1

          1               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

          2

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

          6

          7

          8

          9                        PUBLIC HEARING

         10

         11                      SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

         12

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

         14

         15                AFC Conference Center Atlanta

         16

         17                        Federal Center

         18

         19                    61 Forsyth Street, SW

         20

         21                2nd Floor - Conference Room B

         22

         23                       Atlanta, Georgia

         24

         25                  Janet R. Allen, CCR-B-1213

                                                                         2

          1

          2

          3

          4

          5

          6

          7

          8

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

         10

         11

         12

         13   FOR THE AGENCY:

         14

         15        STEPHEN PAGE

         16        BEVERLY BANISTER

         17        CAROL KEMKER

         18        ERIKA SASSER                         19

         20

         21

         22

         23

         24

                                                                         3

          1                         I N D E X

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

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

          7

          8

          9

         10

         11   Transcript Legend:

         12

         13   (sic)        Exactly as said

         14

         15   (phonetic)   Exact spelling unknown

         16

         17   --           Break in speech continuity

         18

         19   . . .        Indicates halting speech, unfinished

         20                sentence or ommission of word(s) when

         21                reading written material

         22

         23   (inaudible)  Mechanical or speaker failure

         24

         25   Quoted material is typed as spoken

                                                                         4

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

          2                                          9:10a.m.

          3                         - - -

          4        BY PAGE:  Good morning.  Sorry for the

          5   10-minute delay.  We were technically challenged

          6   this morning getting everything ready for this

          7   hearing.

          8        I wanted to make a few announcements first and

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

         10   first I want to welcome everybody here and thank

         11   you for making the effort to be here.  We

         12   appreciate that.

         13        This is the public hearing on EPA's proposed

         14   revisions to the ozone standards.  My name is Steve

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

         16   Quality Planning and Standards, which is part of

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

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

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

         20   Proposed Revisions to the Ozone National Ambient

         21   Air Quality Standards.

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

         23   opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's

         24   Proposed Rule.  The panel members may answer

         25   questions that seek to clarify what we have

                                                                         5

          1   proposed, but the purpose of this hearing is to

          2   listen to your comments, not to discuss or debate

          3   the proposals.

          4        Before we begin the comment period, I would

          5   like to briefly describe the Proposed Rule that is

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

          7   is published in the Federal Register on July 11,

          8   2007.

          9        Ground-level ozone is the primary component of

         10   smog.  It is formed to the reaction of nitrogen

         11   oxides and volatile organic compounds in the

         12   presence of sunlight.  Exposure to ozone is

         13   associated with an array of respiratory problems

         14   including aggravated asthma, increase of

         15   susceptibility to respiratory infections, increased

         16   doctors visits, increased emergency department

         17   visits and hospital admissions and premature

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

         19   harmful effects on sensitive plants species,

         20   including trees and crops and on the ecosystem they

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

         22   ozone to which plants are exposed and the duration

         23   of the exposure are important factors in

         24   determining plant response.  The most significant

         25   effects including biomass loss and yield reductions

                                                                         6

          1   result from the accumulation of ozone exposures

          2   throughout the growing season with higher

          3   concentration of ozone producing greater impacts.

          4        Based on careful review of the large volume

          5   of scientific evidence now available regarding the

          6   health and welfare effects associated with the

          7   exposure to ozone, the EPA Administrator has

          8   concluded that the current ozone standards are not

          9   adequate to protect the public health and welfare.

         10        A number of new health studies have been

         11   conducted indicating that adverse effects occurred

         12   while exposure to ozone levels below the current

         13   standards.  Furthermore, these studies indicate

         14   that people with respiratory illnesses, such as

         15   asthma, are particularly sensitive to these adverse

         16   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies

         17   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely affects

         18   the growth of sensitive plants species and may

         19   increase their susceptibility to disease and pests.

         20        After careful consideration of this scientific

         21   evidence, advice from the EPA's Clean Air

         22   Scientific Advisory Committee and public comments,

         23   the Administrator has proposed to revise both the

         24   primary ozone standard designed to protect human

         25   health and the secondary ozone standard, designed

                                                                         7

          1   to protect welfare, such as vegetation and crops.

          2        Currently the primary and secondary ozone

          3   standards are identical.  An eight-hour standard of

          4   0.08 ppm, which is effectively 0.084 ppm with the

          5   rounding that takes place is the current standard

          6   for the primary standard.  It is the current number

          7   for the primary standard.  Under EPA proposal, each

          8   of these standards will be revised and a form of

          9   the secondary standard might change so that it is

         10   no longer identical to the primary standard that I

         11   just mentioned.

         12        EPA has requested comments on all aspects of

         13   this proposal and on all alternatives of proposed

         14   revisions.  Specifically, with respect to the

         15   primary standard to protect public health, the

         16   proposal included revising the level of the

         17   standard to within the range of 0.070 to ppm.

         18        The Agency has also requested comment on an

         19   alternative level, down to 0.060 ppm up to and

         20   including retention of the current standard of

         21   0.084 ppm, specifying the level of the primary

         22   standard to the third decimal place is something we

         23   intend to do because today's monitors are more

         24   accurate than they were ten years ago when the last

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

                                                                         8

          1   the rounding.

          2        With respect to the secondary standard to

          3   protect public welfare, EPA proposed two

          4   alternatives.  One option would be to establish a

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

          6   designed specifically to accumulate ozone exposure

          7   and to give more weight to higher concentrations.

          8   This form of the standard would add together

          9   weighted, hourly ozone concentrations measured

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

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

         12   period with the highest ozone levels.

         13        EPA is proposing to set the level of this

         14   cumulative standard within the range of 7 to 21

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

         16   secondary standard so that it is identical to the

         17   proposed primary eight-hour standard.

         18        Additional information on the proposed rule

         19   can be found in the fact sheet which is available

         20   in the registration area.  Publication of the rule

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

         22   90-day public comment period which closes on

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

         24   the registration area with detailed information for

         25   sending in written comments.  In addition, we

                                                                         9

          1   prepared a list of all the topics in the proposed

          2   rule that the Agency is seeking comment on.  This

          3   handout is also available in the registration

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

          5   2008.

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

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

          8   hearings we're holding across the country.  Last

          9   Thursday we held hearings in Los Angeles and

         10   Philadelphia.  Today hearings are being held in

         11   Houston, Chicago and here in Atlanta.

         12        We will be preparing a written transcript

         13   script of each hearing.  The transcripts will be

         14   available as part of the official record for each

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

         16   will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone

         17   in pairs, please state your name and affiliation.

         18   It will help our court reporter if you also spell

         19   your name.

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

         21   that you limit your testimony to five minutes each

         22   and to remain at the microphone until both speakers

         23   in a pair have finished.  After you finished your

         24   testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying

         25   questions.

                                                                        10

          1        As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's

          2   hearing and each speakers' oral testimony will

          3   become part of the official record.  Please be sure

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

          5   at the registration table out front and we will put

          6   the full text of your written comments into the

          7   docket for you.

          8        We have a time keeping system consisting of

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

         10   the speaker table.  The yellow light will signal

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

         12   ask you to stop speaking when the red light comes

         13   on.  We will try to insure everyone has an

         14   opportunity to comment.  If you would like to

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

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

         17   breaks periodically throughout the day.

         18        For those who are already registered to speak,

         19   we have tried to accommodate your requests for a

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

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

         22   minor adjustments as the day progresses.

         23        And now I would like to introduce the EPA

         24   representatives on our panel.  On my right Beverly

         25   Banister, who is the Director of Air Pesticides and

                                                                        11

          1   Toxics Management Division here in EPA Region IV

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

          3   for making your building available to us as well;

          4   and Erika Sasser who works with me in the Office

          5   the Air Quality Planning & Standards.

          6   She works in the Health & Environmental Impact

          7   Division located in the Research Triangle Park in

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

          9   the standards are developed.  They are responsible

         10   for pulling to science and policy together to

         11   submit to the Administrator to help in his

         12   decision.

         13        Again, I would like to thank you all for

         14   participating today and with that, I would like to

         15   get started.  Our first two speakers that have

         16   registered are Frank O'Donnell and Robert Bullard.

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

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

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

         20   Watch is a national non-profit organization which

         21   seeks to promote clean air chiefly through public

         22   education.  Please let me start by thanking the

         23   Agency's career staff.  We really appreciate your

         24   dedication to public service and we know that

         25   without your efforts we would have made little or

                                                                        12

          1   no progress in recent years against air pollution.

          2        Having said that, let me get right to the

          3   point, what is literally at stake here is the

          4   quality of air Americans will breathe for many

          5   years into the future.  The standards we are

          6   talking about today are truly the heart and lungs

          7   of the Clean Air Act.  Contrary to the disingenuous

          8   testimony you heard last week by a lobbyist for the

          9   Southern Company, parent company of Georgia Power,

         10   that would be Jeffrey Holmstead, these standards

         11   are vitally important.  They form the backbone and

         12   the driving force for all clean-up programs under

         13   the Clean Air Act.

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

         15   most widespread air pollutant.  A doctor recently

         16   told us that breathing smog is like rubbing

         17   sandpaper on your lungs.  And we know that without

         18   a medical doubt that the standards for ozone are

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

         20   unanimous opinion of EPA's Independent Science

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

         22   scientists and that's the frequently expressed

         23   opinion of EPA Administrator, Steve Johnson,

         24   despite what we think are attempts by the White

         25   House to tamper with EPA's rulemaking.

                                                                        13

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

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

          3   Indeed, it falls short of unanimous position taken

          4   by EPA's external science advisors and we are

          5   deeply troubled by EPA's decision to entertain

          6   comments to keep the weak status quo standards.

          7   That's obviously the result of political arm

          8   twisting.

          9        It's been a decade since the ozone standards

         10   were last updated.  We know more about ozone than

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

         12   someone getting itchy eyes or the sniffles.  Smog

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

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

         15        So we urge you to listen to the science and

         16   follow the recommendations of the American Lung

         17   Association, the American Thoracic Society and

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

         19   primary standard at a level of 16 ppb.

         20   Unfortunately, this is shaping up to be a clash

         21   between real science and political science.  We

         22   know that lobbyists for the nation's biggest

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

         24   other industries have gone to White House to try to

         25   avert tougher standards that would make them clean

                                                                        14

          1   up more.

          2        I'm sure that you remember that these same

          3   groups that now want to keep the current standards

          4   fought bitterly against those standards a decade

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

          6   apparently being influenced by this smokestack

          7   crowd.  I regret to say that the Governor of

          8   Georgia appears to be manipulated by some of these

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

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

         11   outrageous position without any scientific basis.

         12   Does Sonny Perdue know more than all the medical

         13   experts.  The appearance here is that Georgia Power

         14   is influencing Governor Perdue.  We know that

         15   Georgia Power and Southern Company, as I noted

         16   earlier, oppose tougher standards.  Indeed,

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

         18   Perdue has received large campaign contributions

         19   from executives of that company.  He looks like he

         20   is being a tool for this big power company.

         21        So we urge you to reject the views of special

         22   interest polluters and their political tools and

         23   follow the medical science, make sure that kids

         24   with asthma can take a deep breath without fear.

         25        We also want EPA to tell us the truth about

                                                                        15

          1   what levels of air pollution are safe to breathe.

          2   These standards are supposed to be the federal

          3   government's assessment based on the best

          4   availability science of what level of pollution is

          5   safe to breathe with an adequate margin of safety

          6   to account for uncertainties and for groups like

          7   children, like those in low-income communities who

          8   may be especially harmed by breathing dirty air.

          9      We hope the Bush Administration won't seek again

         10   to mislead the public as it did for years about

         11   global warming.  We believe the public should have

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

         13   harm them.  Thank you very much.

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

         15   questions?

         16        Mr. Bullard.

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

         18   Robert Bullard and I direct the Environmental

         19   Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University

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

         21   today to present testimony as a researcher and

         22   scholar who has studied and written about

         23   environmental health and vulnerable populations for

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

         25   the National Black Environmental Justice Network, a

                                                                        16

          1   national preventative health organization that's

          2   located in 33 states in the U.S.

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

          4   EPA for holding this important hearing.  This

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

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

          7   compromise, economic trade offs or balancing acts

          8   that subject millions of Americans to unnecessary

          9   environmental health threats, in this case,

         10   ground-level ozone.

         11        We know that air pollution, including

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

         13   nearly twice that number killed in traffic

         14   accidents.  Ground-level ozone affects more than

         15   158 million Americans in 10 of the 11 most popular

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

         17   population.  Public health costs due to air

         18   pollution accounts for over three-quarters of the

         19   total pollution related public health cost and

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

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

         22   associated with air pollution, so when we talk

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

         24   talking about a basic human right.

         25        People with asthma experience more than 100

                                                                        17

          1   million days of restrictive activity annually

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

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

          4   Act, air quality standards must be set at levels

          5   that protect public health, including vulnerable

          6   and sensitive populations.  The current level is

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

          8   for taking first steps in the right direction, but

          9   its proposal is not is adequate.  EPA should come

         10   clean and set the ozone standard at the lowest

         11   level to protect public health at the 0.06 level.

         12        Vulnerable populations such as children are at

         13   special risks from ozone.  One in every four

         14   American child lives in an area that regularly

         15   exceeds the EPA ozone standards.  We're talking

         16   over 27 million children under the age of 13 living

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

         18   of compliance.  This is especially a problem for

         19   children of color.  More than 61 percent of

         20   African-American children, 69 percent of Hispanic

         21   children and 67 percent of Asian-American children

         22   live in areas that exceed the 0.08 ozone level.

         23        High ozone levels causes illnesses and

         24   emergency room visits and death, so when we talk

         25   about these issues of emergency room visits,

                                                                        18

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

          2   make believe.  When we talk about asthma and

          3   children with asthma and populations with asthma,

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

          5   Asthma attacks send African-Americans to emergency

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

          7   African-Americans will likely be hospitalized with

          8   asthma three times more likely than whites.  So

          9   when you talk about the issue of cleaning up the

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

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

         12        Here in Atlanta from May 1st up to September

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

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

         15   about.

         16        The big problem is transportation the fact in

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

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

         19   While some car owners may occasionally chose not to

         20   drive, those without cars really do not have a

         21   choice of not breathing.  Enforce a stronger

         22   federal ozone standards and more alternatives for

         23   automobiles including regional transit, will go a

         24   long way in improving the health and livibility of

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

                                                                        19

          1   smarter and growing healthier.  And I think

          2   enforcing stronger and tougher ozone standards will

          3   move many of our policy makers, hopefully in a

          4   direction of doing something about transportation

          5   and pollution that's generated from that source.

          6   Thank you very much.

          7        MR. PAGE:  Next two speakers are Gerald Staton

          8   and Daniel Moenter.  Welcome, gentlemen.  Thank you

          9   for coming.  Mr. Staton, you first.

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

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

         12   University School of Medicine and a member of the

         13   American Thoracic Society.

         14        Today I'm presenting comments on behalf of the

         15   American Thoracic Society.  American Thoracic

         16   Society is an international medical professional

         17   society dedicated to respiratory health.  As such

         18   the American Thoracic Society is deeply committed

         19   protecting the public from the dangers of air

         20   pollution.

         21        The American Thoracic Society strongly

         22   recommends the EPA Administrator issue the

         23   following National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

         24   Ozone.  The level of the primary standard should be

         25   established at 0.060 ppm.  The degree of precision

                                                                        20

          1   for the standard should be expressed at the

          2   thousandth ppm.  The form of the standard should be

          3   constructed as a three-year average of the annual

          4   fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone

          5   concentration.

          6        The American Thoracic Society believes that

          7   the EPA Administer Johnson has directly stated

          8   that, beyond any degree of scientific uncertainty,

          9   convincing and compelling evidence has demonstrated

         10   that exposure to ozone at levels below the current

         11   standards is responsible for measurable,

         12   significant adverse health effects in terms of both

         13   morbidity and mortality.  We strongly support the

         14   Administrator in his efforts to issue a more

         15   stringent standard and absolutely reject any

         16   efforts to maintain the current standard.

         17        However, in proposing a revised standard

         18   between 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, EPA Administrator

         19   Johnson has failed to truly appreciate the dangers

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

         21   standard of 0.060 ppm is needed to protect the

         22   nation from the adverse effects of ozone.  Due to

         23   time constraints I cannot cover the breath of

         24   research data that supports the need for a stronger

         25   standard, so I will focus my comments on such

                                                                        21

          1   research done in Atlanta that proves the need for a

          2   higher standard to truly protect our public health.

          3        While there is a specific body of literature

          4   that links exposure to ozone air pollution to

          5   asthma exacerbation, two of the pivotal studies

          6   were conducted in Atlanta.  Dr. White and his

          7   colleagues reviewed the medical records from 1990

          8   for children aged 1 to 16 with physician diagnosed

          9   asthma at a local public hospital for a time period

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

         11   the peak ozone concentration of 0.11 ppm was

         12   reached on six occasions.  Hospital visits for

         13   asthma was 37 percent higher on those days than

         14   during other dates during the chart review period.

         15        Tolbert and colleges compared pediatric

         16   emergency room visits for asthma, the air pollution

         17   from weather data from 1993 to 1995 and found a

         18   strong correlation between air pollution in terms

         19   of ozone and particulate matter and pediatric

         20   emergency room visits for asthma.

         21        Both these studies followed by a host of

         22   others helped establish a definitive link between

         23   ozone and exacerbations of respiratory illness.

         24   Another Atlanta provided insight on how reducing

         25   ozone emissions can improve respiratory health.

                                                                        22

          1        Friedman and colleagues compared hospital

          2   asthma events for children immediately before,

          3   during and after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.  They

          4   found that lower ozone peak exposures observed

          5   during the Olympics due to traffic mitigation

          6   efforts led to a 37 percent reduction in pediatric

          7   asthma events.

          8        While the three Atlanta studies I cited

          9   focused only on pediatric asthma, subsequent

         10   studies have linked ozone exposure to lower birth

         11   weight, airway remodeling in children, mortality

         12   from respiratory and cardiac events, adverse health

         13   in healthy adult joggers, cancer, and most recently

         14   onset of asthma in children exposed in outdoor

         15   sports.  As a concerning list of adverse health

         16   effects liked to ozone exposure.  These studies

         17   have noted adverse effects at ozone at 0.06 ppm and

         18   lower.

         19        The encouraging part about the Friedman study

         20   is that it showed that public policy can make a

         21   difference.  That is why the American Thoracic

         22   Society is urging the EPA to adopt a standard of

         23   0.060 ppm to insure communities across the nation

         24   can enjoy every day the public health benefits from

         25   reduced ozone that Atlanta enjoyed during in 1996

                                                                        23

          1   Olympics.

          2        Just one parenthetical comment that is not in

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

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

          5   pollution index for the day is.  The number of

          6   charts and requests that I have from patients about

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

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

          9   my patients are having.  Thank you.

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

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

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

         13   Oil Corporation.  Marathon is the fourth largest

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

         15   company engaged in exploration and production,

         16   intergrated gas and refining, marketing and

         17   transportation operations.  Marathon commends the

         18   Environmental Protection Agency for its continuing

         19   effort to improve the quality of the air we

         20   breathe.  A sentiment likely shared by every

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

         22   not a struggle between clean-air advocates and

         23   proponents of dirty air, but rather an important

         24   discussion among interested parties on how best to

         25   achieve a shared objective, improving air quality

                                                                        24

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

          2        For its part Marathon favors steady,

          3   continuous progress for the attainable air quality

          4   objectives, which is why support retention of the

          5   current ozone standard.  Without question, air

          6   quality in the United States is improving.  The EPA

          7   reports that total emissions of the six principal

          8   air pollutants dropped by 54 percent between 1970

          9   and 2006 while gross domestic product increased 203

         10   percent.  Moreover, national average ozone levels

         11   decreased by 21 percent between 1980 and 2006.  And

         12   the progress will continue without revising the

         13   current standard, due in large measure to

         14   regulations and programs already adopted whose

         15   benefits have not yet been fully realized.  For

         16   example, the petroleum industry as invested

         17   billions of dollars updating our refineries to

         18   dramatically reduce the presence of sulfur in

         19   gasoline and diesel fuel.  These cleaner fuels

         20   coupled with cleaner cars, buses, trucks and

         21   non-road equipment that are now being produced will

         22   provide significant continuing air quality

         23   improvements.

         24        Adopting a more stringent ambient ozone

         25   standard now will place a heavy new burden on

                                                                        25

          1   States.  It will force state air regulators to

          2   pursue a far more difficult target before many have

          3   completed developing their plan to attain the

          4   current standard.  While EPA has proposed a primary

          5   ozone standard within the range of 0.07 to 0.075

          6   ppm, the Agency also has requested comments on

          7   alternative standards ranging down to 0.06 ppm.  If

          8   the ozone standard were lowered to this level it is

          9   projected that the level of non-attainment counties

         10   will almost triple and it's likely that some

         11   metropolitan would be doomed to non-attainment

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

         13   standard is an extremely important complex and

         14   controversial public policy issue with serious

         15   economic complications.

         16        Consequently, Marathon believes any decision

         17   to tighten the standard must be based on sound

         18   science.  It should be supported by clear and

         19   compelling scientific evidence, but that does not

         20   appear to be the case.  Indeed, there is

         21   significant debate surrounding the underlying

         22   analysis of the science being used to justify the

         23   ozone proposal.  A few examples:  The EPA recently

         24   changed the way it calculates naturally occurring

         25   ozone background levels in a manner that inflates

                                                                        26

          1   the benefits of a new standard.  An action the

          2   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has

          3   questioned.  Due to EPA's reliance on an

          4   unpublished, non-peered-reviewed analysis which

          5   contradicts the author's original peer-reviewed

          6   results, the presumed health benefits of a revised

          7   ozone standard are subject to question.  The EPA

          8   has not adequately evaluated the uncertainty of

          9   their quantitative estimates.  And, interestingly,

         10   the uncertainties they have quantified include

         11   negative values, that is, health effect

         12   improvements with increased ozone levels.  This

         13   underscores the uncertainty of the presumed health

         14   benefits.

         15        In summary, Marathon supports retaining the

         16   current ozone standard.  We do so because our

         17   nation's air quality is improving and will continue

         18   to improve under the current standard.  Adopting a

         19   more stringent standard now will place a heavy new

         20   burden on States before many have completed

         21   developing plans to attain the current standard. A

         22   more stringent standard will significantly increase

         23   the number of non-attainment areas with serious

         24   negative implications for their future economic

         25   growth; and while health concerns are paramount,

                                                                        27

          1   there are significant uncertainty surrounding the

          2   scientific analysis that was used to justify the

          3   EPA proposal to lower the ozone standard, which

          4   calls into question presumed health benefits.

          5   Thank you for your attention.

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

          7   seconds to spare.  Thank you, gentleman.  We

          8   appreciate you coming here today.

          9        Our next speakers are Roger Mills and Vanessa

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

         11   speaker.

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

         13   attorney making this statement as a private citizen

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

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

         16   the metro Atlanta area.  In South Coast Air Quality

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

         18   Appeals describes ozone, which is formed from the

         19   chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides with volatile

         20   organic compounds in sunlight as, "dangerous at

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

         22   high concentrations "cause lung dysfunction,

         23   coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, nausea,

         24   respiratory infection and, in some cases, permanent

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

                                                                        28

          1   breathes air in areas with unhealthful levels of

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

          3   of those highest ozone levels.  Last year alone,

          4   Atlanta violated air quality standards for 30

          5   separate days and this year it has exceeded that.

          6        The Environmental Protection Agency's middle

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

          8   "The mission of the EPA is to protect human

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

         10   National Ambient Quality Standard for ozone at 0.80

         11   ppm, but because of rounding it's effectively

         12   enforcing it at 0.084 ppm.  EPA Clean Air

         13   Scientific Advisory Committee has concluded,

         14   however, "there is no scientific justification for

         15   retaining this standard."  This 23 member committee

         16   of independent science advisors has recommended a

         17   less weak standard within the range of 0.060 to

         18   0.070 ppm.  The Clean Air Act requires the standard

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

         20   protect sensitive populations.  In 2001 the Supreme

         21   Court ruled that protecting health was the only

         22   basis for the standard when the EPA considers

         23   setting standards.  Instead of following this

         24   Scientific Advisory Committee's advice, however,

         25   the EPA has proposed a standard of only within a

                                                                        29

          1   range of 0.070 to 0.075 ppm.  The American Academy

          2   of Pediatrics, the American Lung Association, the

          3   American Public Health Association and others have

          4   also told the EPA that this proposed standard is

          5   inadequate, especially protect sensitive

          6   populations such as children, the elderly, those

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

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

          9   speculation or junk science.  For example, a 2004

         10   study by Bell and others in the Journal of the

         11   American Medical Association found an increase in

         12   the deaths from respiratory and cardiovascular

         13   causes following short-term increases in ozone

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

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

         16   lung tissue if the EPA truly pursues its mission

         17   and follows the advice of its Scientific Advisory

         18   Committee.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity

         19   to speak.

         20        MS. PAGE:  Ms. Williams.

         21        MS. WILLIAMS:  Good morning.  My name is

         22   Vanessa Williams.  I serve as the Executive

         23   Director for the National Conference of Black

         24   Mayors.  I am here this morning representing our

         25   distinguished President, the Honorable George L.

                                                                        30

          1   Grace of St. Gabriel, Louisiana.  Mayor Grace

          2   intended to be here this morning, but due to

          3   last-minute scheduling, conflicts he was not able

          4   to have his appearance here today.  Two copies of

          5   his statement have been filed this morning for the

          6   docket record.

          7        I would like to set forth on behalf NCBM for

          8   the 640-member mayors, our views and concerns

          9   regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

         10   recently announced notice of a proposed ruling to

         11   review the National Ambient Air Quality Standard

         12   for ozone.

         13        I would like to begin by making three points:

         14   First, the National Conference of Black Mayors

         15   support EPA regulatory policies that are intended

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

         17   that the cost-effective for our communities and

         18   make sure that it is based on sound science;

         19   second, because of the EPA policies and the

         20   coordinated efforts of state and local government

         21   and industry, substantial progress has been made

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

         23   air quality goals.  While more progress is needed

         24   in selected areas and communities across the

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

                                                                        31

          1   Clean Air Act is working as it was originally

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

          3   and 2006, total emissions of at least six principal

          4   air pollutants dropped by 64 percent.  Lastly, the

          5   NCBM, the National Conference of Black Mayors,

          6   however, is deeply concerned about the potential

          7   adverse effects on the communities we represent,

          8   should EPA decide that its final ruling to adopt

          9   more stringent standards for ozone.

         10        In specific regard to Louisiana, it is my

         11   understanding is that currently there are four or

         12   five parishes classified as non-attainment for the

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

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

         15   of Louisiana will be reclassified as non-attainment

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

         17   designation of a county or a parish as

         18   non-attainment for ozone triggers a second process

         19   in which it will effect both the State and they

         20   will have to develop and submit to EPA a state

         21   implementation plan that demonstrates compliance

         22   with the new standard within a certain time frame.

         23   The emission control strategy required to make such

         24   a demonstration will significantly impact the

         25   economies of local communities, including the jobs

                                                                        32

          1   and future growth.

          2        Many parishes across the State will, for the

          3   first time experience the stigma of compliance

          4   changes for being designated a non-attainment for

          5   ozone area.  Moreover, those parishes that are

          6   currently designated as being a non-assignment for

          7   ozone will be faced with identifying and

          8   implementing more demanding compliance strategies

          9   even before they've had an opportunity to fully

         10   implement the plan to comply with the present 0.08

         11   ppm standard on which they are now working.

         12        The situation in Louisiana represent what many

         13   of our member mayors are facing across America and

         14   they will be facing should the ozone standard be

         15   made more stringent.  Over half of Alabama's

         16   counties could be designated as non-attainment

         17   depending upon which standard is chosen.

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

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

         20   again, depending on the standard that is chosen.

         21   The impact is being designated as a non-attainment

         22   would have a desperate impact on those communities

         23   undertaking economic revitalization efforts and

         24   rebuilding like in the Gulf Coast and the aftermath

         25   of Katrina.  Such impact manifests themselves in

                                                                        33

          1   the form of increased costs of industry, permitting

          2   delays, restrictional industrial expansions within

          3   the area, impacts on transportation and planning

          4   and increased costs to consumers for commercial and

          5   consumer products.  In addition, each community

          6   will be facing continuing oversight by EPA until

          7   the area has met and maintained the standard of

          8   required number of years.  These aspects have real

          9   impacts on the local communities.

         10        I have heard some say that at the levels being

         11   proposed, attainment and maintenance of the

         12   standard will be out of reach for many of the

         13   industrialized states.  We simply cannot afford to

         14   jeopardize the progress for meeting the current

         15   ozone standard by setting a lower ozone standard

         16   that may never be achieved.  The National

         17   Conference of Black --

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

         19   have copies of your written statement to put in the

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

         21   of you.  We appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

                                                                        34

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

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

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

          4        With the air standards the way they are now,

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

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

          7   myself.  I already had one accident.  I would

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

          9   to ride with people who work and they ride after

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

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

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

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

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

         15   take my bicycle trips.

         16        In the past couple of months I've gotten

         17   involved with the Atlanta Regional Commission.

         18   They do transportation plans.  They just issued

         19   their regional transportation plan.  My specific

         20   concern was bicycle paths and sidewalks, pedestrian

         21   facilities.  Governor Perdue has done essentially

         22   all he can to discourage bicycle paths and that

         23   kind of alternative transportation and encourage

         24   the construction of highways.  And thanks to Mr.

         25   Bullard for raising the question of transit.  The

                                                                        35

          1   Governor appointed a Congestion Mitigation

          2   Taskforce.  MARTA, which is the regional

          3   transportation provider was not represented on the

          4   Congestion Mitigation Taskforce.  That taskforce

          5   recommended that in determining whether or not to

          6   build a new highway, congestion mitigation should

          7   represent 70 percent of the waiting factor, which

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

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

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

         11   makes the ozone?  The cars.

         12        There is another factor and that is the State

         13   Environmental Protection Division.  They give a

         14   budget that has to be met for the transportation

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

         16   relaxed the air quality standards, the more

         17   flexibility the Environmental Protection Division

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

         19   standard is now, there effectively is no budget.

         20        The basis that was used was sent during a time

         21   that the temperatures in the Georgia area were

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

         23   conditioners running.  And, apparently, when

         24   Georgia Power generates their air emissions are

         25   based on the total power generated, so the more

                                                                        36

          1   power generated, the more air pollution there is,

          2   the more the air conditioners run, the more air

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

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

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

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

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

          8   telling you what the numbers should be and the

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

         10   when I heard the Governor was supporting the 0.08

         11   standard as opposed to the 0.06 standard because he

         12   is supporting it because he wants to build more

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

         14   rapid rail, we need transit alternatives and we

         15   need healthy air.  Support to 0.060 standard.

         16   Thank you.

         17        MR. PAGE:  Mr. Bright.

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

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

         20        MR. PAGE:  You are on the clock.

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

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

         23   research scientist since 1961 and a regulatory

         24   scientist, having worked for EPA for 22 of those

         25   years when we first started looking at single

                                                                        37

          1   chemicals to see what would be causing the

          2   deleterious effects of those chemicals.  And then

          3   we moved from there to looking at multiple

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

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

          6   working to be bring about deleterious reactions and

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

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

          9   collectively at various kinds of plant and animal

         10   systems and conditions that are atmospheric

         11   conditions because they all lead to deleterious

         12   effects.

         13        We can have reduced levels of ozone, but not

         14   necessarily reduced bronchial impacts upon animals

         15   and people.  We still have an increasing levels of

         16   sickness and deleterious effects, despite the fact

         17   that sometimes the ozone is being reduced. There

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

         19   take a look at the mechanism of action.

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

         21   background.  I am the Assistant Director for the

         22   Prevention Research Center at the Morehouse School

         23   of Medicine.  There are 33 prevention research

         24   centers and I hope some of you in here represent

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

                                                                        38

          1   historically black institution and that's the one

          2   at Morehouse School of Medicine.  One of the things

          3   that we look at are environmental impacts from

          4   chemicals and from various kinds of conditions that

          5   we find.

          6        What is the actual mechanism of action?  What

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

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

          9   It competitively replaces them.  Organ systems will

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

         11   understand that, then you would understand the

         12   statement that I made earlier, there are no safe

         13   levels of ozone.

         14        While we're looking at ozone as getting into

         15   the body through inhalation and through the skin,

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

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

         18   through inhalation stays within the body and is

         19   absorbed and dissolved, therein that 90 percent of

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

         21   attack the body replacing the oxygen within all

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

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

         24   to that I worked for the Department of Agriculture

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

                                                                        39

          1   ozonolysis reactions, trying to change milk such

          2   that we can make products for industry.  And during

          3   those ozonolysis reactions, I never had a nose

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

          5   any health problems, but working in a laboratory I

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

          7   more or less immediately.  I developed blood

          8   dyscrasias and I developed nose bleeds, blood

          9   dyscrasias and I found one thing that really

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

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

         12   amounts during that time, but in latter years I

         13   discovered that we have to look at the mechanism of

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

         15   break down the body.  How does it cause the

         16   problems with eyes.  What are the impact of ozone

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

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

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

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

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

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

         23   sometimes laugh at people who like to do sunning.

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

         25   these people to live longer.  It breaks down the

                                                                        40

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

          2   washing of your skin will break it down also.

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

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

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

          6   a look at ozone because ozone in any concentration

          7   is harmful, plus you cannot really reverse the

          8   effects of ozone on the body.  Thank you very

          9   kindly.

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.  Appreciate

         11   it.  Next speakers are June Deen and Naeema

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

         13   are first.

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

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

         16   proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

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

         18   Affairs for the American Lung Association,

         19   Southeast Region based here in Atlanta.

         20        As you all know the American Lung

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

         22   important part of this battle is the quest for all

         23   Americans to breathe clean and healthy air.  In

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

         25   State and also I learned this morning we have

                                                                        41

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

          2   something to keep in mind.  In Georgia over ten

          3   percent of our children in Georgia have asthma.

          4   The percentage increases in middle school and high

          5   school to 15 and 16 percent respectively.  These

          6   children miss over a half a million school days

          7   each year.  Many live in cities where ozone is

          8   already a concern.  Needless to say, they can

          9   ill-afford to be exposed to pollutant that burn

         10   lungs and airways and exacerbates their asthma.  We

         11   know children with asthma can benefit greatly with

         12   from a reduction of the ozone concentrations, as a

         13   study of the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta

         14   demonstrated.  Dr. Staton referred to this earlier.

         15   The City made a concerted effort to reduce traffic

         16   congestion to enable spectators to go to the games.

         17   Public transit was enhanced, access to downtown was

         18   limited or closed to private cars and businesses

         19   were encouraged to promote telecommuting and

         20   alternative work hours.  The results, large and

         21   significant decreases in ozone concentrations.

         22   During this period, researchers found significant

         23   reductions in the number of urgent care visits,

         24   emergency care visits and hospitalizations in

         25   asthma in children ages 1 through 16.  Clean air

                                                                        42

          1   does make a difference and it is achievable.

          2        I mention children with asthma, but only as an

          3   example.  Children and teens, senior citizens,

          4   people with other lung diseases like chronic

          5   bronchitis and emphysema are particularly

          6   vulnerable to the health effects of ozone.  Those

          7   that exercise outdoors and some who are responders

          8   and then probably you and I.  Millions of children

          9   and adults with lung disease in this country are

         10   exposed to levels of ozone that can potentially

         11   make them sick.

         12        The Clean Air Act was designed to anticipate

         13   that better science would clarify and improve

         14   existing standards.  A significant body of research

         15   shows that ozone endangers human health in

         16   concentrations well below the current federal

         17   standards.  The proposed revisions to the national

         18   standards for ozone are a good step towards cleaner

         19   air.  While the American Lung Association is

         20   pleased that the EPA is calling for significantly

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

         22   the range recommended by its own scientific

         23   experts.  We believe that there is ample evidence

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

         25   Administrator to adopt that level.  What is the

                                                                        43

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

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

          3        We urge EPA to follow the science follow the

          4   law and adopt a standard that truly offers the

          5   protection the Clean Air Act provides.  Thank you.

          6        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

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

          8   Gilyard.  I am here today representing adults with

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

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

         11   alert, which means that the air is sensitive to

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

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

         14   because the air quality is so bad that it will

         15   trigger an asthma attack even though I have taken

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

         17   off from work and stay in.

         18        Over the years, the air quality has become

         19   worse and I know so because there are more frequent

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

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

         22   statistics reflect in terms of how the air quality

         23   has improved over the years.  My asthma tells me

         24   otherwise.  It is unthinkable to me that stricter

         25   ozone standards are not being considered that would

                                                                        44

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

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

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

          4   being considered with revised standards.  Poor air

          5   quality is another public health crisis facing our

          6   nation.  While our nation continues to focus on how

          7   much it will cost to improve public health or will

          8   there be a serious effort to improve our quality of

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

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

         11   we're not functioning based on logic and

         12   compassion.  Thank you.

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

         14   Sherrill Marcus and Dr. Beverly Wright.  Thank you

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

         16   first.

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

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

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

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

         21   opportunity to address the counsel on ozone.  I

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

         23   done some -- coordinated some research in the area

         24   of ozone concentrations in metropolitan Atlanta.

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

                                                                        45

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

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

          3   comments that no level of ozone is good for human

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

          5   body.  I got back from reading many studies on

          6   health and air pollution while working.

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

          8   we had 21 locations in the Metropolitan area that

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

         10   those 21 sites that we had we got adequate

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

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

         13   Quality offices are located here in Atlanta.  We

         14   had locations in Forsyth County, Hall County,

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

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

         17   get more participants those were volunteers.  For

         18   that year we had 23 exceedances, 23 more

         19   exceedances from our monitoring efforts than EPD

         20   reported.  Now, what is the difference and what

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

         22   a worldwide monitoring system.  Many who as many of

         23   you know the scientists that study air quality know

         24   that pollution has different concentrations in

         25   different pocket we call them roses.  I first saw

                                                                        46

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

          2   it comes to the pollution level in communities

          3   pockets are those 23 exceedances that we found in

          4   communities that (inaudible) measured communities

          5   level ozone meant that those persons were suffering

          6   greater exposure than is being reported by the

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

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

          9   standard for monitoring ozone, lowest standard

         10   0.060 which is being proposed I would support, but

         11   remembering to that all ozone is harmful to the

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

         13   need to work to eliminate even more ozone from the

         14   ambient air.  This research project was done by a

         15   group that focuses on transportation.

         16   Metro-Atlanta has had some of the worst congestion

         17   in the nation during some of the years past and

         18   continues to have serious congestion problems.

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

         20   percent of the pollution in the air in Atlanta

         21   comes from automobiles, so that the work in this

         22   area, in Metropolitan Atlanta, the area of

         23   transportation needs to focus on transit and ways

         24   of getting people to use alternative means of

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

                                                                        47

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

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

          3   very good.

          4        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

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

          6   Beverly Wright.  I am Director of Deep South Center

          7   for Environmental Justice at Dillard University in

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

          9   testimony as a researcher and a scholar who has

         10   studied and written about environmental health in

         11   vulnerable populations for many years.  I am also

         12   representing the National Black Environmental

         13   Justice Network that has affiliates in 32 states

         14   and the Environmental Justice Climate Change

         15   Initiative is part of an organization called

         16   Redefining Progress.  Both groups are focused on

         17   national preventive health, environmental economic

         18   justice and finding change.

         19        I am also a displaced resident of New Orleans,

         20   Louisiana with grave concerns around issues of

         21   clean air and EPA's ability to protect human

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

         23   has and been linked to premature death, shortness

         24   of breath, chest pains, wheezing and coughing,

         25   inflammation and damage to the lining of the lungs,

                                                                        48

          1   increased asthma attacks, greater need for medical

          2   treatment and for hospitalizations where people

          3   with lung disease such as asthma and chronic

          4   obstructive pulmonary disease.  Long-term repeated

          5   exposure to high levels of ozone may also lead to

          6   reduced lung capacity.  People who are most at risk

          7   include:  People with lung disease, especially

          8   chronic lung disease, such as asthma and emphysema;

          9   children, because their airways are smaller their

         10   respiratory defenses are not fully developed and

         11   their higher breathing rates increase their

         12   exposure; people who work or exercise outdoors,

         13   senior citizens, otherwise healthy individuals who

         14   respond to lower levels of exposure than the

         15   average person.

         16        Some studies show that African-Americans,

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

         18   from ozone pollution than the general population.

         19   That may be partly because they tend to live in

         20   high ozone urban areas or because asthma rates are

         21   higher in this population.  To this point I would

         22   like to stress that the National Council of Black

         23   Mayors evidently is not speaking for the population

         24   that they represent.  Their response sounded as if

         25   it was written directly by industry and as soon as

                                                                        49

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

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

          3   particular statement.  It was abominable and really

          4   very depressing to hear African-American men make

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

          6   now as an African-American who has worked with

          7   communities in Louisiana for the last 15 years, you

          8   will never hear one African-American make the

          9   statement that we are afraid of the stigma of

         10   ambient air non-attainment communities.  Thank you.

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

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

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

         14   that we worry about is that African-Americans have

         15   higher rates of asthma and dying from respiratory

         16   diseases, this is what they should be concerned

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

         18   hold in states like Louisiana, Mississippi and

         19   Alabama who, by the way, represent the poorest

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

         21   relationship between propriety and pollution, which

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

         23   and so we have Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama

         24   meeting that particular criteria.

         25        Cleaning up air pollution will save thousands

                                                                        50

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

          2   ozone exposure even when concentrations are well

          3   below the current standard.  The World Health

          4   Organization recently tightened its air quality

          5   guidelines for ozone because of its concerns about

          6   deaths from exposure to low concentration.  EPA's

          7   independent (inaudible) advisors unanimously

          8   recommended that EPA lower the ozone quality

          9   standards due to evidence of death and disease at

         10   levels below standard.  EPA is required by law to

         11   set the standard solely on the basis of health

         12   consideration.  EPA is not allowed the consider

         13   cost.  Almost all of the industry arguments focus

         14   on the cost of lowering the standard.  EPA should

         15   ignore these comments.  Thank you.

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

         17   today.

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

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

         20   Two days ago my wife and I were celebrating our

         21   40th anniversary in Montana hiking in bear country,

         22   so it very nice to be here.

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

         24   California at Berkeley.  I perform active research

         25   in air quality characterization and exposure and

                                                                        51

          1   dose response on both human health and vegetation

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

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

          4   1996 and 2006 for the EPA ozone criteria document

          5   and I am the person who developed the W126 exposure

          6   index which is proposed as secondary ozone

          7   standard.

          8        I would like to read first my conclusions.

          9   The unfortunate decision by the EPA not to utilize

         10   the available background monitoring data has

         11   resulted in large overestimates of the number of

         12   individuals who suffer sickness and even premature

         13   deaths from ozone exposures.  EPA sets a dangerous

         14   precedent by attempting to assign significance to a

         15   statistically insignificant result  involving the

         16   responses of three subjects at the 0.060 ppm

         17   levels.

         18        At this time there is insufficient evidence to

         19   draw any conclusions about the estimates of effects

         20   below 0.08 ppm using the human laboratory

         21   experiments and it is my opinion that the EPA

         22   should not rely on either the community time

         23   searched results or the human laboratory

         24   experimental studies for assessing the effects of

         25   ozone on human health below 0.08 ppm.

                                                                        52

          1        You heard and continue to hear in the news

          2   about the number of individuals who suffer sickness

          3   and premature deaths from ozone exposure.  The

          4   generation of the numbers is mostly associated with

          5   health risk analysis to utilize community

          6   (inaudible) time series in human laboratory

          7   experimental studies.

          8        One of the key inputs in the risk analysis is

          9   the range of background ozone concentrations.  The

         10   EPA underestimates background ozone and ozone

         11   really is available at background levels.  It is

         12   not zero.  Then the Agency overestimates sickness

         13   and premature deaths.

         14        If background ozone is higher than the EPA

         15   predicted, there is a decrease in predictions of

         16   sickness and premature deaths.  One goes up the

         17   other goes down.

         18        Evidence was presented in 2005 to the Clean

         19   Air Scientific Advisory Committee with monitoring

         20   data existing for identifying background and that

         21   that EPA estimates were just too low.  In 2006

         22   EPA's ozone criteria document concluded that no

         23   background monitoring sites existed in North

         24   America and, therefore, the Agency had no choice

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

                                                                        53

          1   However, in 2007 EPA changed its opinion and

          2   reported in a staff paper that background ozone

          3   monitoring sites do exist.

          4        March 26th letter to the Administrator, CASAC

          5   concluded with respect policy relevant background

          6   the ozone panel wishes to point out that the claim

          7   of ozone staff paper does not provide a sufficient

          8   base of evidence from the peer-reviewed literature

          9   to suggest that the current approach to the

         10   trimming of (inaudible) relevant background is the

         11   best method to make this estimation.

         12        The top curve is background, the real

         13   background, the middle part of the curves are the

         14   12 cities that EPA used in its risk analysis EPA

         15   underestimated actual background.  Modifying EPA's

         16   estimated ozone background level by five ppb for L.

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

         18   lower for non-accidental mortality.  If the Agency

         19   had used actual background, I believe, in my

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

         21   non-accidental mortality would have been even

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

         23   clinical health studies for lung function.  Please

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

         25   0.08, 0.06 and 0.04.  Research results published by

                                                                        54

          1   Bill Adams formed the basis for these data points.

          2   By the way I designed his experiments and

          3   exposures.  Adams 2002 and 2006 reported no

          4   statistical significant effects at 0.04 and 0.06.

          5   At the 0.06 level there were two subjects that

          6   responded one set of exposures and one for another

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

          8   subjects experienced a lung function decrement at 5

          9   percent in clean air while exercising.

         10        In his 2002 experiment, Adams reported there

         11   was one subject who responded at the 0.04 level.

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

         13   point on a response curve is inappropriate.  And

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

         15   was other cases such as specific case of 0.06 or

         16   0.04 exposures, this approach amounts to attempting

         17   to find effects in a very few individuals when the

         18   statistical tests are not significant, which is a

         19   dangerous precedent, especially in this case where

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

         21   pitiful number in which to attempt to base policy.

         22   Thank you.

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

         24   Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at API.  API

         25   represents more than 400 members in all aspects of

                                                                        55

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

          2   issue.  We have been involved with this before and

          3   we'll continue to be involved with the ozone

          4   setting standards.

          5        I want to make three points today, please.

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

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

          8   much more science debate on the science than EPA

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

         10   real costs on real people without commensurate

         11   benefits.

         12        API acknowledges EPA is making a lot of

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

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

         15   with a B, towards improving environmental

         16   performance of its products and its facilities, so

         17   we see nations putting in clean diesel, clean

         18   gasoline and going into cleaner vehicles.  We have

         19   also worked on cleaning up our stationary sources.

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

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

         22   criteria air pollutants between 1970 and 2006,

         23   while BMT has increased 177 percent.  All right.

         24   We also know that TRI emissions from the industry

         25   have dropped dramatically in the meantime and all

                                                                        56

          1   this progress will continue.  Cleaner gasoline will

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

          3   percent cleaner than those produced in 2004 and

          4   Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel will lead the truck

          5   emissions and bus emissions will be 90 percent

          6   reduced by 2030, so clearly progress will continue.

          7        Moving on to my second point, the science

          8   behind changing these standards is uncertain and

          9   variable.  There are a lot of questions still in

         10   the science.  Dr. Allen Lefohn already addressed

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

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

         13   the only toxicological evidence of the human health

         14   effects, a peer-reviewed public study found no

         15   statistically lung function impairment at levels

         16   below the existing standard.  Nonetheless, EPA

         17   staff statistically reanalyzed selected portions of

         18   the data and reported finding significant lung

         19   function impairment at ozone levels below the

         20   current standard.  EPA appears to be relying on

         21   this unpublished, unreviewed staff analysis, one

         22   that contradicts the author's original

         23   peer-reviewed results that support a call for a

         24   tighter standard.

         25        There are also inconsistent findings the case

                                                                        57

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

          2   study found statistically significant associations

          3   between ozone and mortality in only 6 of 95 cities

          4   studied.

          5        Further, the statistically signal identified

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

          7   of uncertainty results.  This is analogous to an

          8   election night exit poll that shows a candidate

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

         10   statistically margin of error of plus or minus 5

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

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

         13   EPA is professing to have sufficient scientific

         14   certainty to establish the ozone-mortality link.

         15        Moving onto my third point, a more stringent

         16   ozone standard will burden the States with a new

         17   and more difficult target before they complete work

         18   and implement the attainment plans for the current

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

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

         21   not meeting the current standard yet.  We need to

         22   work toward the current standard.  Many local

         23   communities will be saddled with new costs if we

         24   change the standard or hurt both large and small

         25   businesses and prevent expansion and growth.

                                                                        58

          1   Hurting local economy and citizens without a clear

          2   scientific basis for selecting a different numeric

          3   standard is not a prudent use of resources.

          4        Looking forward, further improvements will

          5   come through current regulations designed to meet

          6   the existing standards, such as the cleaner fuels

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

          8   Clean Air Act mandates the Ozone NAAQS be

          9   established based solely on science and that

         10   changes then must be requisite to protect the

         11   public health and welfare and based on substantial

         12   improvements in scientific information.

         13   Nevertheless, the significant economic impact of

         14   tightening the standard should highlight the

         15   importance of getting the science right and the

         16   inherent uncertainty of the current science does

         17   not support imposing further costs for the

         18   uncertain benefits proposed.  Chilling local

         19   economies with compelling changes in the science

         20   makes no sense.  Thank you.

         21        MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are Flora Tommie

         22   and Ben Dunham.  Welcome to both of you.

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

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

         25   Maytech and I also serve as secretary for the

                                                                        59

          1   purposes Civic Association of Community in

          2   Southwest Atlanta.  A community that is actually is

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

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

          5   airport, everything.  I also have a trucking center

          6   that is right at these pointline boundaries of my

          7   community.  Everyone talks about there no

          8   significant scientific data, I told them I go by

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

         10   safe when people are actually sick.  I also suffer

         11   from asthma.  I testified before in regards to the

         12   transportation problems that we have and the people

         13   who have asthma needed to walk to get mass transit

         14   and, therefore, the effects that they suffer from

         15   the diesel pollution.  Also my community we have

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

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

         18   everybody say they monitor everything, there has

         19   never been my monitoring in my community at all as

         20   to the truck traffic and diesel (inaudible).

         21   Everything that is growing involve in the

         22   commercial freight (inaudible), therefore, I have

         23   to say that we have to stop saying everything is

         24   okay at the levels that they are when we already

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

                                                                        60

          1   that people suffer.  I have looked at the children

          2   in the community who suffered from asthma for years

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

          4   of the Federal Highways Transportation Plan. Nobody

          5   has looked at any environmental impacts of the

          6   diesel air on their quality of life.  Nobody looked

          7   a bus depot of the Atlanta Public School System

          8   which is functioning on the old gasoline system.

          9   Nobody looked at the effect at the beginning part

         10   of a neighborhood where children and people those

         11   are now.  These are predominantly African-Americans

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

         13   not been educated as to how they need to be

         14   monitoring for those days.  They only know when we

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

         16   you start your documentation, but nobody documents

         17   us when we are talking around sick because you

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

         19   healthcare.

         20        And the reason I get slow is because I have

         21   problem catching my breath.  I also suffer from

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

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

         24   who passed out and challenged the State of its

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

                                                                        61

          1   clean air as a quality of life for us.

          2        The oil industry has to also stop saying that

          3   our communities will suffer economically if we

          4   don't do something, our communities are suffering

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

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

          7   get oil.

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

          9   ready.

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

         11   holding this hearing today on strengthening the

         12   national standard for ozone pollution.  My name is

         13   Ben Dunham, I'm the associate legislative counsel

         14   for Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law

         15   firm founded in 1971 as the Sierra Club People

         16   Defense Fund.  Earthjustice represents, without

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

         18   order to reduce water and air pollution, prevent

         19   toxic contamination, safeguard public lands and

         20   preserve endangered species and wildlife habitat.

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

         22   mandate of the Clean Air Act of public health with

         23   an adequate margin of safety by strengthening the

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

         25   Breathing ozone polluted air has been compared to

                                                                        62

          1   rubbing sandpaper in the lungs.  Ozone is a

          2   powerful respiratory irritant associated with

          3   increased risks of asthma attacks, inflammation of

          4   the lung lining, wheezing, coughing, shortness of

          5   breath and chest pains.  There is now even evidence

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

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

          8   ozone pollution to increased death from heart and

          9   lung problems.  Even at levels below the current

         10   standard, the relationship between smog and early

         11   death was evident.  Ozone also contributes to

         12   global warming.  EPA has concluded that those under

         13   the potent greenhouse gas and new research shows by

         14   (inaudible) leaves and reducing the rate of

         15   photosynthesis, ozone can stunt plant growth, thus

         16   reducing plants ability to act as a sink for

         17   greenhouse gases.

         18        The Clean Air Act, when used as it was

         19   intended is one of the most effective environmental

         20   laws ever written.  Each year the Clean Air Act

         21   prevents well over 200,000 premature deaths, more

         22   than 650,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, over

         23   200,000 hospital admissions and more than 200

         24   million respiratory illnesses.

         25        Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible

                                                                        63

          1   for promulgating the primary National Ambient

          2   Quality Standards that protect public health with

          3   an adequate margin of safety.  Every five years EPA

          4   must revise those standards taking into account the

          5   latest science of the effects ozone pollution on

          6   public health and the environment.  The Supreme

          7   Court has held that in setting or revising ozone

          8   pollution standards, the EPA cannot consider

          9   implementation of cost, only health impacts.

         10   Courts have also found that maximum must be set at

         11   levels that protects,not just healthy adults, but

         12   also sensitive populations, like the elderly and

         13   children.  People with asthma are also considered

         14   sensitive population and Courts have repeatedly

         15   found that health effect in even a small portion of

         16   the population is enough.

         17        In short, the Clean Air Act was intended to

         18   provide safe breathing air for all Americans.  The

         19   current standard of 0.80 ppm does fill that

         20   mandate, nor would the proposed standard of 0.07

         21   and 0.075 ppm.  The most recent science shows that

         22   a standard of 0.06 ppm is necessary to protect

         23   public health with an adequate margin of safety.

         24        EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,

         25   an independent board of 23 scientists, found that

                                                                        64

          1   the current standard for ozone is not strong enough

          2   to protect the public health.  The Committee

          3   specifically found that "retaining this current

          4   standard would continue to put large numbers of

          5   individuals at risk for mortality or death."

          6        The scientists cited a broader (inaudible) and

          7   found an increase in mortality reported at exposure

          8   levels well below the current standard.  As a

          9   result, the Committee unanimously recommended that

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

         11        EPA's Children's Health Advisory Committee

         12   went a step further and recommended setting the

         13   standard at 0.06 ppm, citing children's sensitivity

         14   to ozone.  Experts on public health, including the

         15   American Thoracic Society, the American Lung

         16   Association and the American Public Health

         17   Association have also called for standards of 0.06

         18   ppm.

         19        In this day and in this country we should be

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

         21   our kids to play outside without their parents

         22   having to worry that they will end up in the

         23   hospital just from breathing the air.  The same

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

         25   the park.

                                                                        65

          1        The Clean Air Act provides all of us with the

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

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

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

          5   recommendations of dozens of public experts and

          6   scientific studies showing adverse health effects

          7   with levels as low as 0.06 ppm, Earthjustice urges

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

          9   than 0.06 ppm.

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

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

         12   speakers and take a break after this.

         13        Mike Wilder and Marie Green are our next

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

         15   are our next speaker.

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

         17   Environmental Manager for Georgia Power Company.

         18   At Georgia Power Company we think this is the best

         19   process for setting environmental standards.  It's

         20   a good public process and we applaud you for taking

         21   this action today.  We support good science and

         22   good sense in setting environmental standards.

         23   Without good science there is just really nothing

         24   but chaos, so we really think that the science

         25   needs to be driving factor in setting new

                                                                        66

          1   standards.

          2        We think that EPA should take full note of the

          3   efforts of the various States to implement cleaner

          4   air interstate rules to bring about significant

          5   reductions in ozone causing of pollutants across

          6   the nation.  That rule will be fully implemented in

          7   2015.

          8          In Georgia we hope that you will take

          9   particular note on what the State of Georgia has

         10   done under the leadership of the Air Branch of

         11   Environmental Protection Division, a new rule

         12   called the Georgia Multi-Pollutant Rule has been

         13   passed and placed into law.  That rule will bring

         14   about significant reductions in emissions from

         15   (inaudible) generating plants that are far in

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

         17   we hope that no new counties will be designated in

         18   non-attainment in Georgia until the full effects of

         19   that rule have been implemented and that will be in

         20   2015.  Thank you.

         21        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

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

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

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

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

                                                                        67

          1   within the last ten years it's has gotten

          2   progressively worse.  My doctor tells me I have

          3   severe asthma and he describes my airways as being

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

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

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

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

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

          9   commercials about that.  I take Albuterol and I

         10   take oral Prednisone, which that is a really bad

         11   medication to be on because of all of the side

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

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

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

         15   hospitalizations in 2005 that were basically six

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

         17   hospital and the emergency room now are the

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

         19   health conscious.  I do minimal exercise.  I need

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

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

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

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

         24   something that's managed with medication.  So it

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

                                                                        68

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

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

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

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

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

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

          7   done to make the air cleaner and better for

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

          9   means major adjustments on the part of businesses

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

         11   what need to be done because your health is your

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

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

         14   for me.

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

         16   appreciate it.

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

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

         19                          - - -

         20             (Whereupon, a brief break was taken)

         21                          - - -

         22        MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are Diane Shockey

         23   and Angel Torres and anybody is free to correct my

         24   pronunciation of their name.

         25        Welcome to both of you.  Thank you for coming

                                                                        69

          1   today.

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

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

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

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

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

          7   feel uncomfortable being here so please bear with

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

          9   should come down and give my two cents.

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

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

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

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

         14   antidotal information.

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

         16   that is getting to school and then after school

         17   with my daughter.  Getting to school is a problem

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

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

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

         21   probably 35 buses that are at Loganville High

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

         23   Our county has just exploded with population as a

         24   lot of Georgia counties have done so in the last

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

                                                                        70

          1   has not caught up with the population in the

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

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

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

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

          6   medication and take off to school.

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

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

          9   marching band she must practice almost every day

         10   after school, which is the ozone levels are the

         11   worse in the afternoon.  I counted today and I

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

         13   it was unadvisable for kids to be out after school

         14   if you had asthma.  Some days they were for

         15   everybody, some days they were for sensitive

         16   groups.  Because of that and because my daughter is

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

         18   time because she has had asthma-related conditions

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

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

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

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

         23   whipping out their Albuterol, whipping out their

         24   drugs to get them through the afternoon because of

         25   the problems we have with the pollution here in the

                                                                        71

          1   area.

          2        I know that people in Georgia are trying to do

          3   the right thing and trying to meet the standards

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

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

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

          7   if the schools knew that maybe their damaging those

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

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

         10   just by letting her out.

         11        So there is not the education on the level

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

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

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

         15   be reaching an educational level to any of the

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

         17   still let them go.

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

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

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

         21   the right thing for everybody.  And I know that

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

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

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

         25   doing this to and our future generations.  I know

                                                                        72

          1   you guys are professionals and I even have

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

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

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

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

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

          7   and maintaining to clean air so that there will be

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

          9   right now.  Thank you.

         10        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.

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

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

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

         14   the Environmental Justice Research Center at the

         15   Clark Atlanta university for more than 11 years,

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

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

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

         19   the general public and populations.  Early on I

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

         21   persistent issue in the communities that I have

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

         23   think that I would have to be facing the same

         24   issues that I was seeing people going through

         25   during that time.

                                                                        73

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

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

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

          4   know, I was going to this communities looking at

          5   the people working hard and they doing everything

          6   that they could to keep their children healthy and

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

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

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

         10   kid with asthma, it's a completely different

         11   perspective.

         12        One of the main problems is when a kid has

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

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

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

         16   friends are in the soccer field running around,

         17   doing their thing and he is locking out of the

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

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

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

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

         22   stuff, so it pretty concerning.

         23        I had a speech here written and I got

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

         25   So, obviously, asthma interferes with activity

                                                                        74

          1   greatly during that time.  For the last couple of

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

          3   obviously, they have been most of the unhealthiest

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

          5   one of those asthmatic episodes that you go for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         16   you not to bring these standards down to 0.07 but

         17   consider the lower standard of 0.06.  0.07 will

         18   help everybody, obviously, even the healthy people,

         19   but 0.06 standard would actually help my son, so

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

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

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

         23   be normal again.

         24        We all know that there is a great deal of

         25   assistance is going to come from corporations and

                                                                        75

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

          2   change their ways, but for many years they have

          3   been changing their ways and everything, they are

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

          5   standard is going to help the incredible

          6   precautions that they are talking about.  When I

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

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

          9   I thought the first one was really telling.  The

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

         11   will significantly limit economic growth."  That's

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

         13   true.  Non-attainment emissions controls are

         14   designed to help areas improve air quality even as

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

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

         17   that these economic repercussions are there as

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

         19   go ahead and follow what the Supreme Court mandated

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

         21   but consider the health implications of your

         22   actions.  I appreciate your time.  Thank you.

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

         24   Appreciate you being here today.  Our next speakers

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

                                                                        76

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

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

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

          4   Cunningham, President of the Birmingham Regional

          5   Chamber of Commence.  Chamber serves as the key

          6   business economics development and public policy

          7   organization for Central Alabama.  The Chamber and

          8   it's Environmental Committee are involved with the

          9   Alabama Partners for clean air and actively

         10   participate in governmental actions associated with

         11   the 8-hour ozone and particulate parts per million

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

         13   current National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

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

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

         16   Since 1990, the Birmingham area has been classified

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

         18        Hard work, however, has worked to improve

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

         20   redesignation of the Birmingham area and the ozone

         21   attainment as of May 2006.  That is a remarkable

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

         23   industrial heritage.  All of Alabama's 67 counties

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

         25   endorsed redorsed revisions to Alabama's State

                                                                        77

          1   Implementation Plan, but it is intended to insure

          2   that Birmingham, Alabama is at least an ozone

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

          4   oversight, Jefferson County alone has reduced point

          5   source emissions and nitrous oxide by significant

          6   amounts.  Nitrous oxide emitting sources in Alabama

          7   have invested and are continuing to invest

          8   millions, even billions of dollars in improved

          9   air-quality measures.  The Birmingham area ozone

         10   attainment redesignation is by no means the end of

         11   the story for improving air quality in Alabama.

         12   The existing regulations and/or the rules will have

         13   the effect of continuing to improve Alabama's air

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

         15   on public health improves.  The existing ozone

         16   standard is at a level that is protective of public

         17   health and includes a margin of safety.

         18   Recognizing that Alabama's air quality continues to

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

         20   unnecessary?  First, the science supporting the

         21   change in the standard has been called into

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

         23   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee during

         24   recent Congressional testimony has indicated that

         25   EPA has "did not provide a sufficient base of

                                                                        78

          1   evidence" to prove that the proposed change is

          2   appropriate and that is according to a past

          3   chairman of that committee, Dr. Roger McClellan.

          4        When an area is classified as non-attainment

          5   severe competitive penalties are imposed.  That

          6   means fewer jobs and stagnant communities'

          7   financial health.  For example, our recruiting

          8   agency, Metropolitan Development Board reports that

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

         10   least 17 new projects including Mercedes-Benz and

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

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

         13   disadvantage for non-attainment relates to highway

         14   development.  All ozone non-attainment areas have

         15   restricted access to federal transportation funds.

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

         17   identified as being projected as being a

         18   non-attainment area, it has the same competitive

         19   disadvantage as though the sanction had been

         20   imposed.  We propose that EPA should give

         21   additional scrutiny to policy decisions like the

         22   one in question that are based on questionable

         23   science and their resulting adverse effects on

         24   communities and their economic health.

         25        To conclude, air quality is improving.  The

                                                                        79

          1   current ozone standard protects public health.  The

          2   science behind lowering the standard is suspect,

          3   and the economic costs associated with reducing the

          4   standard do not justify changing the current

          5   standard, therefore, the Birmingham Regional

          6   Chamber of Commerce urges EPA to focus on helping

          7   communities to meet and maintain current standards

          8   before imposing new ones.  Thank you very much.

          9        MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Ms.

         10   Downs.

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

         12   I'm the Outreach Director for Georgia Interfaith

         13   Power & Light.  Georgia Interfaith Power & Light is

         14   a non-profit organization whose mission is to

         15   engage and support faith communities in caring for

         16   the earth.  Thank you for this opportunity to