24  Coalition for the Quality of Life.  And we have

           25  recently -- we're a grassroots organization of inner

                                                                    225

            1  city -- within the city limits, all the alignments that

            2  our Metropolitan Transit Authority has decided to change

            3  our transit patterns.

            4                 So, we are in the process of learning

            5  what emissions we're supposed to be looking for, and I

            6  thought this hearing would be a good start on that

            7  because we have in a draft environmental impact

            8  statement.  And in looking at the tables that we have

            9  been given, none of this has complied with what I've

           10  just heard for your emissions standards.

           11                 So, we are very concerned with, I guess,

           12  primarily the emissions that would cause -- would be

           13  occurring from not only construction of a

           14  four-and-a-half-year period, the particulate matter that

           15  would be released in the air, and METRO's own statement

           16  that they're going to be creating 62 hazardous waste

           17  sites, which don't currently exist upon one particular

           18  alignment.

           19                 And we have questions concerning that,

           20  and I know that the EPA will be looking at the program

           21  that the Metropolitan Transit Authority will be

           22  presenting to them.  And we are hopeful that somebody

           23  will be awake at the wheel and question some of these

           24  emissions because they're telling us that they're going

           25  to have a NOx reduction of 22 tons and a VOC reduction of

                                                                    226

            1  2.3.  But, yet, they are also telling us on the next

            2  page that they're increasing congestion at 32

            3  intersections.

            4                 So, it doesn't take -- I'm just a

            5  layperson.  I have some nice physics courses from

            6  college that I'm riding by on just slightly, but --

            7  but -- how can you have decreased emissions if you're

            8  having increased traffic at intersections?  And if

            9  you're talking about three- to six-minute headways on a

           10  horizontal grid of traffic lights and the addition of 50

           11  traffic lights on one alignment, we do not understand

           12  how this helps our air.

           13                 And we're very concerned about the ozone

           14  level because not only will we lose our -- our mobility

           15  in all the areas affected in Houston, but we're losing

           16  all of our green space, as well.  And it will be covered

           17  in concrete.  We will have increased temperatures, we

           18  will have increased flooding, and there doesn't seem to

           19  be a solution for this.

           20                 So, we are concerned, and we do want

           21  better air, not worse air.  And so, we are looking

           22  forward to the EPA's review of this process and -- and

           23  any type of answers we can get.

           24                 Thank you.

           25                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you very much.

                                                                    227

            1                 So, okay.  Is Charlotte Wells here?  No.

            2                 Okay.  How about David Marrack and

            3  Geoffrey Castro?

            4                 DR. MARRACK:  Welcome to ozone city.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            6                 DR. MARRACK:  My name is David Marrack,

            7  M-A-R-R-A-C-K.  What other city can you go to in the

            8  United States where the ozone level reaches 240 ppb?

            9  None.  This is a unique city.  What's more, we get

           10  spikes of ozone where the ozone concentration goes up at

           11  the rate of two to five ppb per minute.  Very steeply.

           12  You'll see that nowhere else.

           13                 Ozone damages the mucous membranes of the

           14  airways and the eyes, and it is not good for you.

           15  What's worse, it enhances the damage done by a number of

           16  air pollution pollutants, I should point out.  I'm a

           17  physician.

           18                 And Congress directed the EPA to set

           19  standards to protect the people from air pollution.  One

           20  of them was ozone.  The ozone standard of one ppb -- one

           21  hour was set a number of years ago.  And in spite of

           22  three extensions, this area is not yet in compliance.

           23  You are in an area which is noncompliant with the

           24  one-hour ozone standard.

           25                 The Supreme Court in the United States

                                                                    228

            1  said that both -- held that both the one-hour and the

            2  eight-hour standards held -- were applicable and must be

            3  enforced.  You haven't enforced this one-hour standard.

            4  You've taken no action at all, and Congress directed you

            5  to do so and told you how to do it.  We need to get

            6  moving.  Your credibility is zilch.

            7                 The eight-hour standard you set is being

            8  tried, but it's interesting that California on the basis

            9  of exactly the -- almost exactly the same scientific

           10  peer-review data set a standard of 70 ppb.  And we now

           11  know from more recent studies that that is inadequate.

           12  They're recognizing that it damages children's lungs.

           13  Ozone damages people -- children, adults, and

           14  particularly those people who are impaired health,

           15  diabetics, people on anti-cancer drugs, and all the

           16  others.

           17                 We need to get the standard that protects

           18  the public.  I recommend to you that you should apply a

           19  standard of 55 ppb.  And if you think there's some doubt

           20  about the quality of the evidence, as many in the

           21  industry have suggested, on which you base that

           22  standard, you must write an even wider margin of

           23  protection.  You go down to 50 ppb.

           24                 What you need to do, there are a number

           25  of things in this area, particularly.  Reduce the

                                                                    229

            1  emissions from cooling plants, cooling towers,

            2  particularly those in plants handling ethylene,

            3  propylene, and butadiene.  These towers are volcanos of

            4  VOCs.  Their emissions greatly exceed the permits of

            5  these plants that have them, but no one measures it.

            6                 You need to make flares efficient if you

            7  can.  They're not.  They don't meet the 78 -- 98, sorry,

            8  98 percent destruction that EPA claims.  They're much

            9  nearer to 75 percent and worse and -- but flaring should

           10  only be an action of last resort in addition to prevent

           11  a catastrophe.  No other action -- no other reasons

           12  exist for any flaring.

           13                 California Air Resources Board Bay Area

           14  has already enacted that kind of arrangement, and it cut

           15  flaring substantially.  What's more, you have the party

           16  who flares must provide a written report within two days

           17  why, what they flared, how much, and why it was

           18  necessary to save -- only action available to save the

           19  plant.  You change the way flaring is done around here,

           20  and there's a massive amount of flaring.

           21                 Other things that need to be done.  You

           22  need to acquire the authority to control the emissions

           23  from marine vessels within the United States territorial

           24  waters.  They're a major problem here.  We also need to

           25  control and reduce the emissions from the power plants

                                                                    230

            1  or units in trains.  They are a -- a significant issue.

            2                 We also need to reduce the emissions from

            3  mobile -- mobile sources -- mobile vehicles, both

            4  on-road and off-road vehicles.  Idling should be

            5  stopped.  It's easy enough, and they're available,

            6  switches, which switch off vehicles that idle for more

            7  than five minutes.  I don't know.  We need to apply them

            8  to every vehicle.

            9                 What other things are available?  The --

           10  one of the issues --

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Dr. Marrack, if you could

           12  try to wind up.  Your five minutes is up.

           13                 DR. MARRACK:  Oh, I'm sorry.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's -- that's all right.

           15  If --

           16                 DR. MARRACK:  I wasn't even -- I

           17  apologize.  Sorry.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's all right.

           19                 DR. MARRACK:  So, you need to set a

           20  standard of 55 ppb, screwed to three figures, and

           21  enforce it.  And I would point out in putting that

           22  control system in and maintaining it will create jobs

           23  and produce -- also produce a product that can be

           24  exported.

           25                 Thank you.

                                                                    231

            1                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            2                 MR. CASTRO:  Good afternoon.  I would

            3  like to start by thanking the members of the EPA for

            4  coming to Houston.  My name is Geoffrey Castro.  That's

            5  G-E-O-F-F-R-E-Y, C-A-S-T-R-O.  I'm the executive

            6  director for CLEAN, the Citizens League for

            7  Environmental Action Now.  We are a non-profit

            8  organization based here in Houston.

            9                 Houston has consistently had some of the

           10  worst ozone levels in the nation.  Although the EPA

           11  allows up to three bad ozone days each year, the ozone

           12  levels exceed the EPA's standards for 30 to 40 days each

           13  year.

           14                 Although Houston's first goal for meeting

           15  ozone standards was in 1975, over three decades later

           16  that goal has yet to be met.  With nearly six million

           17  people living in the Houston region, many residents are

           18  being exposed to risks as a result of failure to meet

           19  federal targets for ozone.

           20                 These risks include asthma and a host of

           21  other respiratory illnesses.  Recently, the American

           22  Lung Association gave Harris County an "F" for its

           23  ozone.  Even more concerning is that one out of almost

           24  every ten children has asthma.  Furthermore, these risks

           25  are starting to be more threatening to children as they

                                                                    232

            1  spend more time outdoors when the ozone levels are at

            2  their highest.

            3                 The Houston area survey conducted for

            4  Rice University's Stephen Klineberg repeatedly shows

            5  that the majority of Houston's public support

            6  strengthening pollution controls and environmental

            7  protection regardless of costs.

            8                 The problems we face with ozone here in

            9  Houston are occurring all over the state, the country,

           10  and in our major urban areas for we have emissions from

           11  vehicles and industry.  We need stronger standards, and

           12  they need to be enforced.  The Clean Air Act requires

           13  the EPA to set standards to protect public health with

           14  an adequate margin of safety to protect -- to protect

           15  sensitive populations.

           16                 Recently, the Clean Air Scientific

           17  Advisory Committee, CASAC, recommended that the agency

           18  adopt a more stringent standard to protect the health of

           19  Americans.  After reviewing 2,000 pages of scientific

           20  evidence on health effects related to ozone, they

           21  unanimously agreed that there's no scientific

           22  justification for retaining the current standard of

           23  ozone.

           24                 Houston and the rest of the nation needs

           25  an ozone standard that is consistent with scientific

                                                                    233

            1  analysis.  We recommend that the EPA follow the

            2  recommendation by CASAC and set the standard at 60 parts

            3  per billion.

            4                 I realize much of what you've heard today

            5  opposing stronger ozone standards is based on costs and

            6  economic variables.  However, I would like to reiterate

            7  that the EPA should resist industry pressure in adopting

            8  an ozone standard solely focused on protecting the

            9  public health.

           10                 Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           12                 Our next speakers are Charles Stillman

           13  and Scott Hochberg.

           14                 MR. STILLMAN:  My name is Charles

           15  Stillman.  I'm with CLEAN, a local environmental

           16  organization, non-profit, here in Houston.  I am the

           17  project coordinator.  Stillman is spelled

           18  S-T-I-L-L-M-A-N.  I have a short statement.

           19                 We urge the EPA to adopt ozone standards

           20  that protect the health of Houstonians and all

           21  Americans.  The agency's own scientific advisory board,

           22  the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, has

           23  recently recommended that the EPA adopt a stricter

           24  eight-hour standard in the range of .06 to .07 parts per

           25  million.

                                                                    234

            1                 CLEAN stands with hundreds of local,

            2  regional, and national environmental and public advocacy

            3  organizations in calling for a stricter standard in line

            4  with the recommendations of the CASAC.

            5                 MR. HOCHBERG:  Thank you.  I'm Scott

            6  Hochberg.  I'm a state representative in the Houston

            7  area.  And interestingly enough, I represent an area

            8  that is not heavily industrial.  It's not what you think

            9  of as the Ship Channel area or anything like that, but

           10  we are starting to consistently rank in the top two or

           11  three in terms of our ozone readings.  So, this is

           12  clearly a more complicated problem than I think a lot of

           13  people realize.

           14                 First, let me thank you for this

           15  wonderful format.  I've never seen appointments given

           16  for testimony, and I think it's a great idea.  I have

           17  to -- let's give them a hand for that.  (Applause.)  I

           18  have to -- to -- to sit in a similar venue tomorrow for

           19  about eight hours listening to testimony, and we ought

           20  to think about doing that at the State Legislature.  I

           21  think it would be great.

           22                 I -- I am here to -- you know, after the

           23  number of hours you've had, what is it that I can tell

           24  you that's any different?  Well, I am here to tell you

           25  not to listen to me.  I'll bet nobody has said that

                                                                    235

            1  before.

            2                 I am not a scientist.  I don't know

            3  whether your advisory council scientists are right or

            4  wrong.  You can evaluate whether the process they went

            5  through was honest, fair, and complete, and you can and

            6  should listen to other scientists who have reviewed

            7  their work or conducted peer-reviewed research of their

            8  own.

            9                 In the scientific world, that's what you

           10  would do, and that's really what your job is, as I'm

           11  sure you know.  But since this is a public hearing, the

           12  topic seems to have broadened from beyond exactly what

           13  the science is, and I know you're being told that it's

           14  not good to set a goal unless you know you can reach it.

           15  Go tell that to Appalachian State, or even to Mack

           16  Brown.  And if you don't know who Mack Brown is, please

           17  don't admit it in front of this crowd.

           18                 Not only is that inappropriate for your

           19  mission, it doesn't really even serve industry very

           20  well.  Houston is a tremendous example, not only of a

           21  place with ozone, but also a place of how a goal can

           22  drive research and drive technology to learn how our

           23  atmosphere works, to learn what makes a difference when

           24  we're trying to clean it up and, most importantly, to

           25  learn how to spend less -- less money by not going down

                                                                    236

            1  blind alleys.

            2                 We would not have the research that we

            3  have today from TCEQ, from TERP, from U of H, from HARC,

            4  and all the public and private entities that have

            5  combined their efforts to work on this problem, had you

            6  at the federal level not defined the problem and told us

            7  we needed to solve it.

            8                 And I can assure you, as a representative

            9  of the state government, that our state government would

           10  have not spent the hundreds of millions of dollars that

           11  we have spent on ozone reduction efforts through diesel

           12  equipment retrofitting and other programs.  If we had

           13  not been required to meet the federal standard, it would

           14  not have happened.

           15                 So, to those who tell you not to set a

           16  goal you can't meet, I remind you and them that you'll

           17  never meet a goal until you set it.  And if you're going

           18  to ignore the science and ignore the documented health

           19  effects, then what basis do you use?  You just pretend

           20  that we don't know that the existing standard is not as

           21  good as we thought and just leave it as it is?

           22                 Unfortunately, in our region of the

           23  country we have an example of just that kind of

           24  thinking, as well.  And just a couple of hundred miles

           25  east of here we all learned what happens when we stick

                                                                    237

            1  to the old standard, even though science tells us that

            2  it will not adequately protect life and property.  We

            3  stuck with the old way through heck and high water and

            4  we got both.

            5                 Do the right thing.  Let my counterparts

            6  in Washington decide in their ultimate wisdom how or

            7  even whether to try to reach the goal, but give them the

            8  truth as a starting point.  You would never tell your

            9  advisory group not to give you the best scientific

           10  information they could find.  Take their input.  Take

           11  the best scientific information you can find and set the

           12  standard accordingly.

           13                 Thank you for your time.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And we can give

           15  you pointers on how to --

           16                 MR. HOCHBERG:  I'm sorry?

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  I just said we'll give you

           18  pointers on how to schedule five minutes.  It's not that

           19  hard.

           20                 MR. HOCHBERG:  You just -- really, this

           21  was terrific.  Come and go.  We usually try to make

           22  people wait at least four or five or six or maybe eight

           23  hours to see if they really care.  And if they're -- if

           24  they're paid lobbyists, we make them wait even longer.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

                                                                    238

            1                 Our next speaker is Ronald Parry.

            2                 MR. PARRY:  Well, talk about a tough act

            3  to follow.

            4                 Okay.  My name is Ronald Parry.

            5  That's -- last name is spelled P-A-R-R-Y.  I'm a

            6  professor of chemistry at Rice University.  I've lived

            7  in this town since 1978, and it didn't take me long

            8  after arriving here to realize that there was something

            9  wrong with the air.  Actually, I grew up in Los Angeles

           10  so I was pretty good at recognizing air pollution

           11  already.  So, I've since then become interested in air

           12  and tried to understand what's going on here and even

           13  tried to help when that seemed like something I could

           14  do.

           15                 So, I've tried to come up to speed on

           16  this issue.  And as far as I can tell, it's as some of

           17  the people from the environmental community here have

           18  already said to you, which is that the science

           19  indicates -- including the science done by the EPA, that

           20  an appropriate standard is somewhere between .06 and

           21  .07.  My view of ozone, as a chemist, is that it's an

           22  extremely toxic, highly reactive and dangerous

           23  substance.

           24                 And my personal assessment would be that

           25  probably any level of ozone is probably damaging to lung

                                                                    239

            1  tissue.  In other words, the ideal standard for ozone

            2  would probably be zero ppb if we were living in an ideal

            3  world because of the -- the highly toxic and highly

            4  reactive nature of ozone.

            5                 But, of course, we're not living in an

            6  ideal world so we have to think about what's real.

            7  Well, since your scientists say that .06 ppb or .07 ppb

            8  is a reasonable possibility for protecting public

            9  health, I would say let's go for as low as we can

           10  possibly go.  Let's go for 0.06.

           11                 Is there anything else I need to add?

           12  Probably not, except to reinforce the notion that we're

           13  here to protect public health and that other issues,

           14  economics and so forth, should be secondary because the

           15  public's health is what makes people want to live here,

           16  after all, or not live here.

           17                 And this is becoming an issue in this

           18  city.  People are becoming more conscious of the fact

           19  that this town has a lot of environmental problems.  And

           20  so, the people who want to ignore those problems are not

           21  going to succeed in their wish for a better economy

           22  unless they decide to recognize the reality of the

           23  environmental issues.

           24                 That's about all I wanted to say.  Thank

           25  you.

                                                                    240

            1                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            2                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Thank you very

            4  much.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  Doug Schuler.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  Doug Schuler.  Let me just

            7  ask at this point if anyone else in the audience wants

            8  to speak at this time.  If not, we'll take a short break

            9  after Mr. Schuler.

           10                 MR. SCHULER:  Well, good afternoon.

           11  Thanks for letting me speak in front of you.  I'm a

           12  professor at Rice University in the business school.  I

           13  teach public policy.  But I'm really speaking not as a

           14  professor but as a -- as a citizen, and I just kind of

           15  walked into the hearing and -- and don't have anything

           16  prepared.

           17                 But, to me -- to me, ozone and air is

           18  about -- is about quality of life.  And I just heard the

           19  last comments of the speaker before, and I think here in

           20  Houston -- I -- I come from the West Coast in the Bay

           21  Area, Sacramento, areas with a lot of industry, lot of

           22  -- lot of cars.  And to tell you the truth, I -- I have

           23  a great job at Rice University.  But if I could get this

           24  job even in a crowded urban area in California, I would

           25  go in a heartbeat.

                                                                    241

            1                 And it makes me sad.  It makes me sad.  I

            2  live in a beautiful area of Houston, right around Rice

            3  University.  I run.  I play soccer.  My kids play

            4  soccer.  We ride bikes.  We do all these outside

            5  activities.  But I -- I -- after 15 years in Houston, I

            6  find this just a -- really a -- an environmentally very

            7  unfriendly place to live.  And -- and -- and it bothers

            8  me.

            9                 And it hurts us recruiting at Rice.  I

           10  think it hurts a lot of businesses here in town, getting

           11  people to come from the coast because they think Houston

           12  is a -- is a dirty place.  And so, the question becomes

           13  to me, why?  Why -- why is -- why is it that way?

           14                 Clearly, we have a lot of petrochemical

           15  here in town.  It's a big employer in the business

           16  school at Rice.  Recruiters come from a lot of the

           17  energy, petrochemical companies, and they're very

           18  important employers.  And -- and we realize there's --

           19  there's probably a balance here.  But certainly I --

           20  I -- from -- from my point of view as a professor of

           21  public policy and someone who -- who worries about --

           22  about these things generally, it seems that either the

           23  state agency or the U.S. Government, in forms of EPA,

           24  has been lax here in Houston.

           25                 And I would very much -- I don't know any

                                                                    242

            1  of the technical elements of -- of this bill.  I haven't

            2  read any of the technical elements of this bill.  I have

            3  no expertise, but I would certainly hope that the U.S.

            4  EPA would do whatever it is to -- to -- to have Houston

            5  kind of have to comply under a tougher standard than we

            6  have now.

            7                 So, those are my comments.  If you have

            8  any questions, that's fine.

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  I don't think we have any

           10  questions.  But if you are interested in learning more

           11  about the standard and what we propose, we have a fact

           12  sheet out there and some information.

           13                 MR. SCHULER:  I just picked that up.

           14  Thank you.

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  But we very much

           16  appreciate your coming out today to give us your views.

           17                 MR. SCHULER:  Thank you.  Thank you for

           18  being here.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           20                 Okay.  I think at this point we're going

           21  to take a break and -- yes, we'll reconvene when we have

           22  some more speakers.

           23                 (Brief recess.)

           24                LATE AFTERNOON SESSION PANEL

           25       Lydia Wegman    Jan Cortelyou     Thomas Diggs

                                                                    243

            1                 MS. CORTELYOU:  We'll go ahead and get

            2  started again.  We're happy to have two speakers.  Thank

            3  goodness.

            4                 Now, you -- just to refresh, you each

            5  have five minutes.  We've got a timer right here that

            6  will help you keep track.  The light will stay green for

            7  about three minutes, then it will turn -- turn yellow,

            8  and you'll hear a beep and the -- the red when it's time

            9  to stop talking.

           10                 And we'll start with you, Charlotte, if

           11  you're ready.

           12                 Let's see if we've got our AV technician.

           13                 MS. WELLS:  Okay.  Good.  I was going to

           14  say because it was --

           15                 MS. CORTELYOU:  And if you could, please,

           16  state your name and spell your name for our court

           17  reporter and let -- let us know what your affiliation

           18  is, that would be great.

           19                 MR. DIGGS:  And the green light stays on

           20  for four and the orange for one.  So, once you see the

           21  green light go out, recognize you have one minute left.

           22                 MS. WELLS:  Where am I looking for the

           23  light?

           24                 MR. DIGGS:  Right here (indicating).

           25                 MS. WELLS:  Okay.

                                                                    244

            1                 MR. DIGGS:  And we'll get started.

            2                 MS. WELLS:  My name is Charlotte Wells,

            3  C-H-A-R-L-O-T-T-E, Wells, W-E-L-L-S.  I'm the Galveston

            4  Baykeeper.  I'm also the executive director for Texans

            5  for Alternatives to Pesticides and on the board of the

            6  Galveston/Houston Area Association for Smog Prevention.

            7  In Houston, we wear many hats, if you're an

            8  environmentalist.  It's also a good place to be because

            9  there's a lot of work to do.

           10                 I started with some pictures taken as I

           11  drive down Highway 225.  Actually, I believe this one is

           12  on 45.  But I drive down the Houston Ship Channel when I

           13  come to Houston because I live in Shore Acres, the

           14  southeast part of the county in a very industrial area.

           15  In fact, I'm surrounded by industry.

           16                 And I didn't plan to speak this morning

           17  and changed my mind when I heard industry saying the

           18  same things over and over again, talking about the jobs

           19  in Houston, and Texas, and the millions and billions of

           20  dollars that the chemical company -- chemical industries

           21  puts into the economy.  And I'm very concerned about the

           22  health, our health, my community's health, my state's

           23  health, my country's health.

           24                 And a little bit of background, I taught

           25  school for ten years, third grade, so my background is

                                                                    245

            1  in education, non-chemistry.  I wish I had paid a little

            2  more attention in chemistry class.  My parents are both

            3  Houstonians, and my grandfather worked for ExxonMobil.

            4  So, I'm very familiar with how this city is based on the

            5  petrochemical industry.  However, I think that we can

            6  live together, and I definitely support the .060 parts

            7  per million.

            8                 When I get up in the morning, I ask

            9  myself, Should I walk this morning or should I walk in

           10  the evening?  Because the chemical plants around me

           11  emit -- they release toxins into the air so that when I

           12  walk in the morning, I'm breathing things like benzene,

           13  toluene, things that have been released by the chemical

           14  plants that surround me around the Bayport complex.  Or

           15  I can walk in the evening, in which ozone is worse.

           16                 So, my question still to the State of

           17  Texas and EPA is, When should I walk?

           18                 The people in my community work in these

           19  industries.  I listened to industry again this morning

           20  talk about how people should be concerned with their

           21  jobs, and we should be more concerned with people's jobs

           22  than -- than our health.  And I can tell you that the

           23  industry's not talking to the people that work in the

           24  local chemical plants because they, too, are concerned

           25  about the air pollution.  They, too, are concerned about

                                                                    246

            1  their families and the asthma that their children have.

            2                 From my home, I also call Harris County

            3  Pollution Control to report what is called nuisance

            4  odors.  And when they arrive -- it usually takes about

            5  an hour for them to get to me.  And usually by that

            6  time, the wind has picked up on Galveston Bay, and those

            7  pollutants -- those air toxins have been blown away and

            8  they cannot smell, which is usually -- that's what they

            9  come out with is their nose to see what toxins are in

           10  the air.

           11                 I just wanted to show a couple of

           12  pictures.  This is a flare.  There are many accidents --

           13  accidental releases.

           14                 From the Houston Chronicle article, "The

           15  Houston area refineries and chemical plants accidentally

           16  released pollution on more than 1,000 occasions.  The

           17  average plant recorded about eight upsets, but the dozen

           18  worst operators averaged 41.  A Texas refinery recorded

           19  104 unpermitted releases.  These uncontrolled and

           20  presumably uncontrollable emissions put more than seven

           21  million pounds of unwanted pollution into this region's

           22  air.  However, the Texas Commission on Environmental

           23  Quality issued only 113 notices and levied 13 fines."

           24  This is in 2003.

           25                 I see these all the time.  I live right

                                                                    247

            1  on Galveston Bay.  Looking over the Houston Ship

            2  Channel, I see these flares, and they go on for more

            3  than seven minutes.  They continue sometimes for as long

            4  as eight hours.

            5                 This is just another day driving on the

            6  freeways in Houston around the Houston Ship Channel.

            7  And when I hear industry talk about us losing our right

            8  to barbecue, I'm concerned.

            9                 And that means I have -- I'm out of time?

           10                 Okay.  This is the Port of Houston, the

           11  Bayport Container facility where there are also a lot of

           12  emissions.

           13                 And I thank you and, again, I support the

           14  lower standard, .6.

           15                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you very much.

           16                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you very much.

           17                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Mr. Dickey?

           18                 DR. DICKEY:  My name is Burton,

           19  B-U-R-T-O-N, Dickey, D-I-C-K-E-Y.  I'm a professor of

           20  medicine and chair of the Department of Pulmonary

           21  Medicine at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.  And I'm a

           22  long-standing member of the American Thoracic Society

           23  and here today to speak primarily on behalf of the

           24  American Thoracic Society, but also, perhaps, to give

           25  some perspective from M. D. Anderson.

                                                                    248

            1                 On -- on both the -- the behalf of the

            2  ATS and speaking for myself, we support the level of the

            3  primary standard at .060 parts per million, feel that

            4  the degree of precision for the standard should be

            5  expressed as a thousandth part per million, and that the

            6  form of the standard should be constructed as a

            7  three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily

            8  maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration.

            9                 And you certainly don't need me to

           10  recapitulate any of the data on asthma, chronic

           11  bronchitis, and COPD.  The one thing that I'll mention

           12  that I have some personal experience with in terms of

           13  the irritating effects of ozone on the airway is that we

           14  do a lot of stem cell transplantations to replace the

           15  bone marrow of people getting intensive chemotherapy at

           16  M.D. Anderson, about 600 a year.  And some fraction of

           17  those go on to develop graft versus host disease.

           18                 And graft versus host disease in the

           19  lungs is -- is relatively rare, probably only about

           20  10 percent of transplant patients will develop that.

           21  And -- and -- and who decides who that 10 percent is?

           22  It's probably related to some trigger of airway

           23  inflammation.  The best known trigger is virus, and --

           24  and the data are good on that.

           25                 So, when a viral infection occurs and

                                                                    249

            1  inflammatory cells are -- are recruited to the airway,

            2  once they're there, they are stimulated and they

            3  recognize the allo-mismatch and then sort of set up

            4  housekeeping and never leave.  And that sets in

            5  obliterative bronchiolitis, which is a -- a progressive

            6  and severe airway inflammatory disease.  It looks a lot

            7  like asthma, but instead of having a -- sort of a

            8  30-year progression can progress over a -- a few months,

            9  really, to debilitating lung disease.

           10                 And anything that triggers airway

           11  inflammation, and an ozone would fall in that category,

           12  is -- is suspect in triggering the disease.  The data

           13  don't exist for ozone triggering of -- of obliterative

           14  bronchiolitis in the post-transplant patient setting

           15  like they do for the virus, but any inflammatory

           16  stimulus seems to set it off.

           17                 And so, I -- I think that that would be

           18  a -- a relatively smaller population who might be

           19  affected by things that played into airway inflammation,

           20  but -- but something else to think about.  A very

           21  sensitive population, I guess.

           22                 Thanks.

           23                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you for your

           24  comments.

           25                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you.  We appreciate it.

                                                                    250

            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  We've got two more

            2  speakers, Ben Ziesmer and Dan Healy.

            3                 MR. HEALY:  I'm Dan Healy.  I'm sort of

            4  new to this type of operation.  I've never been to one

            5  of these before.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  Oh, okay.  Well, this is a

            7  public hearing, and we -- we're giving people five

            8  minutes to speak.  And we've got a little timer here.

            9  So, when the green light goes on, it tells you you've

           10  got five minutes.  And after four minutes, the yellow

           11  light will come on, and that tells you you've got one

           12  minute left.

           13                 MR. HEALY:  All right.

           14                 MR. DIGGS:  You can go ahead and get

           15  started.

           16                 MR. HEALY:  All right.  I'm really not as

           17  prepared as I'd like to be, but my major question is,

           18  why do we have these?  The industry has plenty of

           19  technical skills and knowledge and ability to clean up

           20  the environment.  Why don't they just do it?  It's

           21  costing us, the stockholders, additional loss of revenue

           22  because they're poisoning our customers.  You know,

           23  they've got people out there that have to go in for

           24  asthma that the doctor just spoke of.  They've got to

           25  spend their time and money curing that and not buying

                                                                    251

            1  products that are produced here.

            2                 So, my question is, and I'd like to

            3  address this to the people running the chemical plants,

            4  why can't they do the same kind of things they're doing

            5  in California?  The flares that were just pointed out

            6  earlier, why don't they schedule those, tell us when

            7  they're going to be, and let us know what they are?

            8                 You know, it's -- it's -- to me, just a

            9  stockholder and a businessman, it's a no-brainer.  It's

           10  economic nonsense to be wasting our resources by doing

           11  things that they shouldn't have been doing in the first

           12  place.  So, I'll leave it with that, and let your --

           13  give you more time for other people.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you very much

           15  for speaking today.

           16                 Is Ben Ziesmer here?  Okay.  Well, we'll

           17  take another brief break.

           18                 (Brief recess.)

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  We've got a couple

           20  more folks who have signed up, Melissa Taldykin and

           21  Linda Mercer.

           22                 Okay.  Okay.  Well, we can -- would you

           23  come forward then?  Are you ready to speak now?  I mean,

           24  if you're not ready, we can wait.

           25                 MS. MERCER:  Oh, no.

                                                                    252

            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Yeah.

            2                 MS. MERCER:  They do two of us, and we

            3  wait through each other's things.

            4                 MS. TALDYKIN:  Oh, is that how it goes?

            5  I'm sorry.  I just got off work.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  No problem.  Thank you for

            7  coming.

            8                 MS. TALDYKIN:  Thank you for having me.

            9                 MS. MERCER:  And thank you for having the

           10  meeting in Houston.  I believe that Houston can achieve

           11  a lot better clean air than we've been doing in the past

           12  30 years.  And I would hope that the EPA would adopt

           13  more stringent standard for compliance with regard to

           14  ozone.  Instead of seven point -- a .060 standard would

           15  be what I was personally in favor of.

           16                 I am not a scientist, but I'm a forever

           17  Houstonian.  I was born on the banks of the San Jacinto

           18  River, actually Goose Creek, and my ancestors are --

           19  came to this part of the country because of the

           20  stability, the employment in oil and gas.  And my

           21  grandmother got her first house with floors in it

           22  because of Mobil Oil in the area.

           23                 So, I very much appreciate what the

           24  energy companies have done for the economic viability of

           25  this area and in giving us long-term opportunities for

                                                                    253

            1  employment and long life.  But I think that things have

            2  come to a point in time where we really have to

            3  challenge ourselves to do the most that we can with our

            4  technology, and we have to hold ourselves to higher

            5  standards.  I would encourage you to go to the third

            6  decimal point on measurements because we can, we should.

            7                 I have had the good fortune of good

            8  health all my life and never really gave a second

            9  breath, if you will, to thinking about ozone until last

           10  fall when my nephew was playing Friday night football at

           11  one of the local schools.  And, of course, the family

           12  all turned out.

           13                 As I left for the game that evening, I --

           14  I became aware of the ozone notice that we were under.

           15  And the air was of bad quality that night, and I was

           16  dismayed later in the evening to notice my nearly

           17  80-year-old dad for the first time ever, that I've

           18  noticed it, having a lot of trouble with -- with

           19  breathing, sitting in the stands.

           20                 And so, I -- I began to put the two

           21  things together and think, my God, if you can't even sit

           22  outside on a Friday night and watch a football game,

           23  what is this like for the kids on the field?  This is

           24  something that we really must arrest.

           25                 And the health of the people is very

                                                                    254

            1  important.  Of course, we don't want to see our huge

            2  population increase.  What's going on in Houston, all of

            3  the new people coming in, the children being born here,

            4  and the density of population coming in.  We don't want

            5  to see those become unhealthy populations.

            6                 And we're -- have enough issues with --

            7  with -- with accommodating the density where we're

            8  losing our urban forests and we're losing our trees that

            9  have protected us from heat factors.  And we're looking

           10  so much now at -- as we dense up, in -- in order to --

           11  to minimize commute miles, what we're creating all over

           12  inner city Houston are urban heat islands where we've

           13  got heat factor.  I would think, you know, adding to the

           14  potential for the ozone accumulation.

           15                 So, we really need to put every effort,

           16  and I would encourage the EPA to adopt the more rigorous

           17  standards and to apply the pressures that you can to

           18  make sure that we don't try to take exception and -- and

           19  say we can't do it because we know in Houston, Texas

           20  that we can do things that are hard to achieve and

           21  require the most diligent and brightest minds to be paid

           22  to -- to pour our attention to it.

           23                 So, I would say don't let us off the

           24  hook, make us make sure that this environment and many

           25  others will be economically viable as healthy

                                                                    255

            1  sustainable places to live for the next hundred years or

            2  so.

            3                 And I would encourage you to adopt the

            4  more stringent standard when it comes to plant life, as

            5  well.  This is a very sensitive habitat here.  People

            6  sometimes look at Houston and say there's no geography

            7  here and there's -- there's no nature.  But our

            8  biosystems -- we're 21 subwatersheds of the San Jacinto

            9  River system.

           10                 We have -- you know, Audubon, when he

           11  first came to Houston, talked about the incredible bird

           12  life that was here and, unfortunately, took many samples

           13  of things that have become, you know, extinct species.

           14  But this is a very rich, natural part of the world and

           15  should continue to be able to be that way if we treat

           16  our environment with the respect and the intelligence

           17  that we can give it.

           18                 So, thank you very much for what you're

           19  doing.

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much.

           21                 MS. TALDYKIN:  Good afternoon.  My name

           22  is Melissa Taldykin.  And I'm the director of external

           23  affairs for Consumer Energy Alliance, and I'm pleased

           24  today to testify on behalf of CEA.

           25                 We are a Houston-based, non-profit

                                                                    256

            1  organization that supports the thoughtful utilization

            2  and development of energy resources to help create sound

            3  energy policy and maintain stable energy prices for

            4  consumers.

            5                 Speaking as an advocate for American

            6  consumers, small businesses, and a range of industry

            7  sectors, CEA fully supports any and all EPA policy

            8  decisions that aim to protect consumers and businesses

            9  from an environmental standpoint.  CEA also recognizes

           10  the importance of developing policies that maintain the

           11  most reasonable prices possible for consumers,

           12  businesses, and the manufacturing and agricultural

           13  industries.  As such, CEA feels that any policies

           14  proposed by EPA which will increase consumer costs

           15  should be built on sound science.

           16                 Reducing ozone levels, without tying the

           17  reductions directly to reduced health impacts, could

           18  negatively impact many industries and communities across

           19  America.  Many areas now under attainment are at risk

           20  for falling under non-attainment.  This could place a

           21  significant economic burden on these communities.

           22                 Based on the scientific -- scientific

           23  information that we have reviewed, it appears that

           24  additional ozone studies may be warranted to justify the

           25  cost involved in reducing the ozone levels to those

                                                                    257

            1  proposed by the EPA.  It is necessary that the EPA has a

            2  full understanding of all implications derived from

            3  the -- from the proposed ozone standards.

            4                 CEA is continuing to review the data and

            5  EPA's proposed rule for new standards for ozone, and we

            6  will be submitting detailed comments on the proposed

            7  rule next month.

            8                 Thank you.

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you both.  Okay.  All

           10  right.  Another break.

           11                 (Brief recess.)

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Good afternoon.  If you

           13  could state your name and affiliation, if you have one,

           14  for the record.

           15                 MS. SCHULTZ:  My name is Mary Schultz.

           16  I'm basically a citizen of Houston, a professional

           17  social worker, and a member of the Sierra Club.  I'm

           18  here because I learned about it from the Sierra Club,

           19  but I have a lot of experience just living in this city.

           20  So, that's my main motivation for wanting to say a few

           21  words.  And I wrote it down, so I'm sorry.  I know

           22  you've been hearing the same thing, but I'll try to read

           23  it very carefully or --

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's quite all right.

           25                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Okay.  We are seriously

                                                                    258

            1  concerned about the standards of safe ozone

            2  concentration in the atmosphere because we in Houston

            3  are witnessing, or worse, are experiencing increasing

            4  serious illnesses related to Houston's polluted air.  We

            5  are seeing in this city notable increase in asthma among

            6  children.

            7                 I did a search for information that could

            8  link ozone concentration to air pollution-related

            9  illnesses in Houston -- in the Houston area.  By the

           10  way, as a social worker, my work -- I'm not working

           11  directly with hospital patients, but I have to drive a

           12  five- or six-county area almost every day.  So, I have

           13  plenty of opportunity to experience the pollution and

           14  see it.  And -- and I've been in Houston since 1964, and

           15  I've really seen quite a change in that.  Okay.  So,

           16  that's a lot of where this is coming from.

           17                 I'll mention two of the findings that

           18  seem to point to ozone as a culprit, confirmed by

           19  scientific study, and I would conclude by endorsing the

           20  recommendation of the EPA's own science advisory

           21  committee for decreasing the ozone concentration

           22  standard to that which they recommend.

           23                 Studies by the Collaborative on Health

           24  and the Environment, or CHE, confirm that asthma is

           25  increasing, especially in young children, both in the

                                                                    259

            1  number of people affected and in severity.

            2                 CHE finds, quote, "More and more people

            3  without a family history of asthma are getting the

            4  disease.  The increase in frequency of asthma has been

            5  too fast and too large to be explained by inheritance of

            6  genetic susceptibility.  Changes in gene frequency occur

            7  slowly over many generations, except under highly

            8  unusual circumstances.

            9                 "Since inheritance does not seem to be

           10  responsible for the increased rate of asthma, research

           11  is looking for factors that affect the development of

           12  the immune system in ways that would increase its

           13  sensitivity to the triggers for asthma."

           14                 Okay.  And ozone, according to my

           15  readings from the American Lung Association, does have

           16  that effect of sort of hypersensitizing the tissues of

           17  the lungs.

           18                 Household allergists are unlikely to be

           19  responsible for the increases in asthma.  And this is

           20  another quote.  "There has not been any significant

           21  increase in indoor allergen concentrations during the

           22  last few decades to account for the doubling of asthma

           23  rates during that time.  There are no differences in

           24  asthma rates in dry, cool regions with low levels of

           25  house dust, mites, and fungus compared to warm, humid

                                                                    260

            1  areas where the levels are high.  Studies have not shown

            2  that children with less exposure to these allergens are

            3  any less likely to develop asthma."

            4                 The CHE concludes that the presence of

            5  the triggers has not increased at any rate that could

            6  explain the increased rate of occurrence of asthma,

            7  especially asthma with adverse outcomes.  That means

            8  worse outcomes.  You know, special -- need for special

            9  equipment and so on.

           10                 What makes ozone a major culprit in the

           11  increasing number of children and adults suffering with

           12  lung diseases is ozone's effect of sensitizing lung

           13  tissue to triggers of the environment.  While some types

           14  of outdoor air pollution are decreasing, ozone and fine

           15  particle pollution from diesel engine exhaust are

           16  ongoing or increasing problems, both in the U.S. and

           17  other countries and other regions where asthma is on the

           18  rise.

           19                 Kids who engage frequently in sports

           20  activities in areas of high ozone have an increased

           21  risk.  Diesel exhaust, for example, appears to change

           22  some immune cells to a type that is linked to the

           23  development of asthma.  So, it -- it is -- a lot of it

           24  is an immune deficient -- it's in that immune deficiency

           25  continuum.  And kids growing up along streets with heavy

                                                                    261

            1  truck traffic are more likely to have asthma-related

            2  respiratory symptoms.

            3                 Exposure to secondhand smoke before and

            4  after birth is linked to asthma risk.  But if this were

            5  a large factor, asthma rates should be declining because

            6  fewer people smoke.

            7                 The American Lung Association, the other

            8  source I was using, states that ozone, quote, "oxidizes

            9  with internal body tissues," having an effect similar to

           10  "sunburn on the lungs." The American Lung Association --

           11                 (Beeping).

           12                 Is that five minutes?

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  It -- it is five minutes,

           14  but we don't have any other speakers.  So, if you do

           15  want to go on a little longer, that's all right.

           16                 MS. SCHULTZ:  I was looking for my yellow

           17  light.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  I'm sorry.  Yeah.

           19                 MS. SCHULTZ:  All right.  Let me just

           20  kind of cut to the chase here.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  You're fine.

           22                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Okay.  What I'll say here

           23  is that I'm speaking today as a concerned citizen on

           24  behalf of my own family and for the many other families

           25  I have seen in my social work practice in this

                                                                    262

            1  metropolitan area.  The EPA has opened an opportunity to

            2  improve one known health risk within its scope of

            3  influence, and that is to improve the ozone standard,

            4  which is now known to be a continuing risk at its

            5  current .08 parts per million.

            6                 The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific

            7  Advisory Committee has already given the EPA scientific

            8  evidence for a standard of .060 to .070 ppm as necessary

            9  to make the public safe from ozone effects in our air.

           10  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to follow the latest

           11  scientific evidence setting the ozone concentration.

           12                 I am here to urge the adoption of the

           13  ozone health standard explicitly -- to explicitly

           14  include the margin of safety required by the Clean Air

           15  Act, which requires the EPA to protect sensitive

           16  populations that respond at lower concentrations than

           17  healthy adults and to follow the latest scientific

           18  evidence.  I want to see the EPA heal -- I want to see

           19  the EPA adopt the recommended concentration level of .06

           20  to .07 parts per million.

           21                 Thank you for your attention to that.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           23                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Were there any questions or

           24  anything?

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  I don't think so.  If you

                                                                    263

            1  have any, you know, scientific information that you

            2  found in your search that you want to submit to us, you

            3  can do that separately.

            4                 MS. SCHULTZ:  I have a couple of Web

            5  pages that I used.  I'll put that in with my -- with my

            6  comments.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  Okay.  And if you

            8  have written comments and want to leave them with our

            9  court reporter, you can do that.

           10                 MS. SCHULTZ:  I'll do that.  Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you very much

           12  for coming.

           13                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Okay.  Thank you.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.  Ready?

           15                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Mr. Ziesmer?

           16                 MR. ZIESMER:  Yeah, Ziesmer.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  Ziesmer, yeah.

           18                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Are you going to do a --

           19  present a PowerPoint presentation?

           20                 MR. ZIESMER:  I'm not going to do a

           21  PowerPoint presentation, but my prepared remarks are on

           22  my computer.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's fine.

           24                 MR. ZIESMER:  So, I need to be able to

           25  read it.

                                                                    264

            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  And if you can, when

            2  you're ready, just state your name and spell your last

            3  name for our court reporter.

            4                 MR: ZIESMER:  Sure.  My name is Ben

            5  Ziesmer, Z-I-E-S-M-E-R, and I'm a registered

            6  professional engineer.  I'm speaking as a citizen of the

            7  Houston area.  I first became aware that I had asthma

            8  when I was 10 years old, and I continue to suffer from

            9  asthma today.  Moreover, two of my children suffer from

           10  asthma.  I am also speak -- speaking based on the

           11  experience of my wife who has worked for many years as a

           12  registered nurse in -- in an emergency room.

           13                 First point I'd like to make is I believe

           14  the EPA has not adequately explained to the public that

           15  about half of ozone is due to natural causes.  And this

           16  failure to fully publicize the natural causes leaves the

           17  public with the mistaken impression that ozone is

           18  primarily due to manmade causes.

           19                 Second, it should be pointed out, as you

           20  well know, that this new standard is not necessary for

           21  Houston's air quality to improve since Houston is

           22  currently not in compliance with the National Ambient

           23  Air Quality Standards for Ozone.  And the air -- area is

           24  obligated to continue to implement new air pollution

           25  control measures to achieve the existing standard.

                                                                    265

            1  Houston is not unique.  We are talking about a national

            2  standard.

            3                 Currently, engineering construction firms

            4  and air pollution equipment manufacturers are swamped

            5  with work retrofitting pollution control equipment as a

            6  result of the EPA announcing and promulgating the Clean

            7  Air Interstate Rule.  We have not -- since this

            8  equipment has not even been installed and operational

            9  yet, we do not know what the impact of these -- this

           10  tremendous pollution control investment is going to have

           11  on public health.

           12                 Third, it seems like we all accept a

           13  priority that this pollution control regulation is worth

           14  the cost to society.  I am not talking about jobs versus

           15  health.  What I'm talking without is since this

           16  regulation is being justified on the basis of public

           17  health, it needs to be evaluated as a public health

           18  issue.  Is a stricter NAAQS for ozone really the best

           19  way to spend our public health dollars?

           20                 I am confident that public health

           21  professionals, given a choice between this regulation

           22  and the cost of this regulation as cash to spend as they

           23  see fit, would choose the cash.  For example, it could

           24  be shown that equipping every police vehicle with

           25  automatic external defibrillators would save thousands

                                                                    266

            1  of lives per year.  This is real and tangible compared

            2  to the ephemeral health savings from reduced ozone

            3  concentration.

            4                 Since 1990, ozone concentrations and

            5  emissions of concentrated pollutants have decreased

            6  markedly.  Yet, the incidence rate of asthma has

            7  doubled.  Nobody knows why asthma incidence rates are

            8  increasing.  It is doubtful that further decreasing

            9  emissions of ozone precursors will cause the asthma --

           10  asthma incidence rate trend to reverse.

           11                 One definition of insanity is for someone

           12  to keep doing the same things and expect different

           13  results.  Yet, the EPA and our politicians continue to

           14  implement stricter ambient air quality standards, even

           15  though asthma incident rates have increased as air

           16  pollution levels have decreased.

           17                 One of the problems we have is the EPA

           18  has only one way to address health concerns.  That's

           19  with regulations.  That's a hammer.  As the saying goes,

           20  when all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks

           21  like a nail.

           22                 Thank you.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I -- excuse me.

           24  You stated that half of ozone is due to natural causes,

           25  and I just wanted to ask you if you have any

                                                                    267

            1  studies or -- or what the basis is for that.

            2                 MR. ZIESMER:  If you look in your own Web

            3  site, detailed on the EPA, it will say that.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, I -- I don't think it

            5  will say that as a national matter.  It might be true in

            6  some areas, but I think --

            7                 MR. ZIESMER:  Well, there's, I think,

            8  quite a bit of controversy about what is and isn't

            9  natural.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Uh-huh.

           11                 MR. ZIESMER:  One of the things that we

           12  see is that it was half when we had a .08 standard.

           13  It's always half.  It's always half.  And I have a

           14  problem with that.

           15                 Another point I would make is I am aware

           16  of some areas that are not industrialized areas that

           17  have had very high ozone concentrations.  For example,

           18  Poynette, Wisconsin, well -- routinely, well above,

           19  historically, the National Ambient Air Quality

           20  Standards.  So, let's stop pretending that the only

           21  thing that causes National Ambient Air Quality Standards

           22  for ozone to be exceeded is industrial pollution.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for your

           24  testimony.  Any questions?

           25                 MR. DIGGS:  Would there be a certain

                                                                    268

            1  level that you would recommend or to stay --

            2                 MR. ZIESMER:  I think you should say

            3  right where you are now, and we should not be spending

            4  our money on this.

            5                 What aggravates me so much is -- my wife

            6  has worked for years in an emergency room.  Poor people

            7  come in and they have kids suffering tremendously from

            8  asthma attacks, but all they can get is emergency

            9  treatment.  They can't get any continuing treatment.

           10  There is no money for that.  We act as if ozone is the

           11  only reason that people get asthma.  Almost every

           12  asthmatic I know has other things that cause the asthma,

           13  generally allergies.

           14                 For poor people, they don't even know

           15  what they are because they can't get the testing paid

           16  for.  They can't get treatment.  I am confident that

           17  instead of blowing all this money on this ephemeral

           18  possible savings with ozones, if this money was instead

           19  spent to allow poor people to get really good,

           20  continuing medical care to deal with asthma, they would

           21  be much better off and emergency room people wouldn't be

           22  sitting there treating the same problem time and time

           23  again on an emergency basis.  I am tired of us spending

           24  our money the wrong way.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for your

                                                                    269

            1  testimony.  Thank you for coming in.

            2                 (Brief pause.)

            3                 MR. PAVEL:  Hello.  My name is Steve

            4  Pavel, and I'm now a chemistry teacher.  I used to be

            5  a -- in refining for over 20 years.  I have a couple of

            6  patents that include catalytic cracking technologies,

            7  handling heavy hazardous and poisonous metals.  I used

            8  to use the most toxic materials known, hydrogen sulfide

            9  and chlorine --

           10                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.  I

           11  need you to slow down for me.  You've got -- you're

           12  turned away from me.

           13                 MR. PAVEL:  I've just got five minutes.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's okay.

           15                 MR. PAVEL:  That's my introduction.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.

           17                 MR. PAVEL:  Okay.  So, I come to -- I

           18  come to the table with a bit of background from the

           19  people that are against lowering the standard.

           20                 I say lower it down to 60, make the

           21  decision to protect the public health, to save lives,

           22  lower healthcare costs, insurance rates, and taxes for

           23  individuals and families.

           24                 And then the other option is to keep the

           25  standard at 80, as industrial point sources request,

                                                                    270

            1  with millions spent on lobbying, to irreparably harm

            2  human lungs and increase premature death and increase

            3  family healthcare costs and insurance, increase taxes to

            4  cover those others not covered otherwise, and perpetuate

            5  America's healthcare crisis.

            6                 Tough choice.  Not for juniors in high

            7  school, I can tell you.  They've reviewed this.  They

            8  didn't understand why an adult had to say this to other

            9  adults.  Currently, the ozone standard of 80 parts per

           10  billion, 84 by rounding, which, on the surveys, is

           11  unacceptable.

           12                 And then I just looked to the Thoracic

           13  Society that said it very much better than I could,

           14  "Unhealthy for America's kids, unhealthy for America's

           15  seniors, and unhealthy for America."  So, I certainly

           16  agree with that, especially with the growing prevalence

           17  of asthma and COPD in nonsmokers.

           18                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.

           19  Especially with what?

           20                 MR. PAVEL:  Asthma and COPD in

           21  nonsmokers.  COPD.

           22                 THE REPORTER:  You said something before

           23  asthma and --

           24                 MR. PAVEL:  Especially?  Okay.

           25                 And then the American Lung Association

                                                                    271

            1  statement, which I thought said it very well, as well,

            2  so I just included that.  I'm sure that people have seen

            3  this, and I know they've had presenters already, which I

            4  totally agree with.

            5                 Corporations, trade organizations,

            6  SuperGroups, I call them, campaign-funded elected and

            7  appointed officials are opposed to decreasing the

            8  standard to health professional recommendation of

            9  60 parts per billion.

           10                 And, again, we have a quote from the

           11  National Association of Manufacturers.  They said that

           12  the standard hasn't been fully implemented, that it

           13  would cost a hundred billion.  And the EPA has remarks

           14  to consider a regulation's economic impact is forbidden,

           15  but the arguments against these standards are

           16  scientific, as well as economic, and the current

           17  standard is working and continues to protect human

           18  health.

           19                 However, the National Association of

           20  Manufacturers campaigned to reduce healthcare costs, big

           21  campaign, without making any effort to reduce the source

           22  of the afflictions burdening the families and the

           23  healthcare system.

           24                 Who wants to keep the 80 parts per

           25  billion and put 84 into the public air shed and continue

                                                                    272

            1  to harm the public health and increase government

            2  spending?  One SuperGroup in the docket included

            3  everybody from the American Automobile Manufacturers,

            4  American Chemical Council -- Chemistry Council, Coke,

            5  Iron and Steel, American -- API, Trucking, Corn

            6  Refiners, Electric -- Edison Electric, which is the big

            7  electrical guys, and the NAM, who might actually include

            8  pharmaceuticals.

            9                 And I haven't had a chance to research

           10  that yet, but it would appear that the people who sell

           11  the pharmaceuticals to relieve the symptoms of asthma,

           12  if they're a part of that group, have a big conflict of

           13  interest.  Hey, let's promote more illness.

           14                 National Petroleum & Refiners

           15  Association, which I attended many meetings.  Portland

           16  Cement --

           17                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  I

           18  seriously need you to slow down for me.

           19                 MR. PAVEL:  Okay.  I don't have much.

           20  It's quick.

           21                 Okay.  National Petroleum & Refiners

           22  Association, which we have a lot of; and the Portland

           23  Cement Association, which is a huge source of nitrous

           24  oxide and other toxics.  And the U.S. Chamber of

           25  Commerce, interestingly enough, would rather see it 80

                                                                    273

            1  parts per billion.  And the Utility Air Regulatory

            2  Group, another electrical group.

            3                 Now, on the other side, should we follow

            4  the healthcare professionals or industrial point source

            5  healthcare opinion?  Gosh, this is a tough choice.  It's

            6  just a high school senior choice.

            7                 Your family member is afflicted with

            8  respiratory distress, shortness of breath, pains in the

            9  chest, asthmatic or COPD symptoms.  Do you take them to

           10  the physician, the emergency room, or to the local

           11  filling station?  Do you go to a full-service,

           12  mechanic-staffed branded station or a convenience store?

           13                 Would you trust the E -- electric --

           14  Edison Electric Institute, American Chemical Council,

           15  NPRA, API, NAM, for critical care treatment or

           16  healthcare advice for your child, elder or self?  And

           17  are these organizations paying for your family's

           18  healthcare costs that are due to their emissions?  And

           19  are these organizations concerned about your family's

           20  health?  Just curious.

           21                 Well, there's been -- this is -- as I've

           22  gone through the docket and read the 234 pages from the

           23  API and every one of the pieces of paper that have come

           24  out -- and it's excellent work that's done.  I have to

           25  give great credit to the EPA and all the excellent work

                                                                    274

            1  that they've done.  And when I read the API, it seems it

            2  just reads about the same, and their paid people do the

            3  very same thing as they did with the PM2.5s and, no

            4  doubt, the CO2 and whatever else comes up.

            5                 And I remember when we had to change out

            6  the lead that was poisoning our kids' brains, they said

            7  that they'd be going broke.  And I was part of the

            8  people putting lead into the gasoline to the absolute

            9  max.

           10                 Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can -- you can take

           12  another minute, if you want to finish up.

           13                 MR. PAVEL:  Oh, okay.  Sure.

           14                 So, anyway, there's a lot of mass

           15  campaigns -- there are, like, 33,000 -- I counted 34,000

           16  people that have submitted documents, but they are just

           17  called mass campaign comments.  Mine never is,

           18  obviously.

           19                 Point sources, we've got a lot of point

           20  sources around.

           21                 Ozone to receptors.  Can we believe the

           22  people that underestimate their VOCs by factors of

           23  hundreds?  These are the same people that are saying

           24  keep it at 80, and they would supersede healthcare

           25  professional opinions down -- for downwinders.

                                                                    275

            1                 Ozone affects everyone downwind.

            2                 We've got a windrose.  This is Houston's

            3  over a period of time.  Not very good, but that's what

            4  it is.  Comes from the southeast.

            5                 There's our monitors.  There's a closeup

            6  of the monitors.

            7                 I happen to live up by the very top

            8  corner, up in Kingwood/Humble.  And blank.  And then

            9  there they are again.  And then I just started going

           10  through the TCEQ.  Excellent work the TCEQ's done in --

           11  on the --

           12                 Let's go.  It's a little slow.  Sorry.  I

           13  put it together on a fast machine.  Sorry.

           14                 Well, anyway, if we did -- every one of

           15  these has an animation, and every one of these

           16  animations comes out with a --

           17                 Gosh, come on.  There -- okay.  There's

           18  one, at least, there showing.

           19                 And then all of them come from the Ship

           20  Channel.  All of them emanate from the Ship Channel.  If

           21  you put the stuff in the air, it has to have time to

           22  react with the VOC and the NOx.

           23                 And by the time it gets there, some kid

           24  over there is trying to take a test, and he's got 145

           25  parts per billion of ozone.  And somebody down here has

                                                                    276

            1  got a 59.  I don't think that's fair.  We've got kids

            2  that are on standardized tests, and they have a

            3  disadvantage in the force ex -- exhalated -- expiratory

            4  volume.  Their brain power is diminished by poison.

            5  Ozone is one of those poisons.

            6                 I can bring an ozone generator here and

            7  shove it into, you know, an NPRA or API face and say,

            8  Hey, you know, let's go up to your 80 parts per billion

            9  right now, in this short of time, like this.  We'll just

           10  pump it right up, level you out so your eight-hour

           11  average is under.  None of them have wanted to take me

           12  up on the offer.

           13                 I did the same thing on PM2.5s.  Nobody

           14  wants that either.  They're a little smarter than that.

           15                 Anyway, all these -- oh, yeah, Deer Park

           16  is the other place it comes out of.  And down here we

           17  have -- the hump over there, that's Texas City.

           18                 And if these animations were actually

           19  flowing, you'd see they're all coming out of there.

           20  This one actually sort of started out.  It comes out

           21  over the island.  There's another one.

           22                 See, if you live over in this area of

           23  town, you're really getting hit hard.  It happens to

           24  come from the south, southwest.  I live in the north and

           25  every now and then we get it, and it's pretty nasty.

                                                                    277

            1  Some of these -- these are animations.  See, they're all

            2  coming from there.

            3                 And so the governor says, Oh, well, we

            4  can shut down the Ship Channel.  It wouldn't make any

            5  difference.  Well, that's false.

            6                 There's one at -- it's Aldine, a

            7  beautiful -- Aldine-Westfield High School is right in

            8  that path, and Mercer Arboretum is just missed there.

            9  There's another one down in the south.

           10                 So, anyway, I had a batch of these things

           11  that just went through the history of our -- our

           12  situation.  So, you know, high school juniors, they

           13  think you could shut down the Ship Channel and fairly

           14  well stop all those, but it doesn't take much.

           15                 Thank you very much.  I appreciate the

           16  chance to present.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           18                 MR. PAVEL:  And I really think it's a

           19  great that y'all got out and -- did you do the same

           20  thing with PM2.5s, and I just got into it late?

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, we did have public

           22  hearings.  We did propose and take final action on --

           23                 MR. PAVEL:  Oh, yeah, yeah.  The -- in

           24  the NPRA comments, they remind the Administrator it

           25  doesn't matter what anybody says, it's his decision.

                                                                    278

            1  It's just like he did in the PM2.5.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  Yeah, we did have --

            3  we only had three public hearings for the PM.  We've

            4  had -- we're having five on ozone.

            5                 MR. PAVEL:  Yeah, well, I'm very glad to

            6  have you all here.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, thank you.

            8                 MR. PAVEL:  Thank you very much for

            9  taking the time to reach out.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you for coming out and

           11  providing this PowerPoint for us.

           12                 MR. PAVEL:  Well, it wasn't finished,

           13  kind of cobbled together.

           14                 MS. CORTELYOU:  And do we have a copy of

           15  your PowerPoint?

           16                 MR. PAVEL:  Do we?  Oh, you mean a hard

           17  copy?  Well, it's mostly a video.

           18                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Well, just give an

           19  electronic copy to the ladies at the registration table.

           20                 MR. PAVEL:  Okay.  Yeah, sure.

           21                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you.

           22                 MR. PAVEL:  Thank you.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Are there other folks here

           24  who would like to speak at this point?

           25                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Yes.

                                                                    279

            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.

            2                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Rosalia Guerrero and Kevin

            4  Farnham.  And just so newcomers know, we ask two people

            5  to come forward, if Kevin Farnham is here, and each

            6  person will -- will get five minutes.  And we have a

            7  timer.

            8                 MS. GUERRERO:  Ping, instead of gong.

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  How about that?

           10                 MS. GUERRERO:  You go ahead and go.

           11                 MR. FARNHAM:  No, you can go ahead.

           12                 MS. GUERRERO:  Good afternoon.  My name

           13  is Rosalia Guerrero-Luera, and I am an outreach

           14  coordinator for Mothers for Clean Air.  That basically

           15  means I work with families, mothers, children.  I work

           16  in the schools and the churches mainly in Southeast

           17  Houston along the Ship Channel.  And basically I'm here

           18  today to speak for a lot of the families that I work

           19  with.

           20                 The air is a concern of theirs and the

           21  environment, in general.  We have a burgeoning young

           22  population, mainly Hispanic, in Southeast Houston who

           23  many times has difficulty interfacing with agencies.

           24  And opportunities to speak like this can be

           25  opportunities to us.  Sometimes it's scary for them.

                                                                    280

            1  So, so, I come -- I come to speak for them.

            2                 I do understand the importance of this

            3  issue.  We -- that's part of my job is to educate them

            4  on the points on the science of a lot of our regulations

            5  and how things work.  Also, I think one of the things

            6  that's been mentioned throughout the day, and you might

            7  hear it, is that there's burdens to the community,

            8  burdens to industry.

            9                 But I'm just here to say that a lot of

           10  these -- some of these burdens can be dealt with

           11  financially with money, with technology.  But I speak

           12  for a community that already has certain burdens that

           13  they really cannot deal economically and will have to --

           14  whatever comes out of this, whatever environment they

           15  must live in, they'll have to deal with that for the

           16  rest of their lives and for the rest of their children's

           17  lives.

           18                 And they do not have either the money or

           19  the technology to invest in creating a better

           20  environment for their children because usually the

           21  comment I get is they live in the region that they're at

           22  because that's all they can afford.  And, unfortunately,

           23  they can afford that because other people have the

           24  opportunity to move away from the Ship -- Ship Channel

           25  and maybe go into other places even within Houston or

                                                                    281

            1  within Harris County where they don't have to deal with

            2  the brunt of -- of some of these issues -- with these

            3  environmental issues.

            4                 So, I just really came to speak out for

            5  them.  And we did see some of them during the day, but

            6  like I said, this can be a scary process for them.  But

            7  they're doing the best they can for -- for their

            8  families and for the schools.  I do work with a lot of

            9  educators, and they're very -- they're very supportive

           10  on this issue.

           11                 So, I just, you know, again just ask that

           12  the EPA do as much as they can to actually make stricter

           13  regulations.  I do understand that sometimes they can

           14  say, Well, we're not making it as it is.  We can't get

           15  any more stricter.  But I really think that if we all

           16  work together, we can actually meet any kind of

           17  standards as a community, including industry and

           18  non-profits and families.  And we can all work together

           19  to meet those -- those guidelines, but we really need

           20  the EPA to take the leadership on that.

           21                 Thank you very much.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           23                 MR. FARNHAM:  Hi, my name is Kevin

           24  Farnham, and I'm a fourth-year medical student at Baylor

           25  College of Medicine, and I wish to pursue internal

                                                                    282

            1  medicine training.  And then subsequently I completed a

            2  fellowship in allergy and immunology, and I wish to

            3  treat the growing prevalence of asthma in the United

            4  States.

            5                 Data from the CCI has shown the

            6  prevalence of asthma has increased in the U.S.  From

            7  1982 to 1992, the overall annual age just of prevalence

            8  rate of self-reported asthma increased by 42 percent.

            9  And for the younger age group, from 5 to 34 years, the

           10  diagnosis of asthma is thought to be more accurate.  The

           11  rate increased from 34.6 to 52.6 per 1,000, an increase

           12  of 52 percent.

           13                 And most of the U.S. mortality

           14  hospitalization rates continue to increase.  During the

           15  period from 1980 to 1993, the annual age specific asthma

           16  death rate increased 118 percent.  In the same period,

           17  the annual hospital -- hospitalization rate for asthma

           18  among persons aged from 0 to 24 years increased

           19  28 percent.

           20                 There are several explanations for these

           21  trends.  Increased commission of public awareness and

           22  signs and symptoms of asthma could have led to a change

           23  in diagnostic recognition accuracy, but numerous,

           24  numerous papers say it's very, very likely that changes

           25  in risk factors thought to cause and worsen asthma are

                                                                    283

            1  responsible for much of the increase in the asthma

            2  prevalence.

            3                 An important risk factor is environmental

            4  ozone layers.  Ozone is a serious threat causing and

            5  exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases.

            6  It's a powerful respiratory barrier that can cause

            7  coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, and pain

            8  when inhaling deeply.

            9                 Breathing ozone harms the respiratory

           10  health at levels of exposure below the current

           11  standards.  Research has shown that increased

           12  hospitalizations and ER visits following exposures to

           13  ozone concentrations lower than .08 parts per million

           14  and that even at concentrations as low as .06 parts per

           15  million can reduce lung function in healthy adult

           16  subjects.

           17                 So, this science supports a stronger

           18  standard.  The current standard is clearly inadequate.

           19  After extensive review, the Clean Air Scientific

           20  Advisory Committee unanimously concluded that there is

           21  no scientific justification for retaining the current

           22  primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 parts per million.  And

           23  the EPA staff scientists also have stated that the

           24  overall body of evidence clearly -- clearly calls into

           25  question the adequacy of the current standard.

                                                                    284

            1                 So, the proposed revision to the ozone

            2  standard ignores the recommendations of its science

            3  advisors and does not go far enough to protect public

            4  health.  The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

            5  recommends strengthening the ozone standard to within

            6  the range of .06 parts per million to .07 parts per

            7  million.  And EPA's proposal of .07 to .075, it barely

            8  touches the top end of this range.

            9                 And in order to protect the health of

           10  children, the elderly, and other sensitive groups, the

           11  EPA should set the ozone standard at the low end of the

           12  CASAC recommended range of .06 parts per million.

           13  There's strong consensus among the medical, nursing,

           14  scientific, and public health committees that EPA's

           15  proposed standard would remain inadequate to promote

           16  public health and must be substantially strengthened.

           17                 And this is an issue of -- just moral

           18  issue because there's also strong consistent evidence

           19  showing that breathing ozone can result in death.  And

           20  ozone exposure increases the risk of death even at

           21  levels of exposure, again, below the current EPA

           22  proposal.

           23                 So, I -- I -- I can say from a personal

           24  standpoint that, you know, we are seeing a lot of as --

           25  kids with -- asthmatics, not only with asthma but

                                                                    285

            1  difficult to treat asthma.  And -- and I believe

            2  strongly that it is very well known in the community

            3  that the increase in risk factors, specifically the

            4  ozone levels and the pollutants, is contributing

            5  significantly to this, and we need to try to abate this

            6  asthma, sort of, epidemic by, I think, aggressively

            7  reducing the -- the ozone levels in any way we can

            8  possible.

            9                 So, thank you.

           10                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And if you do

           12  know of any studies -- any scientific studies that do --

           13  that we haven't included in our record that shows how

           14  ozone contributes to the exacerbation of asthma, we

           15  would be interested in receiving it.

           16                 MR. FARNHAM:  Sure.  I don't have the

           17  actual census.  I wish I did, but I can -- if I get your

           18  e-mail or something.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah, actually outside at

           20  the registration table there's a form that tells you how

           21  to e-mail comments to us.  So, if you have them, you can

           22  send them.

           23                 MR. FARNHAM:  Okay.  Thank you.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much for

           25  coming.

                                                                    286

            1                 At this point, we're going to take a

            2  dinner break, and we'll be back at -- at 7:30 to take

            3  any other testimony that people want to offer, unless

            4  there's anybody here who wants to speak now.  Okay.

            5  Thank you.

            6                 (Dinner recess.)

            7                    EVENING SESSION PANEL

            8   Jan Cortelyou     Lydia Wegman     Alison Davis

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  Good evening.  And thank you

           10  for coming to our evening session on the proposed ozone

           11  standards.  We very much appreciate the time you're

           12  taking to come and speak to us about the standards.

           13  This is a public hearing to take your comments on our

           14  proposed ozone rule, and we have three folks here to

           15  take your comments.

           16                 My name is Lydia Wegman.  I'm the

           17  director of the Health and Environmental Impacts

           18  Division in the Office of Air Quality Planning and

           19  Standards, which is part of EPA's Office of Air and

           20  Radiation.  And Jan Cortelyou, to my right, is one of

           21  our communication folks in the Office of Air Quality

           22  Planning and Standards, and Alison Davis is with our

           23  Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.  And we are

           24  here and prepared to stay as long as we need to tonight

           25  to take all your comments.

                                                                    287

            1                 I'll just note that our proposed ozone

            2  rule was published in the "Federal Register" on July

            3  11th.  We are taking public comments for 90 days, and

            4  the public comment period closes on October 9th.  So, if

            5  you or anyone you know who want -- wants to submit

            6  comments to us, you can do so by e-mail or mail them to

            7  us, and there's information at the registration desk on

            8  how to submit comments.  And just please do so by

            9  October 9th if you're interested in doing that.

           10                 We have a proposal on both the health or

           11  primary standard for ozone and on the welfare or

           12  secondary standard.  We are proposing to strengthen the

           13  current standard, which is 84 parts per billion, to

           14  between 70 and 75 parts per billion.  The Administrator

           15  of EPA has proposed that the current standard of

           16  84 parts per billion is not sufficient to protect public

           17  health with an adequate margin of safety.  We're also

           18  taking comment on a broader range of 60 parts per

           19  billion to 84 parts per billion, 84 parts per billion

           20  being the current standard.

           21                 In the case of the welfare or secondary

           22  standard, we're taking comments on two options.  One is

           23  to establish a distinct secondary standard, a cumulative

           24  seasonal standard known as a W126.  We proposed a range

           25  there of 7 to 21 parts per million hours.  And we're

                                                                    288

            1  also taking comment on the option of keeping the

            2  secondary standard and the primary standard the same,

            3  which is the way they currently are.

            4                 With that, I think we'll start the -- the

            5  testimony.  Just some information on how we're going to

            6  make this work.  We have a timer, and everybody who

            7  speaks has five minutes.  When you start speaking, the

            8  green light will go on.  And after four minutes, a

            9  yellow light will come on, letting you know you have one

           10  minute left to speak, and then the red light.  And then

           11  we would ask that you try to wrap up your statement if

           12  you're still speaking at that point.  And we'll be

           13  calling you up in pairs if we do, in fact, have two

           14  people, and we do for the beginning here.

           15                 So, the first two people are Ariel

           16  Thomann and Ashley Streetman.  And we ask that you stay

           17  up at the speaker's table until both of you are finished

           18  speaking.

           19                 DR. THOMANN:  Ladies, thank you for being

           20  here.  It's been a long day for you.  I know about long

           21  days.  My name is Ariel Thomann.  The last name is

           22  spelled T, as in Tom, H-O-M-A-N-N.  I'm a physician.  I

           23  didn't even know that I was going to be able to get here

           24  this evening so I'm just -- I didn't have a -- an actual

           25  prepared presentation.

                                                                    289

            1                 The first thing is -- that I want to say

            2  is ozone is bad for health.  You know that.  You've

            3  heard it all day long, I'm sure, in any number of ways.

            4  And it's important that we help human health.

            5                 And then as I look at some of the

            6  arguments that I have heard about, you know, not being

            7  too harsh on industry, smoking bans have not bankrupted

            8  the hospitality industry.  We keep hearing that that

            9  would be the effect of smoking bans.  And Houston, just

           10  a few days ago, took the final step.  And I -- I

           11  understand that the hospitality industry is just doing

           12  fine, and people's health is benefitting in the process.

           13                 Lowering ozone standards will not

           14  bankrupt the industries either.  If anything, indirectly

           15  or directly, it would help decrease fossil fuel

           16  consumption and help slow down the problems with global

           17  climate disruption that we hear so much about.

           18                 Now, I'm a little concerned about the

           19  fact that for the last several years there have been

           20  misnamed laws that are damaging the nation in many ways.

           21  Pure water and clean air are misnomers.  They have

           22  resulted in the opposite.  And I guess I would just say

           23  that Bobby Kennedy, Jr. can, you know, spell it out in

           24  hard -- greater detail if -- if need be.

           25                 There's -- there's an element of -- of

                                                                    290

            1  misdirection.  The EPA, itself, indirectly injured

            2  emergency workers in New York after 9-11.  That's become

            3  very clear.  And that was done semi-deliberately for

            4  political reasons.  Mining safety, which has been in the

            5  headlines in the last few weeks again, is not what it

            6  could be.

            7                 OSHA failed to do its job in Texas City,

            8  and we're all very well aware of that here.  OSHA got --

            9  well, the refinery, BP, got raked over the coals.  OSHA

           10  was raked over the coals.  They said, Well, we -- we

           11  couldn't inspect because we don't have enough

           12  inspectors.  Why don't you have enough inspectors?

           13  Well, because we don't have enough money.

           14                 Which takes me to, I think, the -- the

           15  primary source of the misdirection.  My opinion is that

           16  some six years ago our compassionate-in-chief probably

           17  told all of these various agencies, Leave the big boys

           18  alone.  They're my buddies.  They need to make a buck.

           19  Never mind the collateral damage.

           20                 So, let me just close by saying that

           21  there's a -- an expression that you're familiar with.  I

           22  don't think I have seen it used in this context, again,

           23  with what little reading I've been able to do, and that

           24  is lowest achievable level.  And if industry has to pay

           25  the price, so be it.  We will pay the price because

                                                                    291

            1  they'll jack up the prices and force us to use less of

            2  what they sell.  Lowest achievable level, and then some.

            3                 Thank you.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            5                 Any questions?

            6                 (No response.)

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

            8                 MS. DAVIS:  Thank you very much.

            9                 MS. STREETMAN:  Hi, my name is Ashley

           10  Streetman.  Thanks for coming out tonight.  We really

           11  appreciate it, especially from central Houston.

           12                 I came really to talk about my experience

           13  as a Houston resident.  I think you met my 7-month-old

           14  son a little bit earlier as you came in.  He's actually

           15  an eighth generation Texas resident.  My family came

           16  here 200 years ago, back when this was Spain, for a

           17  better life, and I think we'll be the generation that

           18  leaves.

           19                 We enjoy living here.  It's not that we

           20  lack opportunity.  Houston is targeted to boom.  Housing

           21  is very affordable.  The people are kind.  We're just

           22  very concerned about the quality of life that our family

           23  would have here.

           24                 My husband likes to jog.  He used to go

           25  running in Memorial Park, which is a large park in the

                                                                    292

            1  city.  He's a healthy man.  He hiked the Appalachian

            2  Trail a year or two ago.  Walked all the way from

            3  Georgia up to Maine.  No issues.

            4                 But he started having respiratory

            5  problems as he was running, some minor.  At one point he

            6  actually thought he was having a heart attack.  He

            7  started experiencing chest pains.  He went to the

            8  emergency room, and they ran tests.  Basically,

            9  everything was fine.

           10                 Finally, one of the doctors, when he

           11  heard that he'd actually been running during rush hour

           12  in Memorial Park, actually started laughing.  They were,

           13  like, Oh, you know, you were running in Houston in the

           14  pollution.

           15                 I -- I think that's obscene.  You know,

           16  Houston, also, often vies for the No. 1 spot as the

           17  fattest city in the country.  Some of it, of course, may

           18  have to do with the weather and other things.  But

           19  Houston really is a wretched place to be outside,

           20  particularly on high ozone days.  Sometimes it's very,

           21  very difficult to breathe.

           22                 I work in human resources here in

           23  Houston, and I struggle to explain away our environment

           24  to prospective candidates who look to come here that

           25  there are great economic opportunities.  A lot of people

                                                                    293

            1  are not interested in living in a fat city with polluted

            2  air.

            3                 My case is interesting.  I'm a

            4  telecommute worker.  I technically could work in any

            5  city, any state, any country.  And I'm at a point where

            6  I just can't justify staying here with my family with

            7  the current levels of pollution, especially after my

            8  husband's experience.

            9                 You know, I often hear arguments about

           10  how better pollution controls would harm business here

           11  in the area.  I don't think that's necessarily true.  I

           12  think we're already paying the cost.  The question is

           13  who is bearing that cost.  And I've often worked with

           14  companies in this area with health insurance in my role

           15  in HR, and you spend a lot of time trying to contain

           16  costs.

           17                 We increase copays.  We reduce benefits.

           18  We do ever so many things, but we just can't seem to get

           19  around the fact that we have environmental factors here

           20  that we have no control over.  And no matter what we do,

           21  we won't be able to address that.  Poor air, poor

           22  health.  Poor health increases costs.  Businesses here

           23  do feel those costs.

           24                 The question has become, is it the

           25  businesses that cause -- is it the business that causes

                                                                    294

            1  the pollution, or are there other businesses here that

            2  are having to pick up those costs, the externalities.  I

            3  find that very disturbing both in my career and as a

            4  citizen in this community.

            5                 Please consider lowering the standard.

            6  Further, I wish you would consider the advisory panel's

            7  recommendation for an even lower standard.  We should

            8  have clean air here.  The air is our commons.  We should

            9  be able to go to the park, to run, to engage in normal

           10  outdoor activities without having to worry about our

           11  health.  We would like to attract and retain talent in

           12  this area.  We would like for companies to come here and

           13  stay here and feel they can attract talent here.

           14                 And then, finally, I would just say that

           15  we ask for your help.  We ask for your help because we

           16  care about our community, we care about our citizens, we

           17  care about our businesses, and perhaps, most

           18  importantly, we care about those that come after us.

           19                 Thank you.

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much for

           21  coming out this evening.  We very much appreciate your

           22  comments.  Thank you for bringing your baby.

           23                 Next speakers are Lucy Randel and Jose

           24  Moreno -- Moreno.

           25                 MS. RANDEL:  Hi, my name is Lucy Randel,

                                                                    295

            1  L-U-C-Y, R-A-N-D-E-L.  On behalf of Industry

            2  Professionals for Clean Air, I am submitting comments on

            3  the proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air

            4  Quality Standards for Ozone.

            5                 Industry Professionals for Clean Air,

            6  IPCA, in Houston is a group of professionals with

            7  firsthand knowledge of air pollution issues and

            8  understanding of the relevant technologies for solving

            9  these issues.  IPCA is extremely concerned about the

           10  slow pace in achieving acceptable air quality in our

           11  region and the consequent adverse public health impact.

           12                 Houston's air pollution also threatens

           13  our economy.  As you've just heard from the previous

           14  speaker, we are less attractive to businesses and young

           15  professionals.  I personally made a choice not to move

           16  to Los Angeles 15 years ago because of concern about air

           17  quality.  I later found, to my chagrin, that Houston was

           18  not far behind.

           19                 You've already received numerous comments

           20  urging you to follow the guidance of your Scientific

           21  Advisory Board and enact a standard that is truly

           22  protective of human health, namely, 0.060 ppm.  I

           23  believe you have also heard comments reminding you that

           24  in setting public health standards cost may not be

           25  considered.

                                                                    296

            1                 Nonetheless, certain spokesmen for the

            2  chemical industry have expressed concern that meeting

            3  new standards would be cost prohibitive and result in

            4  plant closures.  These arguments are almost always made

            5  when new regulations are proposed.  Yet, the technical

            6  expertise of our chemical industry is vast and readily

            7  meets new challenges.

            8                 The experience of IPCA members is that --

            9  that there are few, if any, technical problems that a

           10  good engineer cannot solve.  More often, the

           11  intransigence in meeting new standards has more to do

           12  with corporate policies than technical issues or

           13  implementation.  We also find it ironic that industry

           14  made the same argument against the current eight-hour

           15  standard but now endorses it as workable and important

           16  to public health.

           17                 Let me give you an example of reality

           18  silencing the naysayers.  Episodic emissions of

           19  highly-reactive volatile organic compounds, HRVOCs, have

           20  been identified as a contributor to peaks in ozone

           21  levels in the Houston-Galveston area.  Texas enacted

           22  restrictions on HRVOC emissions.  These emissions were

           23  reduced, and despite warnings of dire financial

           24  consequences, our local industry is thriving.

           25                 Another example is reducing waste gas

                                                                    297

            1  flaring, a major source of these episodic emissions.

            2  While maintaining that flaring was the BACT, or best

            3  available control technology, petrochemical plants

            4  around the country entered into consent decrees with EPA

            5  to install flare gas recovery systems.

            6                 Operational procedures were also improved

            7  to minimize non-emergency flaring.  Did these practices

            8  significantly hurt the bottom line for these plants?

            9  No.  In fact, several companies, including Dow Chemical

           10  and Shell Oil, have published papers detailing how they

           11  saved money by minimizing flaring.  Dow Chemical's Light

           12  Hydrocarbons Plant in Freeport, Texas experienced an

           13  89 percent reduction in overall upset flaring, using a

           14  two-year running average.

           15                 Moreover, from 2001 to the end of 2003,

           16  the plant achieved documented savings of $2.5 million.

           17  These reductions and cost savings were accomplished by

           18  optimizing equipment and procedures related to plant

           19  start-up, shutdown, and upsets, and improving overall

           20  plant reliability.  Shell Chemicals in Deer Park, Texas

           21  reduced flaring by 50 percent between 2002 and 2003.

           22  The facility developed a parking mode to reduce feed

           23  rates during upset conditions at its two ethylene units.

           24                 Based on our industry experience, we

           25  believe that air pollution can be achieved -- can be

                                                                    298

            1  reduced at an accelerated pace and at a reasonable cost

            2  with existing technologies.  We urge EPA to enact a

            3  strong standard, protective of human health, that will

            4  force the corporate offices to turn loose their

            5  engineers who will quickly demonstrate why they are the

            6  best in the world.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  If you have

            8  references to those published papers about the cost

            9  savings, that would be helpful for us to have.

           10                 MS. RANDEL:  I don't have it with me.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's fine.  You

           12  can take --

           13                 MS. RANDEL:  Can I --

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can e-mail them to us.

           15                 MS. RANDEL:  Okay.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.

           17                 MS. RANDEL:  Sure.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  There's a -- there's a -- a

           19  sheet up front that will tell you how to submit that

           20  information.

           21                 MS. RANDEL:  Okay.  I can do that.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  And you can just stay

           23  where you are until Mr. --

           24                 MS. RANDEL:  Sure.

           25                 MS. DAVIS:  And if you would leave us --

                                                                    299

            1  if you have a copy of your statement, with us.  Thank

            2  you.

            3                 MR. MORENO:  Hi, my name is Jose Moreno.

            4  I'm a citizen of Houston.  I grew up in the East End,

            5  close to the plants.  I worked in the plants for about

            6  eight years, from '92 to basically almost '99.  As I

            7  worked through these plants, I mean, there were --

            8  there's been, like, explosions, gas releases, I mean,

            9  experiences that I've been through.

           10                 That's what made me get out of

           11  construction into an office.  I always told my wife I

           12  would never work in an office, didn't like it.  I liked

           13  working outside with my hands.  But I had a -- we had an

           14  issue one time.  There was a gas release from the flare

           15  stack.  The flare stack was supposed to burn, but it

           16  didn't.  It leaked out.  And we were downwind.  Instead

           17  of going out, we were downwind.

           18                 The supervisor would tell us, No, you're

           19  fine, you're fine.  And as I looked at my helper, I was,

           20  like, we can't breathe right.  We were, like, you know,

           21  just -- just couldn't breathe.  Well, 250 guys went to

           22  the hospital right here at Hermann, and we were all told

           23  we were fine.

           24                 What I'm trying to figure out is, we're

           25  fine now.  But as we are barely finding out about

                                                                    300

            1  asbestos -- and I can tell you that I've worked in

            2  asbestos before, too, and I'm pretty sure, you know,

            3  without masks.  I'm going to be honest.  And, you know,

            4  when you're young, you feel like nothing can, you know,

            5  hurt you.

            6                 We need more -- I mean, I appreciate you

            7  thinking about bringing it more down, and I hope you

            8  bring it even more.  Like I said, right, I was exposed.

            9  Now, I was fine.  They say I was fine.  But am I?  How

           10  many more years will I be fine?  I mean -- I mean, like

           11  I said, asbestos -- asbestos, we're just finding out

           12  what the cause and effects it's doing to people now.

           13                 The fumes from the welding rods, we're

           14  just finding out about those, too.  There's a lot of

           15  cases saying, you know, they have lung cancer and all