

            4    AND THE EPA HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE POWER TO DO

            5    THIS.  PLEASE DRAFT THE RISK ASSESSMENT THAT WAS

            6    RECOMMENDED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE.  MAKE IT AS LOW AS

            7    POSSIBLE.  IT WILL HELP.  IT WILL DECREASE THE INCIDENTS

            8    OF RESPIRATORY ASSISTANCE IN CHILDREN, FEWER HOSPITAL

            9    ADMISSIONS, AND RELATED OZONE DEATHS.  THIS SHOULD NOT

           10    BE A POLITICAL ARENA.  WE ALL BREATHE AIR AND MANY OF US

           11    HAVE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.  DON'T LET OTHERS DRILL

           12    A HOLE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BOAT.  THERE IS ONLY ONE

           13    SHIP FOR ALL OF US.

           14             I THANK YOU.  THAT'S IT.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  MR. MARQUEZ.

           16        JESSE MARQUEZ:  MY NAME IS JESSE MARQUEZ.  I'M THE

           17    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COALITION FOR A SAFE

           18    ENVIRONMENT.  WE'RE ONE OF THE SMALLEST OF OUR

           19    ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.  I LIVE AT 613 NORTH

           20    GULF AVENUE IN WILMINGTON, CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS 4 BLOCKS

           21    FROM THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES, APPROXIMATELY 15 BLOCKS

           22    FROM THE PORT OF LONG BEACH, 7 BLOCKS FROM THE CONOCO

           23    PHILLIPS OIL REFINERY, ABOUT 20 BLOCKS FROM VALERO OIL

           24    REFINERY, ABOUT 25 FROM SHELL OIL REFINERY, AND ABOUT 30

           25    FROM THE ARCO OIL REFINERY.  I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF

                                                                                21

            1    THE MEMBERSHIP THAT WE HAVE IN 24 CITIES HERE IN

            2    CALIFORNIA.

            3             ON JULY 11TH, 2007, ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN

            4    JOHNSON STATED THAT BETWEEN 1970 AND 2006 TOTAL

            5    EMISSIONS OF THE SIX PRINCIPAL AIR POLLUTANTS DROPPED 54

            6    PERCENT AND THAT THIS WAS A SUCCESS.  I CALL THIS A

            7    NATIONAL DISGRACE AND AN INSULT TO THE TENS OF THOUSANDS

            8    OF PEOPLE WHO DIE EVERY YEAR PREMATURELY AND THE

            9    MILLIONS OF U.S. RESIDENTS WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM

           10    RESPIRATORY AND HEART DISEASES EVERY DAY FROM OZONE, AIR

           11    POLLUTION, AND TOXIC CHEMICAL EXPOSURE.

           12             IN 36 YEARS, IT SHOULD HAVE DROPPED OVER 90

           13    PERCENT, NOT 54 PERCENT.  OZONE KILLS THE INNOCENT.

           14    OZONE MAIMS PERMANENTLY.  OZONE DESTROYS FAMILY LIVES.

           15    OZONE DESTROYS INDIVIDUALS' HOPES AND DREAMS.  OZONE IS

           16    DESTROYING THE PLANET WE LIVE ON.  I ASK WHY.  THE ONLY

           17    TRUTHFUL ANSWER IS THAT THE US EPA HAS ALLOWED IT TO

           18    HAPPEN BY SETTING STANDARDS THAT WILL NEVER ACHIEVE A

           19    SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND SAFE PUBLIC HEALTH LEVEL.

           20             IN ALL OF THE U.S. EPA'S HISTORY, IT HAS NEVER

           21    ELIMINATED OR MINIMIZED ANY PRINCIPLE CRITERIA TOXIC AIR

           22    POLLUTANT.  THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.  ADMINISTRATOR

           23    PROPOSED A STANDARD OF .070 PPM TO .075 PPM, WHICH IS

           24    UNACCEPTABLE AND DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF

           25    SAFETY.

                                                                                22

            1             IT IS A FACT THAT THE SURVEYING PARK IN 2002

            2    UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH WAS THE

            3    ONLY BASIS FOR A STANDARD, YET TODAY WE ARE STILL FACING

            4    A GROWING MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.  IN FACT, THE

            5    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY

            6    CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR

            7    RETAINING THE CURRENT EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS STANDARD, THAT

            8    THE CURRENT PRIMARY OZONE STANDARD BE REVISED AND THAT

            9    IT SHOULD BE BETWEEN .060 AND .070 PPM.  STANDARDS NEED

           10    TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH,

           11    PARTICULARLY IN SENSITIVE POPULATIONS AND THAT IS THE

           12    COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT.

           13             THE OZONE HEALTH STUDY MUST EXPLICITLY INCLUDE

           14    AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN

           15    AIR ACT.  IT DOES NOT.  THE ROUNDING LOOPHOLE MUST BE

           16    ELIMINATED.  FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, LOS ANGELES

           17    RESIDENTS HAVE ONLY SEEN ONE LARGE SMOG CLOUD OVER THE

           18    CITY.  NOW WE SEE TWO.  IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE PORT

           19    OF LOS ANGELES IS THE NUMBER ONE LARGEST AIR POLLUTION

           20    SOURCE.  THE PORT OF LONG BEACH IS THE SECOND LARGEST

           21    SOURCE.  THE SEVEN MAJOR OIL REFINERIES ARE THE THIRD

           22    LARGEST SOURCE, AND HAVE CREATED A NEW TOXIC DEATH CLOUD

           23    IN THE SOUTH BAY.  IN THE LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH

           24    HARBORS, WE ARE NOW CALLED THE DIESEL DEATH ZONE.  YOU

           25    CAN SEE THE SMOG CLOUD OVER THE HARBOR THAT NEVER

                                                                                23

            1    EXISTED BEFORE.

            2             THE MOST IMPACTED AREAS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL

            3    JUSTICE COMMUNITIES COMPOSED OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, LOW

            4    INCOME, POVERTY LEVEL, ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE AND

            5    POLITICALLY DISENFRANCHISED.  OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

            6    COMMUNITIES HAVE, FOR DECADES, BEEN RACIALLY PROFILED,

            7    TARGETS OF RACIAL CLASSISM, VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION,

            8    AND DESIGNATED AS INDUSTRIAL SACRIFICIAL LAMBS.  IT IS

            9    NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE TO US.

           10             THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS FAIL TO

           11    COMPLY WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 OF FEBRUARY 11TH,

           12    1960 -- 1994, WHICH ARE THE FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS

           13    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MINORITY POPULATIONS AND

           14    LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS.  THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT

           15    PERFORMED TO IDENTIFY THE DISPROPORTIONATE HIGH AND

           16    ADVERSE HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EFFECTS OF THIS

           17    PROGRAM, POLICY, AND ACTIVITIES.

           18             IN MY WRITTEN COMMENTS, I HAVE PROVIDED MORE

           19    DETAILED INFORMATION; BUT IN THE PACKET I DO WANT TO

           20    REPRESENT PEOPLE WHO CANNOT MAKE IT HERE.  ONE IS

           21    MR. EDWARD MORRUM, A WILMINGTON RESIDENT WHO HAS

           22    CURRENTLY BEEN IN LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL FOR

           23    SEVEN YEARS DYING OF LUNG CANCER.  HE NEVER SMOKED,

           24    NEVER HAD ASTHMA OR ANY RESPIRATORY HEALTH PROBLEM IN

           25    ALL OF HIS LIFE.

                                                                                24

            1             RIGHT HERE IS ANOTHER PHOTO OF LITTLE

            2    ONE-YEAR-OLD ADRIA WITH HER MOTHER MARIE.  AT ONE YEAR

            3    OLD, SHE'S ALREADY DIAGNOSED WITH ASTHMA AND HAVING TO

            4    HAVE A NEBULIZER TO BREATHE.  ADRIA'S LITTLE BROTHER,

            5    NINE YEARS OLD, ALREADY HAVING TO USE A RESPIRATOR.

            6             THESE OTHER PHOTOS JUST SHOW WHAT OUR CLOUDS OF

            7    SMOG ARE AND WHY THEY ARE CAUSED.  THIS IS CONOCO OIL

            8    REFINERY ON ONE OF ITS FLARING SUNSET NIGHTS IN

            9    WILMINGTON.  ANOTHER CLOUD OF POLLUTION DURING THE

           10    DAYTIME.  AND HERE, JUST SOME FACT SHEETS SHOWING YOU

           11    THE DATA FROM THE AQ DISTRICT OF OIL REFINERIES.  AS YOU

           12    CAN SEE THE TOTALS, EVERY YEAR IT HAS INCREASED SINCE

           13    1999.

           14             I THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

           16    THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU.

           17        MR. HABER:  I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. MARQUEZ.

           18             ARE YOU RECOMMENDING -- WE'VE PROPOSED A

           19    STANDARD OF PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FIGURES, AND PART OF THE

           20    REASON FOR THAT WAS WE SAID THAT THAT REFLECTS THE

           21    CURRENT STATE OF WHAT MONITORING TECHNOLOGY CAN DO.

           22             ARE YOU SUPPORTING THAT IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT

           23    THE --

           24        JESSE MARQUEZ:  I'M SUPPORTING THAT WE ADOPT THE

           25    LOWEST STANDARD WHICH IS .060.  IT IS A FACT THAT --

                                                                                25

            1        MR. HABER:  I'M SORRY.

            2        A.   -- TECHNOLOGY EXISTS RIGHT NOW TO ELIMINATE

            3    OVER 90 PERCENT OF ALL EMISSIONS.

            4        MR. HABER:  YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT WE CLOSE THE

            5    ROUNDING LOOPHOLE AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT.

            6             WOULD THIS DO THAT OR DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT

            7    RECOMMENDATION?

            8        JESSE MARQUEZ:  THIS WOULD DO THAT IF WE STAYED AT,

            9    SPECIFICALLY, 060.

           10        MR. HABER:  THANK YOU.

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MR. MARQUEZ, IF YOU WOULD

           12    LIKE TO SUBMIT THOSE PHOTOS FOR THE RECORD, WE CAN

           13    INCLUDE THOSE IN THE DOCKET, IF YOU HAVE COPIES OR --

           14        JESSE MARQUEZ:  I HAVE PASSED TO YOU COPIES ALREADY.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JACK

           16    STEWART AND MIKE SANDLER.

           17             ARE YOU MR. --

           18        JACK STEWART:  JACK STEWART.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  IS MR. SANDLER HERE?  ALL

           20    RIGHT.

           21        JACK STEWART:  GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR THE

           22    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY THIS MORNING.

           23             MY NAME IS JACK STEWART.  I'M PRESIDENT OF

           24    CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION.

           25    CMTA IS CALIFORNIA'S ONLY STATEWIDE TRADE ASSOCIATION

                                                                                26

            1    REPRESENTING MANUFACTURERS AND IS COMPRISED OF THOUSANDS

            2    SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES LOCATED

            3    THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  I AM ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE

            4    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS STATE AND

            5    ASSOCIATIONS GROUP, AN AFFILIATE ORGANIZATION STATE

            6    MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTING 48 STATES.

            7             I'D LIKE TO START BY ECHOING MY COMMENT -- BY

            8    ECHOING COMMENTS THAT WE TOO SUPPORT U.S. EPA'S ONGOING

            9    EFFORT TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE NATION.  I

           10    AM PROUD TO SAY THAT THE MANUFACTURERS I REPRESENT ARE

           11    DOING THEIR PART TO MAKE THE AIR CLEANER HERE IN

           12    CALIFORNIA.  I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT CMTA AND OUR MEMBER

           13    COMPANIES FREQUENTLY PARTNER WITH THE CALIFORNIA

           14    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE CALIFORNIA AIR

           15    RESOURCES BOARD, AND THE LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS LOCATED

           16    THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA TO ACHIEVE BOTH CLEANER AIR AND A

           17    HEALTHY ECONOMY TO SERVE THE POPULATION THAT GROWS BY

           18    SOME 500,000 PEOPLE EACH YEAR.

           19             IN JUST THE PAST YEAR, CMTA MEMBER COMPANIES

           20    HAVE WORKED WITH THE REGULATORY AGENCIES I JUST

           21    MENTIONED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM OIL STORAGE TANKS, TO

           22    REDUCE DIESEL EMISSIONS, TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM OUR

           23    PORTS, TO ADVANCE FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY, TO REDUCE

           24    FREIGHT TRAIN EMISSIONS, TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL

           25    QUALITY OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.  THESE EXAMPLES ARE

                                                                                27

            1    BUT A FEW OF THE MANY EFFORTS OF THE CMTA COMPANIES --

            2    MEMBER COMPANIES ARE DOING TO IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY

            3    AND WORK TOWARDS ATTAINING THE CURRENT NATIONAL OZONE

            4    STANDARD.

            5             IN THAT REGARD, I BELIEVE IT IS INAPPROPRIATE

            6    FOR U.S. EPA TO CHANGE THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD FOR

            7    THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  ONE, THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD

            8    IS WORKING.  BASED ON EPA ESTIMATES, AIR QUALITY

            9    THROUGHOUT THE NATION HAS IMPROVED.  ACCORDING TO EPA'S

           10    OWN DATA, TOTAL EMISSIONS IN THE SIX PRINCIPAL AIR

           11    POLLUTANTS HAVE DROPPED BY 54 PERCENT SINCE 1970.  THE

           12    NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR OZONE LEVELS HAS DECREASED BY 21

           13    PERCENT DURING THE 1980 TO 2006 TIME FRAME.  CURRENT

           14    FEDERAL AND STATE INITIATIVES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE

           15    OZONE CAUSING EMISSIONS OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADES.

           16    EXISTING REGULATIONS WILL RESULT IN EMISSION REDUCTIONS

           17    FOR POWER PLANTS BY 50 PERCENT BY 2015 AND FROM CARS AND

           18    TRUCKS BY MORE THAN 70 PERCENT BY 2030.

           19             SECOND, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCIENCE USED TO

           20    JUSTIFY LOWERING THE OZONE STANDARDS SUGGEST THAT THE

           21    EPA IS MAYBE PROPOSING REGULATIONS THAT COULD HARM THE

           22    ECONOMY WITHOUT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED ENVIRONMENTAL

           23    AND/OR PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS.  I WOULD NOTE THE RECENT

           24    ADAMS STUDY DONE AT UC DAVIS, WHICH INDICATES THERE MAY

           25    BE LITTLE OR NO PUBLIC HEALTH ADVANTAGE TO LOWERING THE

                                                                                28

            1    OZONE STANDARDS BELOW THE CURRENT .08 PPM LEVEL.

            2             FINALLY I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL

            3    FOR ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR FURTHER -- THE POTENTIAL OF THE

            4    ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FURTHER OZONE STANDARD REDUCTION.

            5    THE EPA ESTIMATES THAT MEETING CURRENT AIR MANDATES WILL

            6    COST THE NATION 27 BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY WITH A

            7    CUMULATIVE COST OF MORE THAN 180 BILLION DOLLARS.  THE

            8    INCREASED COST TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED STANDARD WILL

            9    ADD ANOTHER 10- TO 22 BILLION DOLLARS IN ANNUAL COSTS,

           10    MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR MANUFACTURERS TO REMAIN

           11    COMPETITIVE IN THE UNITED STATES AND PROVIDE THE JOBS

           12    FOR MILLION CALIFORNIANS.

           13             I -- THE TERM I LEARNED DURING CALIFORNIA'S

           14    GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE IS "LEAKAGE," OR THE INADVERTENT

           15    ACT OF MOVING JOBS AND THEIR RELATED DIVISIONS FROM ONE

           16    GEOGRAPHIC REGION TO ANOTHER DUE TO INCREASED REGULATORY

           17    COSTS.  IF THE COST TO COMPLY WITH THE LOWER OZONE

           18    STANDARD CAUSES US MANUFACTURERS TO MOVE INDUSTRIAL

           19    OPERATIONS TO LESS COSTLY, LESS REGULATED LOCATIONS, IN

           20    SUCH PLACES AS MEXICO, SOUTH AMERICA, AND ASIA, THEN WE

           21    HAVE SUCCEEDED IN ONLY DOING HARM TO OUR ECONOMY WHILE

           22    TRANSFERRING EMISSIONS TO ANOTHER REGION OF THE WORLD.

           23             TO PUT IT QUITE SIMPLY, THE CURRENT STANDARDS

           24    ARE WORKING.  IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR QUALITY HAVE AND

           25    CONTINUE TO OCCUR.  FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE -- FOR THE

                                                                                29

            1    REASONS I HAVE MENTIONED, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS

            2    TIME TO CHANGE THE NATIONAL OZONE STANDARD.  DOING SO

            3    WOULD BE, IN EFFECT, MOVING THE GOALPOST IN THE MIDDLE

            4    OF THE GAME.

            5             I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.  THANK

            6    YOU.

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  JUST A COMMENT, WHICH I'M

            8    SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF.

            9             WE DON'T TAKE COSTS OR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

           10    INTO ACCOUNT IN SETTING THE STANDARD, SO THE ECONOMIC

           11    ISSUES ARE ONES WE DON'T CONSIDER.

           12             I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT THE ADAMS

           13    STUDY THAT YOU MENTIONED.  PERHAPS YOU'RE GOING TO

           14    PROVIDE FURTHER DETAIL ON WRITTEN COMMENTS, BUT YOU SAID

           15    THAT -- I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE STUDY SHOWS THAT THERE

           16    WILL BE LITTLE OR NO PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENT?

           17        JACK STEWART:  YES.

           18        MS. WEGMAN:  AND IF YOU COULD PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON

           19    YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT.

           20        JACK STEWART:  OKAY.

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.

           22        MR. HANNON:  I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THE LAST

           23    COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT MOVING THE GOALPOST IN THE MIDDLE

           24    OF THE GAME.  I HAVE SEEN THAT REFLECTED IN OTHER

           25    COMMENTS AS WELL.

                                                                                30

            1             HOW DO YOU -- HOW DO YOU PUT THAT IN THE

            2    CONTEXT WHERE CONGRESS HAS MANDATED THAT WE HAVE A

            3    REVIEW EVERY FIVE YEARS TO REVIEW AND REVISE AND ACT AS

            4    APPROPRIATE --

            5        JACK STEWART:  WELL, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT A VERY

            6    DETAILED -- WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH A VERY DETAILED

            7    PROCESS OF DOING STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.  IT JUST

            8    SEEMS TO BE, WE HAVE SET UP A METHODOLOGY NOW TO GO

            9    AFTER THE CURRENT LEVELS; AND UNTIL WE GET TO THOSE

           10    LEVELS, IT SEEMS INAPPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THE STANDARDS

           11    UNTIL WE DO THAT.

           12        MS. WEGMAN:  MR. SANDLER.

           13        MIKE SANDLER:  THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY.

           14    MY NAME IS MIKE SANDLER.  I AM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

           15    OUTREACH DIRECTOR FOR CALIFORNIA INTERFAITH POWER AND

           16    LIGHT.

           17             I'M HERE TO URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE STRICTEST

           18    POSSIBLE OZONE STANDARD.  CALIFORNIA INTERFAITH POWER

           19    AND LIGHT WAS FOUNDED TO ORGANIZE A RELIGIOUS RESPONSE

           20    TO GLOBAL WARMING AS THE MORAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME.  OUR

           21    MEMBER CONGREGATIONS ARE LED BY CLERGY WHO ARE EDUCATING

           22    THEIR CONGREGANTS ABOUT THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARMING

           23    AND OUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.

           24    EVERY MAJOR RELIGION CALLS ON ITS BELIEVERS TO BE

           25    FAITHFUL STEWARDS OF CREATION.  THE WEB OF LIFE THAT

                                                                                31

            1    SURROUNDS US AND BINDS US TO EACH OTHER AND TO OUR

            2    PLANET.  WE ALL HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT CREATION TO

            3    INSURE A HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN

            4    AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

            5             WE SHARE THE CONCERN OF MANY ENVIRONMENTAL AND

            6    PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS ABOUT AIR POLLUTION AND ITS

            7    RESULTANT HEALTH EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE ASTHMA EPIDEMIC.

            8    I MYSELF AM AN ASTHMA SUFFERER, WHICH I BELIEVE I

            9    CONTRACTED WHILE LIVING IN SACRAMENTO AND THE CENTRAL

           10    VALLEY IN THE '80S.  HERE IN LOS ANGELES, WITH SOME OF

           11    THE HIGHEST OZONE LEVELS IN THE COUNTRY, CHILDREN,

           12    TEENAGERS, SENIOR CITIZENS, AND PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE

           13    ARE VICTIMS TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE.

           14             CALIFORNIA INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT JOINS

           15    WITH OTHER GROUPS, SUCH AS ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA, THE

           16    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF

           17    PEDIATRICS, AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, AND MANY OTHER

           18    PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS IN RECOMMENDING

           19    AN OZONE STANDARD OF 0.06 PARTS PER MILLION.  THE EPA

           20    MUST IMPROVE ITS CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR THE NATIONAL AIR

           21    QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE TO FOLLOW WHAT YOUR OWN

           22    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS HAVE SAID IS NEEDED TO PROTECT

           23    PUBLIC HEALTH.

           24             WHEN YOU FINALIZE THE STANDARDS NEXT YEAR, I

           25    URGE YOU TO ADOPT A STRONG OZONE STANDARD OF 0.060 PARTS

                                                                                32

            1    PER MILLION CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR

            2    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.

            3             IN MY REMAINING FEW MOMENTS, I'D LIKE TO READ A

            4    FEW QUOTES FROM VARIOUS RELIGIOUS LEADERS AROUND THE

            5    WORLD.

            6             QUOTE, "WE CANNOT INTERFERE IN ONE AREA OF THE

            7    ECO SYSTEM WITHOUT PAYING DUE ATTENTION BOTH TO THE

            8    CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH INTERFERENCE IN OTHER AREAS AND TO

            9    THE WELL-BEING OF FUTURE GENERATIONS."  POPE JOHN PAUL,

           10    II.

           11             "GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT JUST A SCIENTIFIC OR A

           12    POLITICAL ISSUE.  IT IS A MORAL ISSUE.  IT IS TIME FOR

           13    THE MORAL VOICE OF RELIGION TO SPEAK UP LOUDLY TO DEMAND

           14    ACTION."  RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS

           15    ACTION CENTER OF REFORMED JUDAISM.

           16             "MUSLIMS, HEED THE CALL TO PROTECT THE EARTH

           17    AND ITS INHABITANTS.  WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH

           18    OUR CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO REDUCE

           19    GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION."  DR. SAYYID M. SEED,

           20    SECRETARY GENERAL OF ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA.

           21             YOU MAY WONDER, WHY AM I TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL

           22    WARMING IN AN OZONE HEARING?  WELL, I ACTUALLY

           23    CO-AUTHORED A STUDY FOR THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY

           24    MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN 2003 DESCRIBING MANY OF THE

           25    OVERLAPS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND AIR POLLUTION.

                                                                                33

            1             AS YOU MAY KNOW, AS TEMPERATURES RISE, THE

            2    INCIDENTS OF OZONE BECOMES MORE PRONOUNCED.  AND IF

            3    YOU'RE INTERESTED, I COULD REFER YOU TO THOSE STUDIES OR

            4    YOU CAN CONTACT THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

            5    DISTRICT AND ASK THEM ABOUT THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN

            6    2003.  SO RISING TEMPERATURE IS ONE ASPECT.

            7             I WAS JUST IN THE OTHER ROOM TALKING WITH

            8    SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO CAME DOWN HERE FROM FRESNO.  WHEN I

            9    DROVE THE I-5 THROUGH THE CENTRAL VALLEY A COUPLE WEEKS

           10    AGO, I NOTICED THAT THE AIR QUALITY IS TYPICALLY PRETTY

           11    BAD, BUT IT SEEMED WORSE THAN USUAL.  I ASKED THEM,

           12    "WHAT ABOUT THE FOREST FIRES IN SANTA BARBARA?"  OVER

           13    80,000 ACRES OF FOREST HAS BEEN BURNING NORTH OF SANTA

           14    BARBARA.  ALL OF THAT AIR POLLUTION IS BLOWN INLAND AND

           15    HAS HAD AN EFFECT.

           16             SO INCREASED FOREST FIRES, MORE PRONOUNCED HEAT

           17    WAVES, AND DROUGHTS WILL ALL AFFECT AIR QUALITY.

           18             ALSO, ON A DAY LIKE TODAY WHEN OUR PEEK POWER

           19    LOAD IS AT ITS MAXIMUM, A LOT OF THOSE PEEK POWER PLANTS

           20    ARE ONLINE.  THOSE TYPICALLY HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON

           21    AIR POLLUTION AS WELL.

           22             SO I GUESS IN CONCLUSION, I URGE YOU TO TAKE

           23    STRONG ACTION.  THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY TESTIMONY

           24    TODAY.

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  QUESTIONS?  THANK YOU BOTH.

                                                                                34

            1    ELINA GREEN, AND -- IS THERE AN INTERPRETER COMING IN?

            2    OH, THE NEXT PERSON.  THANK YOU.  MONICA PARILLA.  YES.

            3    THANK YOU.

            4             WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL --

            5        ELINA GREEN:  SURE.  GOOD MORNING.

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  I'M SORRY, THE MICROPHONE.

            7        ELINA GREEN:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS ELINA GREEN.

            8    I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE LONG BEACH ALLIANCE FOR

            9    CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA, AND WE'RE A BROAD-BASED COMMUNITY

           10    ASTHMA COALITION WORKING IN LONG BEACH AND THE

           11    SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND

           12    WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA WHO ARE LIVING IN

           13    THOSE COMMUNITIES.

           14             SO HAVING SAID THAT, I DO COME REPRESENTING A

           15    REALLY BROAD-BASED COMMUNITY COALITION OF AGENCIES,

           16    PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTITIONERS, CLINICIANS, AND FAMILIES OF

           17    CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA.  SO OUR COMMUNITIES ARE CURRENTLY

           18    INUNDATED WITH POLLUTION.

           19             I KNOW JESSE MARQUEZ SPOKE BEFORE ME ABOUT THE

           20    POWER PLANTS AND THE GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEM THAT'S

           21    FUNCTIONING HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.  THIS GOODS

           22    MOVEMENT SYSTEM BRINGS IN 40 PERCENT OF THE NATION'S

           23    GOODS, AND THESE -- THAT WHOLE SYSTEM IS HAVING A

           24    HORRIBLE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THESE COMMUNITIES.

           25    THIS IMPACTS THE WORK THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING AROUND

                                                                                35

            1    OZONE.

            2             THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD DID AN

            3    EMISSION REDUCTION PLAN, AND THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN

            4    THERE THAT WAS VERY TELLING ABOUT THE WORK THAT YOU ALL

            5    ARE DOING AND CONSIDERING IN TERMS OF CAPPING THE OZONE

            6    LEVELS IN THIS AREA AND THAT THEY ASCEEDED IN THEIR

            7    DOCUMENT THAT THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARE

            8    SUBSIDIZING THE GOODS MOVEMENT SECTOR WITH THEIR HEALTH.

            9             SO THESE EXTERN AMOUNTS THAT THE EMISSION

           10    REDUCTION PLAN LOOKED AT ARE OFTEN NOT TAKEN INTO

           11    ACCOUNT WHEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE DOING REGULATIONS

           12    AND RULE MAKING.  IT'S IN THIS REALLY CRITICAL TIME THAT

           13    I'M HOPING TO BRING FORWARD SOME OF THOSE STORIES IN

           14    THAT WE PROVIDE FREE SERVICES FOR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE

           15    EXPERIENCING THE NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS AND ARE NOT

           16    BEING COVERED BY THE INDUSTRY OR ARE NOT TAKEN INTO

           17    ACCOUNT OFTEN WHEN THIS TYPE OF RULE MAKING IS BEING

           18    MADE.

           19             SO I REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THESE IMPACTS

           20    THAT NO ACTION WOULD HAVE -- NO ACTION AROUND THE OZONE

           21    REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE ON THE FAMILIES LIVING IN THESE

           22    COMMUNITIES WHO ARE ALREADY HEAVILY INUNDATED WITH AIR

           23    POLLUTION.  I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS YET CITED THIS,

           24    BUT YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS LIVING IN CALIFORNIA HAVE MUCH

           25    HIGHER RATES OF ASTHMA FOR BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS.

                                                                                36

            1    THERE'S ABOUT A 13-PERCENT AVERAGE RATE OF ASTHMA AS

            2    COMPARED TO AROUND A 10-PERCENT NATIONAL AVERAGE; BUT

            3    THAT BEING SO, THERE ARE HOT-SPOT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE

            4    ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED, PARTICULARLY OUR SOUTHERN

            5    CALIFORNIA AREA.

            6             IN THE LONG BEACH HEALTH DISTRICT, THERE'S BEEN

            7    RECENT DATA THAT SHOWED A 20-PERCENT RATE IN CHILDREN.

            8    SO WE KNOW THAT CHILDREN ARE ALREADY HEAVILY IMPACTED.

            9    AND REGULATIONS THAT GOVERNING BODIES, SUCH AS THE EPA,

           10    ARE MAKING DO HAVE DRAMATIC IMPACTS IN IMPROVING THE

           11    HEALTH OF THESE COMMUNITIES AND MUST BE CONSIDERED.

           12             SO I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING MY COMMUNITY TO

           13    REQUEST THAT THESE ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES BE

           14    CONSIDERED IN THE RULE MAKING IN THAT EPA MOVES FORWARD

           15    WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEIR OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE

           16    MADE TO SET THE LIMITS AT .06 FOR THE OZONE AND PROTECT

           17    THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA LIVING

           18    IN THESE COMMUNITIES.  SO THANK YOU.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MRS. PARILLA AND

           20    INTERPRETER, HELLO.

           21        MONICA PARILLA:  (STATEMENT GIVEN IN SPANISH.)

           22        THE INTERPRETER:  GOOD MORNING, ALTHOUGH I'M GOING

           23    TO SPEAK THROUGHOUT THE HEARING TODAY, WITH THE FIRST

           24    PERSON I WILL ALWAYS BE REFERRING TO THE EXACT WORDS OF

           25    THE SPEAKERS.

                                                                                37

            1             HAVING SAID THAT, SHE SAID:

            2                 "MY NAME IS MONICA PARILLA, AND I AM HERE

            3             REPRESENTING MY COMMUNITY IN LONG BEACH.  I

            4             HAVE LIVED IN LONG BEACH FOR SIX YEARS, AND I

            5             LOVE MY COMMUNITY AND THAT IS WHAT BRINGS ME

            6             HERE TODAY.  I ALSO HAVE A CHILD WHO IS

            7             SUFFERING WITH ASTHMA, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW

            8             MORTIFYING IT IS NOT KNOWING WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE

            9             AN ATTACK, HAVING -- OR WHEN I MIGHT HAVE TO

           10             RUSH OUT TO THE E.R., HAVING TO GO TO CONSTANT

           11             DOCTOR'S VISITS, RUNNING OUT OF MEDICATION,

           12             HAVING TO GO OUT AND GET MORE, ALSO CALLING THE

           13             SCHOOL CONSTANTLY TO CHECK HOW HE'S DOING, AND

           14             LIVING IN FEAR THAT THE SCHOOL WILL CALL ME AT

           15             ANY MOMENT TO LET ME KNOW THAT HE HAD AN

           16             ATTACK.  YOU'RE ALWAYS AFRAID THAT THE REST OF

           17             YOUR CHILDREN OR THE CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY

           18             WILL ALSO GET ASTHMA.

           19                 "IT ISN'T POSSIBLE THAT KNOWING ALL OF THE

           20             DIFFERENT CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE SUFFERING, NOT

           21             ONLY ASTHMA BUT OTHER ILLNESSES, SUCH AS

           22             CANCER, AND WITH YOU HAVING THE MEANS TO

           23             CORRECT THIS, THAT IT IS NOT BEING DONE.

           24                 "YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE INDICATED THAT

           25             YOU NEED TO REDUCE THE OZONE STANDARDS, AND I

                                                                                38

            1             URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION.  IT IS MOSTLY OUR

            2             LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES THAT ARE HARMED BY THE

            3             AIR POLLUTION GENERATED.  SO I AM HERE TO ASK

            4             THAT YOU, PLEASE, HELP US CLEAN UP OUR

            5             ENVIRONMENT."

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  GRACIAS.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS

            7    ARE RABINA SUWOL AND ALICIA HANCOCK.

            8        RABINA SUWOL:  HI, GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS --

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT.

           10        RABINA SUWOL:  HI, GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS RABINA

           11    SUWOL.  I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA SAFE

           12    SCHOOLS.  WE ARE A CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

           13    ORGANIZATION LOCATED HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.  THANK

           14    YOU FOR SCHEDULING THESE IMPORTANT MEETINGS TODAY AND

           15    FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

           16             WITH ASTHMA, CANCER, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS,

           17    HORMONAL DISRUPTIONS, AND A HOST OF IMMUNE DISORDERS

           18    VERY MUCH EPIDEMIC, IT'S IMPERATIVE TO SET MORE

           19    PROTECTIVE STANDARDS REGARDING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE

           20    HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES, STANDARDS THAT COMPLY WITH

           21    THE CLEAN AIR ACT, STANDARDS THAT RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE

           22    VULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

           23    COMMUNITIES THAT YOU'VE HEARD MANY MEMBERS SPEAK BEFORE

           24    YOU TODAY THAT ARE COMMUNITIES WHOSE LIVES AND HEALTH

           25    ARE ALREADY DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY TOXIC

                                                                                39

            1    EMISSIONS FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.

            2             HERE IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE THE MOST

            3    CONTAMINATED AIR ON THE CONTINENT AND I THINK IT'S

            4    REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT.  IT IS ABOUT

            5    OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE.  THEY HAVE NO

            6    WAR CHESTS, THEY HAVE NO VOTE, THEY HAVE NO LOBBYISTS,

            7    AND THEY DEPEND UPON ADULTS TO PROTECT THEM.  WITH EPA'S

            8    OWN THRESHOLD STANDARD BASED UPON 160-POUND ADULT MALE,

            9    HEALTHY MALE, OUR CHILDREN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE AT

           10    RISK.

           11             I ASK THAT EPA PLEASE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO

           12    INSURE GREATER PROTECTION FOR ALL CITIZENS BY CREATING

           13    MORE STANDARDS THAT WILL PROTECT HEALTH AND THE

           14    ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLY WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  THANK

           15    YOU SO MUCH.

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  DO YOU HAVE A VIEW ON WHAT

           17    LEVEL WE SHOULD SET OUR OZONE STANDARD -- AT WHAT LEVEL

           18    WE SHOULD SET IT?

           19        RABINA SUWOL:  I THINK THAT YOUR SCIENTISTS HAVE

           20    SPOKEN, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK WITH

           21    COMMUNITIES AND OTHER SCIENTISTS WHO ARE VERY

           22    KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE VERY SPECIFICS IN A NUMBER.  I

           23    THINK IT WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE FOR TO STATE A NUMBER

           24    AT THIS TIME BECAUSE I REALLY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE

           25    REVIEWED.  THANK YOU SO MUCH.

                                                                                40

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MS. HANCOCK.

            2        ALICIA HANCOCK:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS ALICIA

            3    HANCOCK, AND I AM A MEMBER OF ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA.  I

            4    WANT TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK

            5    TO YOU THIS MORNING ABOUT THE OZONE STANDARDS.

            6             MY JOB IS ACTUALLY WORKING AS AN ATTORNEY, BUT

            7    I'M NOT HERE FOR MY JOB TODAY.  I'M HERE BECAUSE I FEEL

            8    LIKE IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO COMMENT ON OUR AIR

            9    QUALITY STANDARDS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.  I'M HERE

           10    BECAUSE I FEEL IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A RESIDENT OF

           11    LOS ANGELES CITY WITH ONE OF THE WORST AIR QUALITIES IN

           12    THE COUNTRY, AND I'M HERE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S MY

           13    RESPONSIBILITY AS THE AUNT OF A FOUR-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO

           14    LIVES IN SOUTH L.A. WHO HAS TO OFTEN STOP PLAYING

           15    BECAUSE HIS ASTHMA JUST GETS TOO BAD.  I HAVE A

           16    RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS FUTURE AND MY

           17    FUTURE CONTAIN A LOT LESS BAD AIR DAYS.

           18             YOUR JOB HERE TODAY IS TO LISTEN TO ALL OF US

           19    AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL CONTINUE TO FILE THROUGH

           20    THIS ROOM UNTIL 9:00 O'CLOCK TONIGHT, AND I'M NOT SURE

           21    THAT I ENVY YOU THAT.  YOU'LL HERE FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE

           22    LIKE ME WHO WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT THE STRICTEST

           23    STANDARD POSSIBLE OF .060 PARTS PER MILLION, AND YOU'RE

           24    ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO TELL YOU

           25    THAT WE'RE JUST FINE AND THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE STATUS

                                                                                41

            1    QUO.

            2             BUT WHAT I'M HERE TO DO IS REMIND YOU THAT YOU

            3    HAVE ONE RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS TO

            4    PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  THE CLEAN AIR ACT MANDATES

            5    THAT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS MUST BE SET AT LEVELS THAT

            6    PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, INCLUDING THAT OF SENSITIVE

            7    POPULATIONS, WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  THE

            8    SUPREME COURT, IN 2002, ALSO MANDATED THAT IN SETTING

            9    THOSE STANDARDS, PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD BE THE SOLE FACTOR

           10    CONSIDERED BY THE EPA.

           11             HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW:  WE KNOW THAT ONE-THIRD OF

           12    THE U.S. POPULATION LIVES IN CITIES RIGHT NOW WITH AN

           13    UNSAFE LEVEL OF OZONE.  THAT'S 99 MILLION PEOPLE.  WE

           14    KNOW THAT EXPOSURE TO OZONE LEADS TO AN INCREASED RISK

           15    OF PREMATURE DEATH.  WE KNOW THAT BREATHING OZONE, EVEN

           16    AT LOW LEVELS, CAN LEAD TO CHEST PAIN AND COUGHING,

           17    AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, REDUCED LUNG FUNCTION, AND

           18    IRREVERSIBLE LUNG DAMAGE.

           19             IN 2006, THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY

           20    COMMITTEE REVIEWED OVER 2,000 PAGES OF SCIENTIFIC

           21    STUDIES.  AFTER DOING SO, THEY UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED

           22    THAT THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARDS ARE INADEQUATE, AND I

           23    WOULD ARGUE THAT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY

           24    PROPOSED ARE ALSO INADEQUATE.  IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT

           25    YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, NOT ONLY

                                                                                42

            1    THE MOST SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS, BUT THE HEALTH OF ALL OF

            2    US, I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER ADOPTING THE

            3    STANDARD OF .060 PARTS PER MILLION.

            4             YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE

            5    WHOSE JOB IT IS TO REPRESENT THE OIL INDUSTRY, THE AUTO

            6    INDUSTRY, THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY, AND THE DIESEL

            7    ENGINE INDUSTRY.  THEIR JOB IS TO TELL YOU THAT

            8    EVERYTHING IS FINE.  THEIR JOB IS TO TELL YOU THAT

            9    LOWERING THE STANDARDS WILL LEAD TO ECONOMIC DISTRESS.

           10    IT COULD LEAD TO JOBS LEAVING AND COULD DISRUPT BUSINESS

           11    AS USUAL.  BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY.  THEIR

           12    RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MAINTAINING THE

           13    STATUS QUO GOES AGAINST A DECADE OF SCIENCE THAT SAYS

           14    DOING SO IS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN HEALTH.  THEY ALSO HAVE A

           15    RESPONSIBILITY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT TODAY WE HAVE THE

           16    TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CREATE ENERGY, PROVIDE

           17    TRANSPORTATION, AND CONTINUE WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL

           18    WITHOUT EMITTING DANGEROUS LEVELS OF NITROUS OXIDE AND

           19    VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.

           20             SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO URGE YOU, AGAIN, TO

           21    REMEMBER THAT YOUR ONE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO HUMAN

           22    HEALTH.  AND IN ORDER TO MEET YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO

           23    PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH, THE EPA SHOULD ADOPT A STANDARD OF

           24    0.060 PARTS PER MILLION.  THANKS VERY MUCH.

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  QUESTIONS?

                                                                                43

            1        MR. HABER:  YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE EXISTENCE OF

            2    TECHNOLOGIES --

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  MS. HANCOCK, ONE QUESTION FROM

            4    MR. HABER.

            5        ALICIA HANCOCK:  OH, I'M SORRY.

            6        MR. HABER:  THANKS.  YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE

            7    EXISTENCE OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT EXIST THAT WOULD BE

            8    CAPABLE OF REDUCING NITROGEN OXIDES AND VOC EMISSIONS

            9    THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS,

           10    PERHAPS PARTICULARLY IN THE L.A. BASIN.

           11             WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT

           12    NOW, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, IN YOUR WRITTEN

           13    COMMENTS, TO SUBMIT EXAMPLES OF THOSE TECHNOLOGIES

           14    BECAUSE WE'D BE VERY INTERESTED.

           15        ALICIA HANCOCK:  OKAY.

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DAN JOHNSON AND LARRY

           17    GREEN.

           18        DAN JOHNSON:  MY NAME IS DAN JOHNSON, AND I'M HERE

           19    TODAY REPRESENTING THE WESTERN STATES AIR RESOURCES

           20    COUNSEL.  THAT IS WESTAR TO MOST PEOPLE.  WESTAR'S

           21    MEMBERS INCLUDE THE AIR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS FROM THE

           22    15 WESTERN STATES.  EACH MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

           23    PROTECTING AGAINST HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

           24    IMPACTS FROM AIR POLLUTION.  AS SUCH, WE'RE VERY

           25    INTERESTED IN THESE STANDARDS.

                                                                                44

            1             INDIVIDUAL WESTAR MEMBERS WILL COMMENT ON THE

            2    PROPOSAL THAT WILL FOCUS ON THE LEVEL AND THE FORM OF

            3    THE STANDARDS AND EMPHASIZE EPA'S OBLIGATION TO SET THE

            4    STANDARDS BASED ON SCIENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO

            5    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.  WESTAR'S COMMENTS TODAY ASSUME

            6    THAT EPA WILL ADOPT NEW LOWER OZONE STANDARDS, AND BASED

            7    ON THAT ASSUMPTION, WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPACT OF THE

            8    REVISED STANDARDS IN THE WEST, THE FUNDING, AND

            9    RESOURCES NEEDED TO EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS TO

           10    ADDRESS OZONE UNDER REVISED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

           11    STANDARDS AND THE POTENTIAL FAR REACHING EFFECT OF A NEW

           12    SECONDARY STANDARD.

           13             FIRST, FUNDING:  IF EPA ADOPTS A PRIMARY

           14    STANDARD IN THE PROPOSED RANGE OF 0.07 TO 0.75 PARTS PER

           15    MILLION, IT'S LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE MANY NEW LARGE

           16    NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN THE WESTERN STATES AND

           17    TRANSPORTED AIR POLLUTION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE

           18    TO THESE NEW PROBLEM AREAS.  THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE IN

           19    MANY STATES, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE EASTERN U.S. WHERE

           20    EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO UNDERSTAND THE

           21    COMPLEX ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORT.

           22             WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROVIDED PRIMARILY

           23    THROUGH THE OZONE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, OR THE O.T.C.,

           24    THOSE STATES HAVE DEVELOPED THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES

           25    THAT ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE RECEPTOR

                                                                                45

            1    RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GEOPOLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND TO

            2    IDENTIFY THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO UNHEALTHFUL

            3    LEVELS OF OZONE THROUGH MOST OF THE EASTERN U.S.  PARTLY

            4    AS AN OUTGROWTH OF THAT ANALYSIS, EPA HAS IMPLEMENTED

            5    SEVERAL IMPORTANT EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS THAT HAVE

            6    RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS,

            7    INCLUDING THE NAAQS AND CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE CARE.

            8             THE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR POLLUTION

            9    IN THE EASTERN U.S. WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT

           10    FINANCIAL SUPPORT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE O.T.C.

           11    TO ASSIST IN EVALUATION OF PLANNING AND THE FUNDING TO

           12    IMPLEMENT THE NOX SIP CALL AND CARE.  THE WESTERN STATES

           13    DID NOT BENEFIT FROM THESE PROGRAMS.  THE FUNDS USED BY

           14    EPA WERE TAKEN OFF THE TOP OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS

           15    TO SUPPORT ALL STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

           16    AGENCIES.

           17             THE EFFECT OF THESE OFF-THE-TOP ALLOCATIONS HAS

           18    BEEN TO REDUCE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE TO WESTERN STATE

           19    LOCAL PROGRAMS.  WESTERN STATES HAVE ACCEPTED THESE

           20    REDUCTIONS UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF AND THE COSTS

           21    ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING THE NECESSARY CAPACITY TO

           22    ADDRESS REGIONAL PROBLEMS.

           23             WITH EPA'S PROMULGATION OF A NEW STAND AND THE

           24    PROPOSED CHANGE, THE WESTERN STATES WILL BE IN THE SAME

           25    POSITION AS THE EASTERN STATES WERE IN 20 YEARS AGO.

                                                                                46

            1    WE'LL BE FACED WITH A COMPLEX REGIONAL SCALE PROBLEM

            2    AFFECTING A VAST GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WITHOUT THE CAPACITY

            3    TO EVALUATE THE UNDERLYING CAUSES AND EFFECTS, MUCH LESS

            4    ASSESS MOST COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE

            5    PROBLEMS.

            6             ACCORDINGLY, WE EXPECT EPA TO PROVIDE FUNDING

            7    COMMENSURATE WITH THAT PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THE O.T.C.,

            8    NOX SIP CALL AND CARE.  A NEW LOWER OZONE STANDARD WILL

            9    RESULT IN GOOD WORK FOR THE WESTERN STATES.  THE FUNDING

           10    NEEDED BY THE WESTERN STATES TO ADDRESS THIS IMPORTANT

           11    NEW CHALLENGE SHOULD NOT BE A REALLOCATION OF EXISTING

           12    FUNDS CURRENTLY BEING USED TO CARRY OUT OTHER IMPORTANT

           13    AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, NOR SHOULD IT ADVERSELY

           14    IMPACT THE ONGOING AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS GOING

           15    ON IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.

           16             SECOND TOPIC IS THE SECONDARY STANDARD.  A NEW

           17    SECONDARY STANDARD TO PROTECT AGAINST ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

           18    FROM OZONE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT MOST -- MANY MOSTLY

           19    RURAL WESTERN STATES.  MONITORING WILL BE NEEDED TO

           20    DETERMINE THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE IN THESE AREAS WHERE

           21    LITTLE OR NO DATA IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.  IF A PROBLEM

           22    IS FOUND, CREDIBLE ANALYSIS WILL BE NEEDED TO JUSTIFY

           23    THE IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS.

           24             AS DISCUSSED BEFORE WITH RESPECT TO THE

           25    PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY STANDARD, EPA WILL NEED TO PROVIDE

                                                                                47

            1    SIGNIFICANT FUNDING TO STATES:  FIRST, TO IDENTIFY AREAS

            2    THAT VIOLATE THE SECONDARY STANDARD; THEN TO EVALUATE

            3    THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE INITIAL REDUCTION OPTIONS.

            4             IN SUMMARY, EPA SHOULD ADOPT NEW STANDARDS FOR

            5    OZONE BASED ON SCIENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO IMPLEMENTATION

            6    ISSUES.  WE TRUST THAT EPA UNDERSTANDS THIS OBLIGATION

            7    AND THAT NEW LOWER STANDARDS WILL BE PROMULGATED.  IN

            8    RESPONSE WESTERN STATES WILL NEED TO DEVELOP THE

            9    EXPERTISE AND CAPACITY TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF

           10    COMPLIANCE WITH NEW STANDARDS OVER A VAST GEOGRAPHIC

           11    AREA AND TO EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT EMISSION REDUCTION

           12    OPTIONS.

           13             TO ACCOMPLISH THIS EFFECTIVELY AND ON A TIMELY

           14    BASIS, WESTERN STATES WILL NEED ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL

           15    SUPPORT COMMENSURATE WITH THAT PROVIDED TO EASTERN

           16    STATES OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES.  THANK YOU.

           17        MR. HANNON:  I DO TAKE IT THAT YOU'RE ASSUMING AND

           18    PRESUMING THERE WILL BE A TIGHTENING OF THE STANDARD

           19    BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY, BUT YOU MADE NO

           20    RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

           21             DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON

           22    LEVELS OR -- AND SPECIFICALLY ON THE SECONDARY ON THE

           23    FORM OF THE STANDARD?

           24        DAN JOHNSON:  WESTAR IS WORKING WITH THE

           25    ORGANIZATION LARRY WILL BE TALKING -- WILL BE

                                                                                48

            1    REPRESENTING IN A MOMENT, AND I BELIEVE WE WILL

            2    ULTIMATELY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.  AT THIS POINT, WE DO

            3    NOT.

            4        MR. HABER:  I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.  YOU TALKED

            5    EXTENSIVELY ABOUT FUNDING NEEDED AND USED AS AN EXAMPLE

            6    THE FUNDING IN THE APPROACH PROVIDED IN THE NOX SIP CALL

            7    AND CARE AND THAT WAS PAIRED WITH A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE

            8    PROGRAM THAT EPA DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED ON ITS OWN.

            9             ARE YOU ENVISIONING OR DO YOU HAVE A

           10    RECOMMENDATION FOR A SIMILAR PROGRAM FOR THE WESTERN

           11    STATES OR PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN STATES?

           12        DAN JOHNSON:  I DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO

           13    THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROGRAM.  WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS

           14    THAT WITHOUT THE HELP OF EPA, BOTH THE EXPERTISE, THE

           15    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL PROGRAMS, AND THE

           16    FINANCIAL SUPPORT, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE STANDARD IS

           17    SET, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE WESTERN

           18    STATES TO TAKE ON THAT KIND OF WORK WITHIN EXISTING

           19    BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.

           20             THAT'S THE SAME POSITION THE EASTERN STATES

           21    WERE IN 20 YEARS.  WE FIND OURSELVES -- OR WE HOPE THAT

           22    EPA WILL SET A NEW LOWER STANDARD, AND IF SO, WE WILL

           23    FIND OURSELVES IN THAT SAME POSITION ONCE THAT HAPPENS.

           24        MR. HABER:  THANK YOU.

           25        LARRY GREEN:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS LARRY GREEN,

                                                                                49

            1    AND I SERVE AS THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER FOR

            2    SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

            3    IN CALIFORNIA.  I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL

            4    ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES, NACAA, BOARD OF

            5    DIRECTORS AND SERVE AS CO-CHAIR OF NACAA'S EXTERNAL

            6    RELATIONS COMMITTEE.

            7             ON BEHALF OF NACAA, WHICH IS AN ASSOCIATION OF

            8    AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES IN 54 (SIC) STATES AND

            9    TERRITORIES AND OVER 165 METROPOLITAN AREAS ACROSS THE

           10    COUNTRY, I'M TESTIFYING TODAY ON EPA'S PROPOSED

           11    REVISIONS TO THE OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

           12    STANDARDS, NAAQS.

           13             NACAA COMMENDS EPA FOR PROPOSING TO SET A MORE

           14    STRINGENT PRIMARY OZONE NAAQS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

           15    OZONE COMPOSURE IS LINKED TO MANY ADVERSE HEALTH

           16    EFFECTS, INCLUDING PREMATURE MORTALITY IN PEOPLE WITH

           17    HEART AND LUNG DISEASE.  RECENT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE

           18    ADVERSE EFFECTS OCCUR AT CONCENTRATIONS LOWER THAN THE

           19    CURRENT STANDARD.  ALTHOUGH WE APPRECIATE THE EPA'S

           20    PROPOSAL TO TIGHTEN THE STANDARD, WE NEVERTHELESS HAVE

           21    SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE AGENCY'S PROPOSAL.

           22             EPA'S CONGRESSIONALLY CHARTERED BODY OF

           23    INDEPENDENT SCIENCE ADVISORS, THE CLEAN AIR SCIENCE

           24    ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CASAC, UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED BASED

           25    ON SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES AND

                                                                                50

            1    CLINICAL STUDIES THAT THE PRIMARY OZONE STANDARD NEEDS

            2    TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED AND RECOMMENDED

            3    STRENGTHENING PRIMARY OZONE NAAQS TO A LEVEL WITHIN THE

            4    RANGE OF .060 TO .070 PARTS PER MILLION.  HOWEVER, EPA'S

            5    PROPOSED RANGE OF LEVELS .070 TO .075 PPM FALLS OUTSIDE

            6    THAT RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY BY CASAC, COINCIDING ONLY

            7    AT CASAC'S UPPER BOUND.

            8             IN DETERMINING THE LEVELS REQUISITE TO PUBLIC

            9    HEALTH AND WELFARE, NACAA STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT EPA

           10    SHOULD FOLLOW THE SCIENCE OF THE LEARNED INFORMED ADVICE

           11    OF CASAC.  GIVEN CASAC'S STATUTORY DEFINED ROLE IN NAAQS

           12    REVIEW PROCESS, EPA NEEDS TO SPECIFICALLY INDICATE WHY

           13    IT CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF ITS INDEPENDENT

           14    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  IN ADDITION, WE QUESTION WHY EPA

           15    IS CONSIDERING RETAINING THE CURRENT STANDARD OF .084

           16    PPM WHEN, AS CASAC POINTS OUT, A LARGE BODY OF

           17    SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES ADVERSE HEALTH

           18    EFFECTS AT THE CURRENT STANDARD.  CASAC SAID IT BEST,

           19    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE

           20    CURRENT PRIMARY EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS.

           21             TURNING NOW TO THE SECONDARY OZONE STANDARD TO

           22    PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE, NACAA IS PLEASED THAT EPA HAS

           23    PROPOSED A DISTINCT CUMULATIVE SEASONAL STANDARD.  OZONE

           24    PROHIBITS PHOTOSYNTHESIS, CAUSES VISIBLE DAMAGE TO

           25    LEAVES, AND REDUCED AGRICULTURAL CROP YIELDS.  A

                                                                                51

            1    CUMULATIVE SEASONAL STANDARD MORE DIRECTLY CORRELATES

            2    WITH THE EXPOSURE OF PLANTS TO OZONE SINCE PLANTS ARE

            3    EXPOSED TO THIS POLLUTION DURING THE ENTIRE OZONE

            4    SEASON.

            5             AS WITH THE PRIMARY STANDARD, EPA'S PROPOSAL IS

            6    A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT FALLS SHORT OF WHAT

            7    SCIENCE INDICATES IS NEEDED.  ALL EPA DID PROPOSE

            8    PROMULGATING A DISTINCT CUMULATIVE SEASONAL SECONDARY

            9    STANDARD CALLED W126, AGENCY'S PROPOSED RANGE FOR A

           10    LEVEL EXTENDS OUTSIDE CASAC'S RANGE.  IN ADDITION, WE

           11    ARE TROUBLED THAT EPA PROPOSED, AS AN ALTERNATIVE,

           12    MAKING THE SECONDARY STANDARD IDENTICAL TO THE PRIMARY

           13    STANDARD DESPITE AGREEMENT AMONG CASAC ECOLOGICAL

           14    EXPERTS CONVENED IN A 1997 WORKSHOP AND EPA STAFF ON A

           15    NEED FOR A DISTINCT CUMULATIVE SECONDARY STANDARD TO

           16    PROTECT VEGETATION.

           17             FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH PRIMARY AND

           18    SECONDARY STANDARDS, TO THE EXTENT THAT NEW

           19    PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN

           20    SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS SINCE EPA PROPOSED THIS RULE, WE

           21    ENCOURAGE THE AGENCY, TIME PERMITTING UNDER THE COURT

           22    ORDERED DEADLINE, TO REVIEW THESE STUDIES DURING THIS

           23    DELIBERATION OF A FINAL RULE.

           24             WE ARE FURTHER CONCERNED THAT EPA IN THIS

           25    PROPOSAL, AS IN THE PARTICULAR MATTER, NAAQS IS MIXING

                                                                                52

            1    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES IN A RULE SETTING IN A

            2    HEALTH-BASED STANDARD.  EPA NEEDS TO ERECT A STRONG

            3    FIREWALL BETWEEN STANDARD SETTING AND IMPLEMENTATION

            4    ISSUES.  THE SUPREME COURT IN WHITMAN VERSUS AMERICAN

            5    TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS WAS VERY CLEAR THAT EPA MAY NOT

            6    CONSIDER THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION IN SETTING THE

            7    NAAQS.

            8             IN ADDITION, FOR POLICY REASONS, EPA SHOULD NOT

            9    LET CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION LEAD INTO STANDARD

           10    SETTING.  THE BENEFITS OF SETTING A STRONG STANDARD ARE

           11    HARDER TO MEASURE IN THAT ONE CANNOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY

           12    WHOSE LIFE IS SAVED, WHOSE CHILD HAS FEWER ASTHMA

           13    ATTACKS, AND WHICH TREES GROW FASTER AND STRONGER

           14    BECAUSE OF LESS OZONE POLLUTION.  THE COST, ON THE OTHER

           15    HAND, CAN BE EASILY TALLIED IF CONSIDERATIONS ARE

           16    IMPLEMENTATION AND ARE ALLOWED TO INFLUENCE STANDARD

           17    SETTING, THEN THE HUMAN PROPENSITY FOR AVOIDING PAYING

           18    MAKES IT VERY LIKELY THAT SOME STAKEHOLDERS WILL CLAMOR

           19    FOR A WEAKER STANDARD TO AVOID THIS COST.

           20             LET ME CLOSE BY SAYING THAT WHILE EPA SHOULD

           21    NOT COMBINE IMPLEMENTATION AND STANDARD SETTING ISSUES

           22    IN THIS RULE MAKING, WHATEVER DECISION EPA MAKES ON THE

           23    LEVEL OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY NAAQS WILL HAVE A

           24    PROFOUND EFFECT ON THE WORK OF STATE AND LOCAL CLEAN AIR

           25    AGENCIES.  EPA MUST RECOGNIZE THIS, NOT IN SETTING THE

                                                                                53

            1    NAAQS, BUT IN TIMELY RULE MAKINGS AND APPROPRIATION

            2    REQUESTS BY REQUESTING SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR STATE AND

            3    LOCAL CLEAN AIR AGENCIES TO CARRY OUT THE WORK

            4    ASSOCIATED WITH MEETING THE NEW NAAQS, PROVIDING

            5    SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS MONITORS, ISSUING

            6    TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES, AND ADOPTING NATIONAL

            7    RULES THAT ADDRESS MAJOR SOURCES OF OZONE PRECURSORS.

            8             ACCORDINGLY, IT WILL BE IMPERATIVE FOR EPA TO

            9    WORK IN CLOSE PARTNERSHIP WITH STATE AND LOCAL CLEAN AIR

           10    AGENCIES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ADDRESS

           11    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF

           12    PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION.  THANK YOU FOR THIS

           13    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.

           15        LARRY GREEN:  AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A RECOMMENDED

           16    NUMBER YET.  I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION.

           17        MR. HANNON:  WELL, I WASN'T AND I WON'T.  YOU

           18    MENTIONED THAT WE NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY WE DIFFER FROM

           19    CASAC IN OUR PRIMARY PROPOSAL.  OUR PREAMBLE DOES HAVE A

           20    DISCUSSION OF THAT, SO I'D RECOMMEND THAT IN YOUR

           21    WRITTEN COMMENTS, I ASSUME YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL

           22    COMMENT DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD, THAT YOU EXPLAIN IN

           23    MORE DETAIL, NOT JUST THAT WE SHOULD EXPLAIN, BUT IF

           24    THERE ARE ANY DEFECTS IN OUR EXPLANATION, THEN THAT WILL

           25    BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO HEAR FROM YOU.

                                                                                54

            1             YOU MENTIONED IF THERE ARE IMPORTANT NEW

            2    PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES SUBSEQUENT TO THE CASAC REVIEW OF

            3    THE AIR QUALITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT, THAT WE SHOULD REVIEW

            4    THOSE.  IT'S ALWAYS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ON ANY OF THE

            5    REVIEWS BECAUSE THERE IS A TIME LAG THAT OCCURS BETWEEN

            6    WHEN THE SCIENCE, IN EFFECT, HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR THE

            7    CRITERIA DOCUMENTED WHEN THE PROPOSAL AND THE FINAL RULE

            8    COMES OUT.  BUT IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE OF HOW TO

            9    DEAL WITH THAT NEW SCIENCE.

           10             SO IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC STUDIES, AGAIN, YOU

           11    SHOULD -- YOU SHOULD IDENTIFY THOSE, BUT ALSO TAKE INTO

           12    CONSIDERATION EPA'S POSITION IN THE LAST PM REVIEW AND

           13    IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF WHAT WE CALL THE PROVISIONAL

           14    ASSESSMENT OF NOT TAKING THEM INTO ACCOUNT, BUT MORE

           15    LOOKING AT THEM TO SEE, IS IT WORTH DELAYING THIS RULE

           16    MAKING TO GO BACK TO CASAC AND REVIEW NEW STUDIES?  SO

           17    TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE

           18    HANDLE THE NEW SCIENCE WILL BE USEFUL.

           19             YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT YOU CAUTIONED US TO NOT

           20    MIX IN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.  WAS THERE ANYTHING

           21    SPECIFIC THAT YOU HAD IN MIND THAT YOU SAW IN THE

           22    PREAMBLE OR INDICATION FOR COMMENT OR SOMETHING OF THAT

           23    NATURE?

           24        LARRY GREEN:  I THINK WE ANTICIPATE, AS WE'VE HEARD

           25    TODAY, COMMENT FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING.  AND

                                                                                55

            1    AS A COUNTER TO THAT, AND I'VE HEARD YOUR COMMENTS, OF

            2    COURSE, ALREADY TODAY THAT YOU CLEARLY ARE -- YOU KNOW,

            3    YOUR COMMENT BACK THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE YOUR

            4    POLICY, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT AND I'VE HEARD THAT

            5    TESTIMONY TODAY.

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST ONE POINT I WOULD ADD TO WHAT JOHN

            7    SAID AS FAR AS NEW SCIENCE:  THAT THE EXTENT THAT WE

            8    WOULD CONSIDER ANYTHING NEW, IT WOULD REALLY NEED TO BE

            9    SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.  NOT -- PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT

           10    INTERPRETATIONS OF EXISTING STUDIES AND THAT WOULD

           11    CERTAINLY BE ONE WOULD COMMENT ON --

           12        LARRY GREEN:  SURE.

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  -- BUT ANY NEW SCIENCE WOULD REALLY

           14    HAVE A BE A NEW SCIENCE.  OKAY.  THANK YOU BOTH.

           15             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DR. ROBERT VINETZ AND

           16    MELISSA KING STANSBERY.

           17             LET ME CHECK, IS SAMEERAH SIDDIQUI IN THE ROOM?

           18    NO.  OKAY.  THANK YOU.

           19             GOOD MORNING, DR. VINETZ.  DO YOU WANT TO --

           20        ROBERT VINETZ, M.D.:  YES.  AM I ON OR OFF?

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  I'M AFRAID YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN.

           22        ROBERT VINETZ, M.D.:  I HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN.  OKAY.

           23             WITH MY FELLOW MICROPHONE, I'M DR. ROBERT

           24    VINETZ.  I'M A PEDIATRICIAN.  I'M DIRECTOR OF THE

           25    PEDIATRIC ASTHMA AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR

                                                                                56

            1    QUEENS CARE FAMILY CLINICS, WHICH IS A NON-PROFIT

            2    FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER, AND WE HAVE

            3    APPROXIMATELY 7,000 CHILDREN UNDER OUR CARE.  ABOUT 800

            4    OF THEM HAVE ASTHMA.  I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE STEERING

            5    COMMITTEE FOR THE ASTHMA COALITION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

            6    AND A FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS.

            7             WHILE I'M INVOLVED IN ALL THOSE ORGANIZATIONS,

            8    I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING ANY SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION.

            9    THE TIME CONSTRAINTS HAVE JUST NOT ALLOWED ME TO PURSUE

           10    THAT.  I'VE BEEN IN PRACTICE FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS,

           11    AND I CAN TELL YOU I'VE SEEN HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND

           12    HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA.  I DON'T WANT TO

           13    REALLY INFLATE THE RISK OF OZONE IN THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT

           14    I DO WANT TO TAKE THE PREROGATIVE OF A PEDIATRICIAN TO

           15    DO A LITTLE BIT OF A SHOW AND TELL.

           16             WHAT I'VE DONE HERE IS TAKE SOME AIR, ACTUALLY

           17    IT WAS AIR THAT CAME FROM OUTSIDE, WENT INTO MY LUNGS,

           18    AND I'VE BLOWN AIR INTO THIS BALLOON.  IN APPROXIMATELY

           19    ONE MINUTE THAT I'VE BEEN SPEAKING, ROUGHLY 63,000

           20    CHILDREN IN L.A. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHO HAVE

           21    ASTHMA, 63,000 APPROXIMATELY, IF THEY BREATHE AT ABOUT

           22    25 BREATHS PER MINUTE, LET'S SAY ON AVERAGE, THEY'VE

           23    TAKEN 1,575,000 BREATHS OF AIR LIKE THIS.

           24             I LOOKED IN THE L.A. TIMES THIS MORNING.  THE

           25    AIR QUALITY WAS -- FOR TODAY WAS LISTED AS MODERATE FOR

                                                                                57

            1    THOSE IN THE L.A. BASIN.  FOR SAN BERNARDINO IT WAS

            2    SEVERE.  MODERATE AND SEVERE ARE EUPHEMISMS FOR NOT VERY

            3    GOOD.  AND WE KNOW FROM LOTS OF CLINICAL EXPERIENCE THAT

            4    WHEN THE AIR QUALITY IS BAD, KIDS GET SICKER.

            5             OZONE IS A TOXIN.  I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU

            6    THAT.  THERE MAY BE SOME DEBATES UPON LEVEL OF WHETHER

            7    SUCH AND SUCH A LEVEL IS SAFE OR NOT.  MY PERSONAL

            8    FEELING IS THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS MORE THAN NECESSARY

            9    AND CAN BE HARMFUL.  MUCH MORE HARMFUL FOR KIDS THAN FOR

           10    ADULTS.  AGAIN, YOU'VE PROBABLY KNOWN THAT THE REASONS

           11    FOR THAT ARE THAT CHILDREN'S LUNGS ARE NOT FULLY GROWN.

           12    THEY'RE MATURING.  CHILDREN TAKE MORE BREATHS PER MINUTE

           13    THAN ADULTS, SO THEY ARE TAKING MORE OF THESE IN.

           14             ALL RIGHT.  OZONE DECREASES THAT GROWTH.  IT

           15    DECREASES LUNG FUNCTION, AND WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC

           16    MEASUREMENTS OF THAT, AND IT CAUSES PERMANENT LUNG

           17    DAMAGE.  IT CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF ADULT LUNG DISEASE.

           18    THERE HAVE BEEN OCCASIONS WHEN I'VE HAD AS MANY AS THREE

           19    CHILDREN ON BREATHING MACHINES AND NEBULIZERS FOR ASTHMA

           20    AT ONCE.  THAT'S PREVENTABLE.  FEW CHILDREN -- FEW OF US

           21    IN OUR LIFETIME, FEW HUMAN BEINGS, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY

           22    EVER TO SAVE A LIFE.  YOU IN THE EPA, I THINK RIGHT NOW,

           23    HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF MILLIONS

           24    AND MILLIONS OF CHILDREN AND ADULTS AND THEIR PARENTS

           25    AND FUTURE GENERATIONS WITH A SINGLE DECISION.

                                                                                58

            1             I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR ENOUGH AT THIS

            2    TIME THAT A LEVEL OF 0.060 IS GOOD ENOUGH.  IT'S WHAT WE

            3    NEED.  I URGE YOU TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH TO

            4    SUPPORT THE 0.06 STANDARD PROMOTED OR SUPPORTED BY THE

            5    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR OWN

            6    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND DO THE RIGHT THING

            7    FOR ALL OF US.

            8             FINALLY, I GUESS IS THE END OF THE SHOW AND

            9    TELL.  THIS IS A PEDIATRICIAN'S PREROGATIVE.

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  0.06.  IT SAYS "060" FOR THOSE OF YOU

           11    WHO CAN'T SEE IT.  THANK YOU, DR. VINETZ.

           12             MS. STANSBERY.

           13        MELISSA KING STANSBERY:  HELLO, MY NAME IS MELISSA

           14    KING STANSBERY, AND I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN RESIDING IN

           15    LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  I THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE

           16    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON EPA'S PROPOSED REVISION TO THE

           17    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN REGARD TO OZONE.

           18             I AM PLEASED THAT THE EPA IS TAKING THE STEP

           19    TOWARD CLEANER AIR BY PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN THE

           20    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.  UNFORTUNATELY, FROM

           21    WHAT I'VE READ, THE EPA PROPOSAL FALLS SHORT OF THE

           22    STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS AND

           23    TO NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION TO PUBLIC

           24    HEALTH.  IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSAL LEAVES OPEN THE

           25    POSSIBILITY THAT THE STANDARDS WILL NOT BE STRENGTHENED

                                                                                59

            1    AT ALL.

            2             OZONE HAS PROVEN TO BURN LUNGS AND AIRWAYS

            3    CAUSING COUGHING AND WHEEZING, ASTHMA ATTACKS, AND EVEN

            4    PREMATURE DEATHS.  CHILDREN, SENIOR CITIZENS, AND PEOPLE

            5    WITH LUNG DISEASE, PEOPLE WHO WORK OUTSIDE ARE

            6    PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM

            7    OZONE.  EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL STUDIES SHOW

            8    ADVERSE IMPACTS ON BREATHING AT LEVELS LOWER THAN THE

            9    CURRENT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD.  IN FACT,

           10    ACCORDING TO STATISTICS PROVIDED BY PHYSICIANS FOR

           11    SOCIAL REFORM, CLINICAL STUDIES OF OTHERWISE HEALTHY

           12    ADULTS HAVE FOUND DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, INCREASED

           13    RESPIRATORY SYSTEMS, INFLAMMATION, AND INCREASED

           14    SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RESPIRATORY INFECTION AT EXPOSURE TO

           15    GROUND LEVEL OZONE AT LEVELS AS LOW AS 0.060 PARTS PER

           16    MILLION.

           17             I FEEL THAT PERSONALLY I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS

           18    FIRSTHAND.  I'M AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY ADULT WHO SUFFERS

           19    FROM OCCASIONAL SEASONAL ALLERGY SYMPTOMS.  LAST SUMMER,

           20    I TOOK UP THE SPORT OF CYCLING AND FOUND THAT AFTER LONG

           21    LEISURELY BIKE RIDES IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, FOR

           22    DAYS AND WEEKS AFTERWARDS I WAS UNABLE TO FILL MY LUNGS

           23    TO CAPACITY OR BREATHE DEEPLY WITHOUT COUGHING AND

           24    EXPERIENCING PAIN.

           25             CALIFORNIA HAS THE DUBIOUS HONOR OF HOLDING

                                                                                60

            1    FOUR OF THE FIVE WORST RANGING CITIES FOR GROUND LEVEL

            2    OZONE IN THE COUNTRY.  THE INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR

            3    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED A 2,000-PAGE

            4    SUMMARY OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THAT THE HEALTH

            5    IMPACTS OF OZONE AND UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE

            6    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT HUMAN

            7    HEALTH.  THESE SCIENTIST PAID FOR WITH, I SUPPOSE, OUR

            8    TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS RECOMMENDED NEW OZONE STANDARDS IN

            9    THE RANGE OF 0.06 TO 0.07 PARTS PER MILLION ON THE HIGH

           10    END OF THE RANGE.

           11             IN ADDITION, THERE'S AN OLD LOOPHOLE THAT LETS

           12    COMMUNITIES CLAIM THEY'RE MEETING THE STANDARDS OF OZONE

           13    WHEN THEY AREN'T.  DUE TO OLDER MONITORING EQUIPMENT

           14    THAT WERE MUCH LESS ACCURATE, THE EPA AGREED TO ALLOW

           15    REGULATORS TO ROUND DOWN TO THE NEAREST TWO DECIMAL

           16    PLACES.  THIS -- BECAUSE OF THIS, MANY COMMUNITIES ARE

           17    IN CONCENTRATIONS THAT REACH UP TO 0.085, AND THAT BEING

           18    THE REAL STANDARD INSTEAD OF WHAT IS LISTED AS LAW.

           19             AS I RESEARCHED INFORMATION IN PREPARING FOR MY

           20    TESTIMONY TODAY, I LOOKED FIRST TO WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE

           21    OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE PROPOSAL IS

           22    FOR A BETTER STANDARD THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE.  I

           23    THOUGHT, WELL, POSSIBLY THESE ARE FRINGE GROUPS OR

           24    RADICAL GROUPS, WHO KNOWS, THEY MAKE ME NUTS.  BUT

           25    INSTEAD I FOUND A LIST THAT INCLUDES THE AMERICAN LUNG

                                                                                61

            1    ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, AMERICAN

            2    ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC PHYSICIANS, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL

            3    REFORM, UNION OF CONCERNS SCIENTISTS.  THESE DON'T SOUND

            4    LIKE RADICAL GROUPS TO ME.

            5             I ALSO WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE EPA WAS NOT

            6    FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS WHO

            7    WERE PAID BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

            8    I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE ARGUMENTS WERE IN FAVOR OF

            9    PROPOSING A STANDARD THAT DOES NOT PROTECT PUBLIC

           10    HEALTH.

           11             SADLY, IN MY QUICK RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET, I

           12    WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS.  INSTEAD,

           13    I FOUND A REPORT THAT, IN THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE

           14    RELEASE OF THE PROPOSAL, REPRESENTED THIS FOR THE

           15    ELECTRIC UTILITIES, CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, BIG OIL

           16    COMPANIES, AND THE AUTO MAKERS ORGANIZED HIGH LEVEL

           17    MEETINGS WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO

           18    DISCUSS NEW STANDARDS.  I CAN'T HELP BUT QUESTION AS A

           19    CONCERNED CITIZEN WHETHER THOSE MEETINGS MIGHT POSSIBLY

           20    BE INFLUENCING THE CHANGE IN THE RECOMMENDATION.

           21             AS A TAXPAYER AND PRIVATE CITIZEN, I URGE THE

           22    EPA TO LIVE UP TO ITS FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS AN

           23    AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE MISSION TO PROTECT THE

           24    ENVIRONMENT AND BY DOING SO, PUBLIC HEALTH.  HEED THE

           25    ADVICE OF YOUR OWN PAID SCIENTISTS AND DO THE FOLLOWING:

                                                                                62

            1    REVISE THE AIR QUALITY STANDARD OF ACCEPTABLE OZONE

            2    LEVELS TO THE RANGE OF .060 TO 0.07 PARTS PER MILLION,

            3    REMOVE THE LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS FOR ROUNDING DOWN OF THE

            4    NEAREST TWO DECIMAL PLACES, AND ELIMINATE THE OPTION ON

            5    THE TABLE UNDER WHICH THE NEW GROUND LEVEL OZONE

            6    STANDARD MAY NOT EVEN APPLY TO CERTAIN POLLUTERS.

            7             THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THE

            8    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  ONE QUESTION, MS. STANSBERY.  THANK YOU

           10    VERY MUCH.  THE LAST POINT YOU MADE ABOUT MOVING THE

           11    OPTION OF HAVING THE STANDARD NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN

           12    POLLUTERS, I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW THAT.

           13        MELISSA KING STANSBERY:  FROM WHAT I READ, AND I

           14    HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I HAVE NOT READ EVERY LETTER OF THE

           15    ACTUAL PROPOSAL, BUT THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED

           16    FROM MY RESEARCH WAS THAT THE OPTION REMAINS OPEN THAT

           17    THE STANDARD MAY NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN POLLUTERS AND THAT

           18    YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE IT AT ALL, THAT THEY WANTED IT TO

           19    REMAIN AS THIS MANUFACTURING GENTLEMAN, I BELIEVE, THAT

           20    TESTIFIED EARLIER, THAT HE WANTED THE STANDARD TO REMAIN

           21    THE SAME.

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST TO CLARIFY, THE STANDARD WOULD

           23    APPLY TO EVERYONE, BUT THE COMMENT THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IS

           24    THAT WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE THE STANDARD.  WE SHOULD RETAIN

           25    THE CURRENT STANDARD.  THANK YOU BOTH.

                                                                                63

            1             MARTHA DINA AGUELLO AND RUPAL PATEL.

            2        RUPAL PATEL:  GOOD MORNING.

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU HAVE TO PUSH AND HOLD, SORRY.

            4        RUPAL PATEL:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS RUPAL PATEL.

            5    I REPRESENT COMMUNITIES FOR CLEAN PORTS.  WE'RE A

            6    NON-PROFIT PUBLIC ADVOCACY CAMPAIGN BASED IN LOS ANGELES

            7    WHOSE MISSION IS TO SIGNIFICANTLY AND IMMEDIATELY REDUCE

            8    PORT POLLUTION IN THE BASIN.

            9             POLLUTION FROM PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT RELATED

           10    INDUSTRY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A HOST OF ILLS IN

           11    CALIFORNIA.  THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD OUTLINES

           12    THAT POLLUTION FROM PORT-RELATED INDUSTRIES WAS

           13    RESPONSIBLE FOR 30 PERCENT OF STATEWIDE NITROGEN OXIDES,

           14    OR NOX, AN OZONE PRECURSOR AND 2,400 PREMATURE DEATHS

           15    ANNUALLY.  THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH,

           16    WHICH SERVE AS A HUB FOR DIESEL TRUCKS, TRAINS,

           17    OCEAN-GOING VESSELS, CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT, AND

           18    HARBOR CRAFT REPRESENT THE LARGEST FIXED SOURCE OF NOX

           19    EMISSIONS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PREDICTED TO

           20    TOTAL 24 PERCENT OF NOX EMISSIONS IN 2020 WHEN GOODS

           21    MOVEMENT IS PREDICTED TO QUADRUPLE IN SIZE.

           22             THE ANNUAL COST TO CALIFORNIANS DUE TO AIR

           23    POLLUTION FROM PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT TOTAL OVER 19

           24    BILLION DOLLARS IN PUBLIC HEALTH EXPENDITURES, 65

           25    MILLION DOLLARS IN MISSED WORKDAYS, AND 100 MILLION

                                                                                64

            1    DOLLARS IN SCHOOL ABSENCES.  GOODS MOVEMENT IS A

            2    PROFITABLE INDUSTRY.  IT'S A 300-BILLION-DOLLAR-PER-YEAR

            3    BUSINESS AT THE LOS ANGELES AREA PORTS ALONE.

            4             VIABLE COST EFFECTIVE CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND

            5    ALTERNATIVE FUELS EXIST TODAY TO CLEAN UP THE INDUSTRY.

            6    SO COMMUNITIES FOR CLEAN PORTS ADVOCATES FOR THE

            7    STRONGEST MOST AGGRESSIVE REGULATORY MEASURES AND

            8    INDUSTRY PRACTICES TO END PORT POLLUTION POISONING

            9    THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

           10             A SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER OZONE STANDARD WOULD

           11    PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF RESIDENTS IN THE SOUTH

           12    COAST AIR BASIN AND IN ALL COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE

           13    COUNTRY WHO ARE INFECTED BY POLLUTION FROM THE GOODS

           14    MOVEMENT.  EPA'S INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC

           15    ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE

           16    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS INADEQUATE TO COMBAT THE

           17    COSTLY PUBLIC HEALTH AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF OZONE

           18    POLLUTION.  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED THAT THE

           19    EPA SHOULD SET AN OZONE STANDARD OF .060 PARTS PER

           20    MILLION.

           21             BY CONTRAST THE EPA HAS PROPOSED A WEAKER

           22    STANDARD IN THE RANGE OF .070 PARTS PER MILLION TO .075

           23    PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TO

           24    MAINTAIN THE ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

           25    REQUIRED UNDER THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT.  EPA MUST

                                                                                65

            1    RESIST PRESSURE FROM PROFITABLE PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT

            2    INTEREST TO ATTAIN THE CURRENT WEAK OZONE STANDARD AND

            3    TO OVERLOOK THE DRAMATIC HEALTH AND ECONOMIC

            4    CONSEQUENCES OF THE STATUS QUO.  STATUS QUO HAS RESULTED

            5    IN CHILDREN LIVING IN THE PORTS CITY OF LONG BEACH TO

            6    SUFFER ASTHMA RATES DOUBLE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.  STATUS

            7    QUO IS NO LONGER AN OPTION.

            8             POLLUTION FROM PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT AFFECTS

            9    US ALL AND THE ENTIRE STATE CONTINUES TO SUBSIDIZE OUR

           10    NATION'S TRADE THROUGH INCREASED HEALTH COSTS.  GOODS

           11    MOVEMENT IS THE SINGLE LARGEST SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION

           12    IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM ORANGE COUNTY TO THE SAN

           13    FERNANDO VALLEY TO THE INLAND EMPIRE.  RESPONSIBLE FOR

           14    MORE DEADLY DIESEL SMOG EACH DAY THAN ALL OF THE 6

           15    MILLION CARS IN THE REGION.

           16             WE URGE EPA TO SHOW TRUE LEADERSHIP IN THE FACE

           17    OF INDUSTRY PRESSURE AND INCREASE THE FEDERAL OZONE

           18    STANDARD TO .060 PARTS PER MILLION AS RECOMMENDED BY

           19    YOUR INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY

           20    COMMITTEE.  THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES EPA TO BASE ITS

           21    DECISION SOLELY ON THE NEED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

           22    RETAINING THE CURRENT WEAK OZONE STANDARD WILL RESULT IN

           23    FURTHER DEATHS, ILLNESSES, AND TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC COST

           24    TO OUR NATION.  THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO

           25    TESTIFY.

                                                                                66

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

            2        MARTHA DINA AGUELLO:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS

            3    MARTHA DINA AGUELLO.  I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH

            4    AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS FOR PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL

            5    RESPONSIBILITY IN LOS ANGELES.  I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE

            6    LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASTHMA COALITION ALONG WITH

            7    DR. VINETZ.

            8             TODAY I DON'T REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON ASTHMA.