11   through NAFTA and GATT for not honoring our
12   contracts to buy MTBE.  I hope that we listen
13   a little more carefully to the people in
14   Alaska when they complain about the future
15   cure-alls.  Alaska tried MTBE and told the
16   lower 48 how offensive it was.  Alaska and my
17   letters were ignored.
18               Looking at the concentration of
19   ozone to tell how to handle the ozone problem
20   is a dead end.  I have previously pointed out
21   that the ozone measured in Philadelphia, at
22   the Northeast Airport, peaks at 2 a.m.  There
23   are very few cars on the road at 2 a.m. and
24   very little sunlight in Philadelphia.  Our
25   peak in ozone is often blown in from the 5
0222
 1   p.m. traffic in Chicago.  Philadelphia has
 2   very little control over Chicago's 5 p.m.
 3   traffic.  The EPA seems oblivious to
 4   geography.
 5               Many ozone sensors have been
 6   placed at 9 to 30 feet above the ground,
 7   according to their own specifications, EPA's
 8   specifications.  Very few people have noses 9
 9   feet above the ground.
10               The EPA hears a lot of testimony
11   on sources but little testimony on solutions
12   other than higher fuel mileage.  One possible
13   control is trees.  Street trees interact with
14   ozone, reducing the ozone concentration.  If
15   you ever run under a street tree, you'll find
16   it much pleasanter than runner along the
17   highway.  A simple effort to increase the
18   abundance of street trees would provide some
19   ozone reduction and make for a pleasanter
20   urban venue.  I'm not saying that's the only
21   solution that is possible.  There are many
22   other things that we should be doing.  There
23   are many possibilities that are just being
24   ignored.
25               I am attaching pages to back up
0223
 1   my statements, but will not read into the
 2   record -- but I won't read them into the
 3   record.  With the Panel's permission, I just
 4   want to attach these pages.
 5               MR. PAGE:  We'll put those in the
 6   record.
 7               MR. LEWIS:  Okay.  Thank you for
 8   listening to my tirades, and I do appreciate
 9   the way you read your statement.  It was more
10   interesting than the way most administrators
11   do it.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, sir, and
13   thank you for your information.
14               MR. LEWIS:  Thank you.
15               Mr. McKee?
16               MR. LEWIS:  Can I give Mr. --
17               MR. PAGE:  McKee.
18               MR. LEWIS:  -- McKee some of my
19   time I didn't use?
20               MR. PAGE:  This wasn't rehearsed,
21   was it?
22               MR. McKEE:  Good afternoon.
23   Thank you for allowing me to be here.  My name
24   is Frank McKee.  I'm a private citizen from
25   York, Pennsylvania.  Today I'd like to talk
0224
 1   about the situation kind of microscopically in
 2   York; specifically, having to do with days
 3   that I go out to try to work out or run and I
 4   can't, and I'm calling this "The View from My
 5   Bicycle."  I'm here today representing no
 6   particular organization, but I -- in view of
 7   40,000 people in York County who suffer from
 8   COPD.
 9               I am asthmatic, on three
10   medications, father of four.  I'm an avid
11   athlete.  I've done about, I think at last
12   count, 55 triathlons in my day.  I'm a small
13   business owner and have 16 years of
14   participation in what I'd like to call
15   reasoned environmental reform.
16               Today I'd like to talk -- first
17   off, urge that the EPA reverse their current
18   position of proposing standards for levels of
19   ozone that will continue to harm our health,
20   specifically (inaudible).  I'd like to also
21   draw attention to the 40,000 people in York
22   County, and suggest that air quality indices
23   be based on multiple components, not just a
24   few -- or singular components, as they
25   currently are.
0225
 1               York County, for those of you who
 2   don't know, is located in south central
 3   Pennsylvania.  It is a very, very wonderful
 4   community.  At first glance, it appears to be
 5   agrarian-based, but it's got a strong business
 6   and waning industrial infrastructure.  The
 7   business mantra is driven by a "pollute for
 8   profit" mentality.  I anonymously quote a
 9   senior scientist at one of our major polluters
10   who said, we only do what we have to do, and
11   then only when we get caught.  Hardly
12   comforting.
13               The air quality in York is
14   consistently among one of the worst in the
15   state.  In July 2007, only 6 out of 31 days
16   were considered healthful.  But even on good
17   days, I and others find vigorous exercise
18   difficult from a respiratory standpoint.
19               York County is 902 square miles.
20   We have approximately 2.2 miles -- 2 percent
21   of our county is about a 20 square mile
22   smokestack that comes from five majors
23   pollutants.  I'd just like to briefly talk
24   about a few of these.  I'll bypass Lehigh,
25   York County Solid Waste Authority, and, yes, I
0226
 1   do put my trash out to curb, and I think these
 2   guys are doing a reasonably good job here.
 3               But LWB Refractories puts out
 4   about 6 million pounds of NOx, 348,000 pounds
 5   of VOCs, which are ozone components.
 6               PH Glatfelter, environmentally,
 7   by many, are considered to be Public Enemy
 8   Number One.  4 million pounds of NOx, 752,000
 9   of volatiles, ozone components.
10               And Bruner Island, which is right
11   on the border of York and Lancaster County.
12               What this comes down to is that
13   we have 21 -- about 48 million pounds of
14   emissions on an annual basis that come out of
15   an extremely concentrated area in York County
16   that directly impacts the health of our
17   residents.
18               If I could just direct your
19   attention, in closing moments, to looking at
20   basing the air quality index on multiple
21   components.  We can have days where we're
22   right on the threshold of having a bad air
23   quality day from an ozone standpoint, from a
24   VOC standpoint, and the others, but it's
25   considered a green day, when, in fact, when
0227
 1   you look at the aggregation of these
 2   components, such is simply not the case.
 3               So I'd like to request that you
 4   consider evaluating multiple elements in
 5   determining your ambient air quality index and
 6   your report findings.
 7               The Pennsylvania Constitution
 8   says that the people have a right to clean
 9   air, pure water, and to the preservation of
10   the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic
11   values of the environment.
12               I'd like to call on the EPA to
13   act on your mission.  Your stated mission is
14   to protect human health and to safeguard the
15   natural environment -- air, water, and land --
16   upon which life depends.
17               Pay attention to York.  We're in
18   big trouble out there, and we really need to
19   be put under your microscope a little bit more
20   closely.  I'd like you to apply your policy
21   based on scientific fact, tempered not solely
22   by special business interests.  I'm a
23   businessman, I'm in the profit mode as well,
24   but I think it's important that we really
25   become an advocate for the weak.  And,
0228
 1   finally, adopt the most stringent standard for
 2   ozone, and in doing so, help protect our
 3   health.
 4               Thank you for your time, and I
 5   appreciate your attention and wish you well.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 7   both for appearing today.  I'll take it over
 8   here.  Thank you for appearing.
 9               Is that going to be in the
10   record, your presentation?
11               MR. McKEE:  I'd like it to be,
12   yeah.
13               MR. PAGE:  Great.  We can perhaps
14   take your disk or something there or...
15               MR. McKEE:  Sure.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you again.
17               Clifton Burt is our next speaker.
18   Now, that's the last registered speaker.  If
19   you want to speak and you're not registered,
20   you can sign up at the table out there.  But
21   this is the last registered speaker we have
22   for a little while, so...
23               You still only get five minutes.
24               MR. BURT:  Oh, okay.  Hopefully
25   that will be enough.  I'm honored to be the
0229
 1   last one.
 2               My name is Clifton Burt -- first
 3   name C-L-I-F-T-O-N, last name B-U-R-T -- and I
 4   am a second year student at Drexel University
 5   College of Medicine.  I'm studying to be a
 6   doctor.  I want to say, first of all, that I'm
 7   very happy that the EPA is addressing this
 8   issue.  I feel it's very important.
 9               And I'd just like to start by --
10   I have some -- I'll just briefly cite some
11   journal articles that I have.  First of all,
12   I've got one here from the New England Journal
13   of Medicine.  It basically says that chronic
14   air pollution leads to stunted lung growth in
15   kids.
16               Here's one from the American
17   Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
18   Medicine.  It basically says that lung
19   function is decreased by exposure to ozone and
20   to nitrous oxide, and basically what happens,
21   you decrease in force vital capacity, how much
22   air they can breathe in -- you know, breathe
23   out, I should say, that's exhale and the
24   forced expiratory volume at one second.  These
25   are markers.  That specifically is at least in
0230
 1   one second, how much they can breathe out.
 2   That's also decreased.
 3               Another article says about
 4   there's an increased risk of arrythmia,
 5   supraventricular arrythmia in elderly when
 6   we're exposed to ozone.  This is the
 7   Occupational & Environmental Medical Journal,
 8   and that basically means it sets them up for
 9   an increased risk of heart attack.
10               Another one has decreased lung
11   function in kids closer to freeways.  This is
12   basically to the ozone air pollutants.  That's
13   from Lancet.
14               Increase of ozone occurs during
15   thunderstorms, and they found that ruling out
16   other factors, there are increased admissions
17   of asthma in the hospitals, and that -- so it
18   shows that that's bad; that ozone,
19   quantitatively saying it's bad.
20               Here, influence of air pollution,
21   specifically ozone, there's a high correlation
22   of ozone.  This is a Brazilian study, but they
23   found that there's increased risk of lung
24   cancer and larynx cancer with increased ozone
25   levels.  They said they can't find exact
0231
 1   causality, but what we're talking about is --
 2   you know, for this hearing is levels that the
 3   EPA -- what they found were areas with higher
 4   ozone had a higher risk of lung -- and
 5   especially larynx cancer.  Lung cancer was a
 6   77 percent, I believe, correlation and 99
 7   percent -- or 72 percent.  99 percent's for
 8   larynx cancer.
 9               And, finally, I wanted to say --
10   oh, I ran through this probably a little
11   faster than I needed to.  But at Drexel, at
12   least as a med student, I feel like I'm
13   getting an extremely good education, and one
14   of the main things that they teach to us is
15   the importance of preventative medicine and
16   it's a lot easier and much better to keep the
17   problem from occurring in the first place to
18   prevent the disease from occurring than it is
19   to treat the disease.  And I have a feeling,
20   in the long run, that the human costs and the
21   economic costs will be far greater if we allow
22   the standards to stay where they are than if
23   we make them a little tighter.  Lower that
24   ozone level.
25               And that's -- oh.  And I also
0232
 1   have a list of -- I have a bunch of signatures
 2   from my school and people who wanted to
 3   support lowering the emission level -- or the
 4   ozone levels.
 5               That's it.  If you're interested,
 6   I can also hand you the articles that I have
 7   here.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Yes, please leave the
 9   articles here.  We'd like to put those in the
10   docket as well.
11               MR. BURT:  Okay.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
13   today.  We appreciate it.
14               All right.  I guess we don't have
15   any more registered speakers at this time, so
16   we'll take a break, and as other people come
17   in, we'll reconvene and continue the public
18   hearing.  We're going to be here late tonight
19   because we expect people to be coming after
20   work and things like that.  For those of you
21   who wish to stay, you're obviously welcome.
22   We appreciate those who did make the effort to
23   come here this afternoon.  Thank you very
24   much.
25                       - - -
0233
 1               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
 2   2:51 p.m. through 3:11 p.m.)
 3                       - - -
 4               MR. PAGE:  We will continue our
 5   public hearing for revision of the ozone act.
 6   We're ready to go here.  This hearing should
 7   come to order.  It's nice to see everybody.
 8               We worked through a full morning
 9   of hearings and then started back after lunch,
10   and I want to thank you all for coming.  We
11   have a couple people who are signed up now,
12   but before we jump into that, I do want to say
13   that this is the public hearing for the
14   revision of the ozone NAAQS, so if you are
15   into higher education or crocheting or
16   something, you're in the wrong meeting.
17               Audience Member:  That worries me
18   that higher education seems to not fit in
19   here.
20               MR. PAGE:  Education always has a
21   role.  Anyway --
22               Audience Member:  Let's work for
23   higher intelligence.  Okay.
24               MR. PAGE:  Higher intelligence,
25   very well said, yes.
0234
 1               I'm not going to read the
 2   statement that I read this morning.  You all
 3   have been briefed about the five-minute limit
 4   and what the EPA's proposal is.
 5               Audience Member:  I just walked
 6   in here.
 7               Audience Member:  So did I.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Oh, you haven't.
 9   Okay.  Well, I don't mind going back and
10   repeating the highlights of the statement from
11   this morning.  And then we'll hear from our
12   two registered speakers and anybody else who
13   comes in in the meantime.
14               First let me introduce a couple
15   of the panelists that you may not have been
16   introduced to.  Rosalina Rodriguez, she works
17   at the Office of Air Quality Planning &
18   Standards, the same office that I do, at the
19   Environmental Protection Agency.  Her office
20   is the one that's responsible for pulling the
21   science together and developing policy options
22   for the administrator to consider in making
23   the ozone proposal and then the ozone final.
24               This is Marcia Spink, who has
25   been working on the air issues in Pennsylvania
0235
 1   since there were air issues in Pennsylvania.
 2   How about that?  She is well-known in this
 3   area and well-respected across the agency as
 4   one of our folks that we go to in terms of how
 5   we can implement programs successfully, and
 6   she has always had a keen interest in the
 7   public hearing process, which is why she's
 8   here today, to hear the comments and the
 9   recommendations from people in her home area
10   but also comments from other places.
11               My name is Steve Page, and I'm
12   the director of the Office of Quality Planning
13   & Standards for EPA.  Let me just go through
14   and give you some highlights that I've given
15   in the morning and that we started this
16   afternoon's session on.
17               This is a hearing, and so we're
18   here to listen to your comments.  EPA has made
19   its proposal, and we provided rationale for
20   that in July 11th, 2007 Federal Register
21   statement.  We do have some literature out on
22   the desk out front that gives some highlights
23   of the key questions or key areas that we're
24   asking for comment on, although the whole
25   proposal is up for comment, but specific
0236
 1   questions that were asked of the public, if
 2   you want to answer those.  But any comments,
 3   like I say, are welcome.  We at EPA value this
 4   process greatly.  We feel like it's one of the
 5   most important aspects of our jobs, to come
 6   and hear what the public thinks about the
 7   policies and programs that we're putting out
 8   to protect the environment and public health.
 9               The topic of today is the
10   ground-level ozone, which is the primary
11   component of smog, and we have heard from a
12   variety of experts this morning, information
13   which EPA, of course, included in its proposal
14   about health effects, including aggravated
15   asthma, increased susceptibility to
16   respiratory infections, increased doctor
17   visits, increased emergency department visits,
18   hospital admissions, and premature deaths as a
19   result of exposure to elevated levels of
20   ozone, sensitive populations especially.
21   There were comments this morning that it's not
22   only the sensitive populations, but the
23   healthy populations who also suffer from
24   elevated levels of ozone, which, of course, we
25   agree with.
0237
 1               In addition to the health
 2   effects, high levels of ozone can have harmful
 3   effects on sensitive plant species.  There's
 4   more information now than there ever has been
 5   on the effects on trees and crops and the
 6   ecosystems that they inhabit.
 7               Based on a careful review of the
 8   science that EPA has done regarding the health
 9   and welfare effects of exposure to ozone, the
10   EPA administrator has concluded that the
11   current standards that we have in place today
12   are not adequate to protect health and
13   welfare.  A new number of studies are in, and
14   we've taken a look at those studies, and they
15   indicate that people with respiratory illness,
16   such as asthma that we talked about, are
17   particularly sensitive to adverse impacts and
18   that the ecosystem is showing effects from
19   exposure to high levels of ozone.
20               So after careful consideration,
21   the administrator has proposed to revise both
22   the primary ozone standard, which is the
23   health standard, and the secondary ozone
24   standard, which is designed to protect the
25   ecosystem and protect welfare such as
0238
 1   vegetation and crops.  The current standard
 2   that we have in place is an 8-hour standard of
 3   0.080 parts per million, which is effectively
 4   0.084 if you use rounding.  Under the EPA's
 5   proposal, each of the standards, the primary
 6   and secondary, would be revised, and the form
 7   of the secondary standard might change so that
 8   it's no longer identical to the primary
 9   standard.  Our current secondary standard,
10   which protects the ecosystem, is identical to
11   the primary standard because that was the best
12   science we had at the time, when we set the
13   primary and secondary standards years ago.
14               So EPA, based on the new science,
15   is proposing that we revise the level of the
16   secondary standard to -- let's see exactly
17   where we are here -- to revise the level of
18   the secondary standard to establish a new form
19   called W126, which is basically an
20   abbreviation for counting when the highest
21   levels of ozone occur during the highest
22   concentrations of ozone throughout the year;
23   in other words, taking measurements on
24   ecosystems during the highest ozone days of
25   the year, which is the growing, which is
0239
 1   summer, and no longer making it identical to
 2   the primary standard.  We feel like we have
 3   enough information to do that now.
 4               Another option, though, that
 5   we're asking comment for, that a number of
 6   people have raised is, should we just go ahead
 7   and make it identical to the primary standard,
 8   the way we did it the first time.  There are
 9   some people who feel like that's what we
10   should do and that there isn't enough
11   information --
12               Audience Member:  Primary?
13               MR. PAGE:  Primary standard is
14   the health standard, protecting people.  The
15   secondary standard is the standard for the
16   ecosystem, and we're proposing two different
17   standards.
18               Audience Member:  Well, it also
19   assumes we're not part of the ecosystem.
20               MR. PAGE:  Well, non-human
21   health.  We're talking about crops and trees
22   and stuff.  I tried to make that clear.  This
23   is what I get for talking short here.
24               Audience Member:  What is the
25   difference?  What's the numbers?
0240
 1               MR. PAGE:  The proposal for the
 2   primary standard -- remember, I told you a
 3   minute ago the current one is 0.080.  The
 4   administrator is proposing to lower that to
 5   0.070 to a range of 0.075.  He's saying he
 6   thinks the number's in there somewhere, but
 7   he's inviting comments on that range, he's
 8   inviting comments above that range for people
 9   who think we shouldn't go lower or tighter,
10   and for levels below that range as well.
11               Audience Member:  And the
12   secondary standard is?
13               MR. PAGE:  Now, the numbers for
14   your secondary standard, and that's a little
15   bit more complicated, the form of the standard
16   would be weighted hourly ozone concentrations
17   measured during the 12 daylight hours, 8 a.m.
18   to 8 p.m., during a consecutive three-month
19   period, in the highest ozone levels, we're
20   proposing to set this cumulative standard
21   within the range of 7 to 21 parts per
22   million-hours.
23               Audience Member:  Okay.  Now, how
24   does this translate?  Because it sounds like
25   we're using two different sets of numbers, and
0241
 1   that is very confusing.  Can you alter this
 2   for me so it's -- like we're not doing feet
 3   and millimeters.
 4               MR. PAGE:  The easiest way I can
 5   explain it, and, in fact, I can follow up and
 6   get you some technical explanation on it,
 7   because this is outlined in the proposal.
 8               Audience Member:  Okay.  This is
 9   part of what I have to do to -- what I'm going
10   to say.
11               MR. PAGE:  The easiest way --
12               And, Marcia, you can feel free to
13   help me here.
14               Marcia is versed in the technical
15   aspects of this, but the easy way, I think, to
16   think about this is the health standard is
17   measured in terms of exposure to ozone
18   throughout a period of three years, and
19   there's a formula that you use for picking the
20   high days in those three years.
21               The secondary standard is a
22   measurement of, in the summertime, what is the
23   highest concentrations that your ecosystems
24   are being exposed to in terms of ozone
25   concentration per the daylight hours.
0242
 1               So you're right, there are two
 2   different measures, but it's the same
 3   principal, which is how much ozone are you
 4   getting exposed to over a period of time.  For
 5   the plants and vegetation, it's the highest
 6   concentrations in the year, through the
 7   summer.  For human beings, we're counting it
 8   year-round.
 9               Audience Member:  Year-round,
10   okay.  Now, as a human being who's a
11   layperson, how do I compare this?
12               MS. SPINK:  Maybe one thing that
13   will help is this:  In all the years that I've
14   been working for EPA and I've taught classes
15   and I've addressed the public, I think the
16   terms "primary" and "secondary" can be a bit
17   misleading, because wouldn't you assume that
18   primary would be the more stringent of a
19   standard instead of --
20               Audience Member:  Well, people
21   want to be the first -- no.  Actually, for
22   me --
23               MS. SPINK:  You know that --
24               Audience Member:  -- because I'm
25   a very literate person, primary to me would be
0243
 1   the one of first concern.
 2               MS. SPINK:  Okay.  But in terms
 3   of their stringency, the primary National
 4   Ambient Air Quality Standard is set to protect
 5   human health, so the public health.  The
 6   secondary standard is set to protect other
 7   living organisms -- and by the way, also raw
 8   materials, like rubber, monuments, et cetera.
 9               And what we're seeing here is
10   that when it comes to setting the standard to
11   protect human health, it's the numbers that
12   you've been hearing about, the range of 70
13   parts per billion to 75 parts per billion, but
14   still taking comment as low as 60 and as high
15   as the current standard.
16               The secondary standard we're
17   looking at a little bit differently
18   potentially because there are arguments that
19   are made that other organisms, aside from
20   human beings, are actually more sensitive to
21   zone, and because of that reason --
22               Audience Member:  So the
23   secondary --
24               Audience Member:  Then is that
25   the actual --
0244
 1               Audience Member:  -- is that the
 2   --
 3               THE COURT REPORTER:  Excuse me.
 4               Audience Member:  -- be a more
 5   stringent?
 6               MS. SPINK:  Potentially.
 7   Potentially, yes.
 8               Audience Member:  Okay.  Because
 9   one thing I know, for several reasons
10   (inaudible) -- one, I haven't got a lot of
11   formal education, but I'm extremely
12   knowledgeable and excruciatingly intelligent.
13   I've been a Mensa member.  I also have gifts
14   of the right side of my brain, that I have
15   seen things, I have seen the future, and it is
16   bleak.  And I know what's happened to my own
17   body, and that is bleak.
18               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  We're --
19               Audience Member:  And we are an
20   animal, we are a species, the most destructive
21   on this planet, and our canaries are
22   everything else in our environment.  Where do
23   you think we live?  And we are part of it, and
24   we need to protect it to the maximum level or
25   we will die too.  So my question is --
0245
 1               MR. PAGE:  Ma'am --
 2               Audience Member:  I think my
 3   answer is here, the secondary without concern.
 4               MR. PAGE:  We're doing a public
 5   hearing, and people have signed up to speak.
 6   We are anxious to hear from you --
 7               Audience Member:  I understand
 8   that.
 9               MR. PAGE:  -- as we are other
10   people.
11               Audience Member:  Where are the
12   people to speak?
13               MR. PAGE:  Well, I need to be
14   able to call them up.  They're registered, and
15   hopefully you're registered so we can call you
16   up.
17               Audience Member:  I'm scheduled
18   for 5:00.  They wanted me to go earlier.
19               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Great.
20               Audience Member:  But I want to
21   know what's going on so I can have -- say
22   something great on that.
23               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Well, I hope
24   this has been helpful, this little exchange,
25   and --
0246
 1               Audience Member:  That's what I
 2   wanted to figure out here.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  And, by the
 4   way, if we can't answer your questions in this
 5   short time today, we can follow up.  Marcia
 6   works right here in town.  She can --
 7               Audience Member:  Okay.  So today
 8   is our only chance to speak?
 9               MR. PAGE:  Oh, no.  The end of
10   the public comment period -- in fact, I failed
11   to mention that, but thank you for mentioning
12   it.  The public comment period closes October
13   9th, and we will be making final decisions by
14   March of 2008.  Sorry.  No.  There is plenty
15   of time, and like I say, Marcia's not leaving
16   town.  We will leave town, but Marcia's here.
17   Okay.  Again, thank you, I appreciate the
18   questions.
19               Let me call up the next two
20   speakers that are registered, and then I'll
21   probably get another jolt of other speakers,
22   and then anybody else who wants to talk,
23   please register, and we're looking forward to
24   hearing from you.  That's what we're doing
25   here today, from 9:00 in the morning until
0247
 1   9:00 at night.
 2               Mr. Jason Marmon (ph) and Tony
 3   Payton, Jr. are registered to speak.
 4               We're calling you up in pairs
 5   just for efficiency, and the first one on the
 6   list I have is Mr. Marmon.
 7               MR. MARMON:  Hello.  I'm here on
 8   behalf of Congressman Joseph Sestak,
 9   Pennsylvania's 7th district.  I'll be reading
10   a statement that he has to be entered into the
11   record.
12               While my schedule prevented me
13   from attending today's hearing on the ozone
14   "smog" pollution in person, I wanted to weigh
15   in on this important public health and
16   environmental issue.  Ozone pollution is both
17   dangerous and pervasive, posing a serious and
18   costly public health problem for my district,
19   the entire state of Pennsylvania, and the
20   entire country.  Ozone exposure can cause
21   chest pain and coughing, aggravate asthma, and
22   reduce lung function, all of which can
23   increase emergency room visits and hospital
24   admissions.
25               Strong national standards for
0248
 1   ozone are crucial to fighting this problem in
 2   Pennsylvania and across the country.  Since
 3   ozone forms from pollution that may travel
 4   across state boundaries, state and local
 5   governments cannot solve this problem on their
 6   own.  Rather, the national air quality
 7   standards set by the EPA drive the work done
 8   at the state and local levels to reduce air
 9   pollution.  Weak standards handicap public
10   officials' ability to fulfill our
11   responsibility to reduce air pollution and
12   protect the health of Pennsylvanians.
13               The Clean Air Act requires the
14   EPA to base its decisions solely on the need
15   to protect public health, including that of
16   sensitive populations, with an adequate margin
17   of safety.  In 2002, the Supreme Court
18   unanimously ruled that protecting public
19   health was the sole factor EPA should consider
20   in setting this standard.
21               In keeping with this
22   responsibility, the EPA should strengthen its
23   proposal to the ozone standard recommended by
24   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a
25   group of expert scientists who advise the EPA
0249
 1   administrator on air quality standards.  The
 2   committee, who reviewed a 2,000-page summary
 3   of the scientific research on the health
 4   effects of ozone in 2006 unanimously concluded
 5   there is no scientific justification for the
 6   retention of the current ozone standard of
 7   0.080 parts per million; two, the ozone
 8   standard must explicitly include the margin of
 9   safety required by the Clean Air Act; and,
10   three, the 8-hour ozone standard should be set
11   in a range of 0.060 to 0.070 parts per
12   million.
13               In addition, leading national
14   public health advocacy groups, such as the
15   American Lung Association, American Academy of
16   Pediatrics, American Thoracic Society,
17   American Public Health Society, Asthma and
18   Allergy Foundation of America, and many others
19   have recommended a standard of 0.060 parts per
20   million.
21               The EPA's proposal to strengthen
22   the standard to somewhere in the range of
23   0.070 parts per million to 0.075 parts per
24   mill will not protect the public enough.  The
25   EPA should finalize an ozone standard of 0.060
0250
 1   parts per million, consistent with the
 2   recommendations of its science advisors.
 3   Under the Clean Air Act, communities will have
 4   plenty of time to plan, adopt, and put into
 5   place measures to meet these new standards.
 6               I thank the EPA for holding
 7   today's important hearing in Philadelphia.  My
 8   staff and I look forward to working with the
 9   agency in the future on this and other issues
10   to work toward protecting Pennsylvania's
11   environment and public health.
12               Thank you.
13               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for
14   comments, Mr. Marmon.
15               Mr. Payton?
16               MR. PAYTON:  Good afternoon,
17   Members of the EPA.  My name is Tony Payton,
18   Jr.  I'm the state representative from the
19   179th district, which is the Hunting Park,
20   Frankford, and Feltonville.  I'd like to thank
21   you for the opportunity to come here and
22   speak.  I believe you just heard my testimony,
23   though, before me, but I'll go ahead and
24   repeat the same thing for the sake of having
25   it on the record.
0251
 1               The issue, of course, is ozone
 2   pollution, and as we all know, lack of clean
 3   air can cause chest pain, cough, aggravate
 4   asthma, and reduce lung function.  This
 5   inevitably leads to increased emergency room
 6   visits and hospital admissions.  Living in a
 7   metropolitan area, such as Philadelphia, only
 8   increases one's chances of these conditions.
 9   As an individual who suffers from asthma, I
10   can personally attest to this situation.
11               Under the Clean Air Act, air
12   quality standards must be set at levels to
13   protect the public health, including that of
14   sensitive populations, with an adequate margin
15   of safety.
16               Thus, the national air quality
17   standards set by the EPA drive the work that
18   we do here at the state level, and the weak
19   standards will only handicap us here of our
20   ability to fulfill our responsibility to
21   reduce air pollution and protect the health of
22   our citizens.
23               My hope is that you would take
24   the responsibility of enacting stronger, the
25   most strong, that has been recommended by your
0252
 1   own scientists.  Those standards should be
 2   adopted so that we can ultimately ensure
 3   public safety and the well-being of the
 4   citizens of our state.
 5               I thank you very much for your
 6   time.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
 8   Appreciate you coming in.
 9               The next speaker that is
10   registered is Dr. Rosalie Bertell.
11               Welcome, Dr. Bertell.  Thank you
12   for joining us today.
13               DR. BERTELL:  I did provide a
14   written report to your staff.
15               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
16               DR. BERTELL:  But I would like to
17   be clear on what you just said about the
18   recommendations, because it sounded to me
19   like, if I put it in parts per billion, you're
20   recommending 70 for people?
21               MR. PAGE:  Yes.
22               DR. BERTELL:  And 7,000 to 21,000
23   parts per billion for the ecosystem?  You said
24   parts per million.
25               MR. PAGE:  Yes, I did.
0253
 1               DR. BERTELL:  Okay.  That's
 2   higher.  That's a much higher standard than
 3   for people.  It looks like you're looking at
 4   people as urban areas, and there are people in
 5   the country, so I find that standard is very
 6   peculiar for many reasons.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Okay.
 8               DR. BERTELL:  Now, I looked at a
 9   document that was written by the clean air
10   science advisory committee 20 years ago, in
11   which they pointed out that you're setting a
12   standard for ozone and other photochemical
13   oxidants.  You seem to have dropped the second
14   part of that, and all photochemical oxidants
15   are important for respiratory problems.  They
16   cause inflammation of the lung, and this is a
17   serious concern for plants, animals, and
18   people.
19               Now, 20 years ago, they also
20   advised you of the very wide variability of
21   response of subjects, and normally we drop the
22   defensible, scientifically defensible
23   standard, which is 60 parts per billion, by a
24   factor of ten; in other words, in one order of
25   magnitude, down to six parts per billion, in
0254
 1   order to allow for this variation, and I would
 2   recommend that you look at that.
 3               Now, the protection of sensitive
 4   animals, plants, and crops, that's our
 5   life-support system, and it's rather
 6   ridiculous to protect human health and not
 7   protect the plants that we depend on for our
 8   survival.  And not just cash crops, but we
 9   need to protect everything that's contributing
10   to the health and the bio diversity of our
11   natural ecosystem.
12               These photochemical oxidants
13   depend on the nitrous oxides and the volatile
14   organic compounds, so they're secondary to
15   sunlight NOxs and VOCs.  The mandate is for
16   public health, and it should not reflect any
17   accomodation to industry, but it should also
18   limit the NOxs and VOCs, otherwise it's a
19   useless attempt to stop the smog.
20               I think it should be taken into
21   consideration that over the last 20 years, we
22   have seen an increase of about double in
23   asthma, we've also seen that the population
24   over 65 has an increased rate of chronic
25   obstructive pulmonary disease; moreover, the
0255
 1   surgeon general has just expressed concern
 2   about the obesity crisis and has been
 3   encouraging people to do more outdoor
 4   exercise, like jogging.  This would make it a
 5   very high risk group for ozone pollution.  So
 6   you can't recommend outdoor activity at the
 7   same time that you're careless about your smog
 8   levels, and I think the protective
 9   ground-level ozone is very important, if
10   you're going to be promoting outdoor
11   exercises.
12               Now, I would add, as a
13   mathematician, that that business of rounding
14   to the nearest ten is done in order to
15   randomize your errors, but when you're dealing
16   with public health, you don't want to
17   randomize your errors; you would like to make
18   your regulations, by setting an upper limit,
19   and say below, say, 0.060, and then 0.061
20   would be breaking the regulation.  So I
21   wouldn't leave it so lose, as it seems to be
22   currently.
23               Thank you very much for your
24   time.
25               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Dr.
0256
 1   Bertell.  Let me make one clarification.  The
 2   rounding that you just finished --
 3               DR. BERTELL:  Yes.
 4               MR. PAGE:  -- that is being
 5   proposed to be eliminated, just so --
 6               DR. BERTELL:  That should be
 7   eliminated, yes.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Well, the equipment is
 9   in much better technical shape now than --
10               DR. BERTELL:  Well, it's
11   inappropriate for public health.
12               MR. PAGE:  So we are proposing
13   and taking comment on it, but we are also
14   proposing to eliminate the rounding, as you've
15   mentioned.
16               DR. BERTELL:  But your proposal
17   for the ecosystem is very much out of bounds.
18               MR. PAGE:  And I hear that and I
19   hear you want it to be straightened out.
20               DR. BERTELL:  Yeah.
21               MR. PAGE:  Yes, ma'am.  Thank you
22   very much for coming today.  I appreciate it.
23               The next two speakers that we
24   have, and we're asking the speakers to come up
25   two at a time, please, is Mr. Al Taubenberger
0257
 1   and Rachael Truchil.
 2               Mr. Taubenberger, I've got you
 3   registered as the next speaker, and then,
 4   Rachael, you'll follow him.
 5               MR. TAUBENBERGER:  Thank you.
 6   I'll be brief and won't take up much time of
 7   the commission, but I do thank you very much
 8   even for the opportunity to say a few words.
 9               I'm the republican nominee for
10   mayor of the city of Philadelphia.  I'm not
11   going to speak about a lot of scientific
12   matters.  I'll leave that for other experts.
13   But I'll tell you a little bit of a philosophy
14   that I think is being done and I think needs
15   to be done as well.
16               The quality of air in a big city
17   is most important.  It makes a difference in
18   people's lives, their health, their
19   well-being, and how much they like to be in
20   the city or not.  I think the mayor is limited
21   in what he or she can do just because of the
22   position of a municipality as opposed to the
23   federal government, but there are things that
24   they can do, one of which is to use hybrid
25   cars whenever possible or cars that run on
0258
 1   batteries, using the most modern technology to
 2   stay away from fossil fuels, urging and being
 3   very supportive of mass transit to go back to
 4   trolleys, to go back and use the subway
 5   system.  I, for one, plan to set an example by
 6   doing what Mayor James H.J. Tate did years
 7   ago, which is taking the subway to work, and I
 8   think that sets the tone for a lot of things.
 9               The one thing the mayor of the
10   city of Philadelphia has is a great pulpit,
11   which I intend to use.  Also, getting back to
12   mass transit, I think that an emphasis has to
13   be put back on trolley cars, electrical
14   trolley cars.  They're retro in appeal and so
15   on, and I think will go a great deal, and
16   people would like to ride them because it
17   might be perceived as fun and also not only
18   just functional as far as getting them to
19   work, but stylish, and maybe stepping back in
20   time as well.
21               I'm also going to try to convince
22   my staff, my campaign manager who's here
23   today, to stop smoking.  That will clean up
24   the air in my immediate vicinity.  I think
25   that's very important as well.  Doing the best
0259
 1   that we all can do to keep the air as clean as
 2   possible will make a great deal of difference,
 3   and educating the public, as well, on the
 4   dangers of those pollutants is also very
 5   important, so we all stand up together,
 6   because our lives are all at stake.  It's a
 7   better place and a better city and a better
 8   country if we can breathe cleaner air.
 9               Thank you very much.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
11   today.
12               Rachael?
13               MS. TRUCHIL:  My name is Rachael
14   Truchil.  I'm a third-year medical student at
15   the University of Pennsylvania, and I'm a
16   student leader at the (inaudible) for social
17   responsibility.  I am studying to be a
18   pediatrician, and I believe that air pollution
19   is a public health problem.
20               We know that ozone is an oxidant
21   and when you breathe it in, it affects the
22   airway and causes a inflammatory response that
23   increases the risk of kids having
24   exacerbations of their asthma.  And so in my
25   pediatric rotation at Children's Hospital,
0260
 1   which I finished a few months ago, when I was
 2   on the inpatient service, I saw there was
 3   always multiple patients suffering from asthma
 4   attacks in our service, and when I was on my
 5   outpatient rotation, I mean, that was a large
 6   majority of the patients that I saw, were kids
 7   with asthma.  And ozone levels, when they're
 8   elevated, really increased the number of
 9   asthma exacerbations that kids have.  And for
10   those of you who have seen a child have a
11   serious asthma attack, you know how scary it
12   is for the patient, the patient's family, and
13   also all the healthcare providers caring for
14   the child.  That patient is basically fighting
15   to breathe, and every breath that they take is
16   one that requires a lot of effort and it feels
17   that they can't get enough air and that
18   they're breathing through a straw, and it's
19   very scary.  You know, sometimes patients have
20   to go to the emergency room for asthma
21   exacerbations.  Sometimes they have to be
22   admitted.  Sometimes they need a breathing
23   tube.  Sometimes they need time in the
24   intensive care unit.  And there's a risk of a
25   whole bunch of things.  And people do die of
0261
 1   asthma attack, so it's a very serious issue,
 2   one that I've seen a lot of here in
 3   Philadelphia.
 4               And there also is a huge strain
 5   on the healthcare system as well.  I remember
 6   this one 14-year-old girl who was on my
 7   service and this was her fourth admission just
 8   in the past half a year.  It's really very
 9   upsetting when you see these kids come in and
10   they're just unable to really get their
11   breath.
12               Basically, I just want to
13   emphasize that the current standards don't
14   adequately protect the health and that there's
15   overwhelming evidence of the deleterious
16   effects of ozone, even at levels below the
17   current standard.  So I would really urge the
18   EPA to finally have a lower ozone standard so
19   that we can maintain an adequate margin of
20   safety for public health, and that's
21   consistent with recommendations that have been
22   made from scientific advisors.
23               Thank you.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
25   very much for coming by today.
0262
 1               Our next two speakers are Eric
 2   Cheung and Ruth Lachman-Sueker.
 3               If I've mispronounced either of
 4   your names, please help me correct that.
 5   Eric, you're the first speaker I have here.
 6               MR. CHEUNG:  My name is Eric
 7   Cheung.  I am the senior attorney at the Clean
 8   Air Council.  Clean Air Council was founded in
 9   1967 as a citizen-based non-profit
10   organization to address the growing
11   environmental problems in the greater
12   Philadelphia region, especially their impact
13   on air quality.  Today the council has
14   approximately 8,000 members throughout
15   Pennsylvania and Delaware.
16               The council works through a
17   combination of public education, community
18   advocacy, and oversight of government
19   enforcement of environmental laws to ensure
20   that all residents of Pennsylvania and
21   Delaware live in a healthy environment.
22   Responses to our comments can be sent back to
23   us at our address.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
25               MR. CHEUNG:  Despite steady
0263
 1   progress over the last 30 years, the air
 2   quality in the Philadelphia Metropolitan
 3   Statistical Area and other major areas of
 4   Pennsylvania remain a major public health
 5   threat to people of Pennsylvania and Delaware.
 6   Elevated ozone levels translate into direct
 7   health costs to the citizens of Pennsylvania
 8   and Delaware.  It is imperative, therefore,
 9   that the US EPA take seriously its duty to
10   establish and National Ambient Air Quality
11   Standard for ozone that is truly protective of
12   public health.  In fact, the Clean Air Act
13   requires EPA to not only establish a health
14   standard that will protect our most vulnerable
15   citizens, including the elderly, the young,
16   and people with heart and respiratory
17   problems, but the standard must additionally
18   provide for an adequate margin of safety.
19               The EPA last revised the ozone
20   standard in 1997, when the agency established
21   a new 8-hour average air quality standard for
22   ozone.  The CASAC, EPA's own science advisory
23   committee, was unanimous in concluding that
24   the present standard was protective of public
25   health.  Indeed, the EPA's own science
0264
 1   advisors, after reviewing the latest study,
 2   has concluded that the standards should be
 3   tightened to a range of 0.070 ppm to 0.060
 4   parts per million.  If the new standard is to
 5   truly protect the health of children, the
 6   elderly, and other sensitive groups, we
 7   believe the standard should be 0.060 parts per
 8   million.
 9               The council is also particularly
10   concerned with the issue of rounding.  The
11   present 8-hour average standard of 0.080 ppm
12   has effectively become a weaker standard of
13   0.085 ppm due to the rounding convention.
14   Monitored concentrations up to 0.084 ppm are
15   rounded down to 0.080 ppm.  In other words,
16   violations of the standard are not measured
17   until concentrations reach 0.085 ppm for more
18   than several days each year in a three-year
19   period.
20               Under the present policy,
21   exceedences are not reported until the fourth
22   highest maximum concentration averaged over
23   three years reaches 0.085 ppm or above, and
24   this effectively results in a weaker standard
25   and less protection of public health.
0265
 1               According to the CASAC panel,
 2   ozone monitoring instrumentation is now
 3   precise enough to allow ozone concentrations
 4   to be measured to a third significant digit.
 5   Adding a significant digit to the standard, as
 6   unanimously endorsed by the CASAC ozone panel,
 7   will eliminate the rounding problem, and,
 8   therefore, the council strongly supports EPA's
 9   proposal to eliminate the rounding loophole
10   and to set a standard in terms of three
11   significant digits.
12               We do reserve the right to submit
13   additional comments in writing during the
14   comment period.
15               Thank you very much for the
16   opportunity to comment on the proposed NAAQS
17   revisions.
18               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you,
19   Eric.
20               Ruth?
21               MS. LACHMAN-SUEKER:  My name is
22   Ruth Lachman-Sueker.  This is my first public
23   hearing of my life.  I'm here as a citizen, as
24   a mother, and as an educator.
25               My 17-year-old son, who's been an
0266
 1   athlete his whole life, developed
 2   exercise-induced asthma this spring.  He
 3   called me from the school, said he had played
 4   basketball, and he could not breathe.  He
 5   never had a history of asthma before.  He has
 6   to carry around an inhaler with him all the
 7   time.  He's still playing sports.  He's
 8   feeling a little bit better.  There was no
 9   question in my mind that the pollution in the
10   city of Philadelphia and in this country
11   caused this to my son.  That's my personal
12   experience.
13               As an educator and as a citizen,
14   I have become involved over the past year in a
15   program called Focus the Nation that works on
16   global warming solutions.  I would like to
17   read briefly a little bit of history having to
18   do with EPA and I'd like to make a comment.
19               In July 2003, it was discovered
20   that for months the EPA had been withholding
21   from Congress its own analysis showing the
22   proposal by moderate Senator Thomas Carper,
23   democrat of Delaware, would be more effective
24   than criticizing reducing pollutants and only
25   marginally more expensive.  The Washington
0267
 1   Post said it would result in 17,800 fewer
 2   premature deaths from (inaudible) air
 3   pollution, clear skies, saving 140 billion a
 4   year in health benefits.  In November 2003,
 5   the EPA announced that it was going to drop
 6   investigation of 60 power plants for past
 7   violations of Clean Air Act.  The EPA
 8   discouraged its staff from discussing this
 9   unprecedented decision to grant power plants a
10   retroactive waiver of the law on the same day
11   the agency also warned employees not to
12   communicate with members of congress, the
13   press, or the public about this change.
14               I have concerns about the EPA and
15   political pressure and industry pressures on
16   the EPA.  I feel very strongly that the EPA is
17   responsible for human health, for the health
18   of the ecosystem in which we live, and I
19   strongly urge the EPA to make an even lower
20   standard.  I feel that we are visibly seeing
21   the effects of pollution on the health of
22   humans and on the health of the ecosystems.
23   They are visible in ways they weren't visible
24   even five years ago.
25               I feel that to make the margin of
0268
 1   safety even larger, I propose it should be
 2   between 0.050 and 0.060 and it should go
 3   further than the recommendation, because I
 4   think that we will all regret it if we don't.
 5   And, again, I feel strongly that the EPA's
 6   primary commitment should be to human and
 7   ecosystem health and not to political pressure
 8   and not to industry pressure.
 9               Thank you very much.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
11   for coming today.  I appreciate your comments.
12               The last speaker for this
13   particular time segment is Michael Parker.
14               Welcome, Michael.
15               MR. PARKER:  Thank you.  Good
16   afternoon.  My name is Michael Parker, and I'm
17   here to give testimony on behalf of the Group
18   Against Smog and Pollution, also known as
19   GASP.  We are an environmental non-profit
20   corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
21   and our mission is to work for the stable
22   environment to which we are entitled.  We
23   thank the Environmental Protection Agency for
24   the opportunity to testify here today.
25               Ozone is a potent oxidant that
0269
 1   can burn our lungs and airways, and its health
 2   effects include reduced lung capacity,
 3   shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing, chest
 4   pain, inflammation and damage to the lining of
 5   the lungs, increased asthma attacks, increased
 6   medication use, increased hospitalizations,
 7   and even premature death.
 8               We are all affected by ozone
 9   pollution.  Numerous studies show that the
10   populations most at risk include children, the
11   elderly, people who work outdoors, people who
12   exercise outdoors, and those with chronic lung
13   disease.  The vast majority of Americans
14   either fall into one of these categories or
15   knows someone who does.
16               Also, ozone pollutants affect
17   vegetation, damaging our crops, our parks, and
18   our green spaces.  Furthermore, the EPA has
19   characterized ozone as a potent greenhouse
20   gas, and climate change affects us all.
21               For all of these reasons, we at
22   GASP feel quite confident in saying that the
23   ozone pollution is a detriment to every
24   American, and we are here today because the
25   EPA has proposed to strengthen the National
0270
 1   Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level
 2   ozone.  GASP strongly urges that the ozone
 3   standard be changed to 0.060 parts per
 4   million, which we believe complies with the
 5   Clean Air Act standards requiring the
 6   protection of public health within an adequate
 7   margin of safety.
 8               We also urge that the rounding
 9   loophole, which change the current standard to
10   0.084 parts per million, be abandoned.
11   Furthermore, GASP also recommends that the
12   secondary National Ambient Air Quality
13   Standard be set in the range recommended by
14   the Clean Air Scientific Committee; that range
15   being 7 ppm-hours to 15 ppm-hours.
16               GASP further requests that EPA
17   reject comments calling for the retention of
18   the current standard of 0.080 parts per
19   million.
20               GASP joins the numerous other
21   environmental public health and government
22   organizations in calling for these stricter
23   standards.
24               We make all these recommendations
25   based upon the findings of the EPA's own Clean
0271
 1   Air Scientific Advisory Committee.  That
 2   committee specifically found that, one, there
 3   was no scientific justification for retaining
 4   the current standard; two, that allowing
 5   states to round monitor readings between 0.081
 6   and 0.084 down to 0.080 is no longer necessary
 7   because of advances in the precision of ozone
 8   monitors; and, that the current standard does
 9   not provide an adequate margin of safety
10   required by the Clean Air Act.
11               Why does th Clean Air Scientific
12   Advisory Committee make these recommendations?
13   There are numerous clinical and
14   epidemiological studies showing that ozone
15   reduces lung function even in healthy adults;
16   that low levels of ozone cause respiratory
17   symptoms in infants; that the ozone can change
18   lung structure; that large populations are
19   sensitive to ozone; that ozone worsens
20   existing asthma and may cause asthma; that
21   ozone causes hospital admissions and emergency
22   room trips; and that ozone can increase the
23   risk of premature death.  For all these
24   reasons, GASP strongly urges that the ozone
25   National Ambient Air Quality Standard be
0272
 1   changed in accordance with the recommendations
 2   of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
 3   Committee, and specifically, that the lower
 4   end of the committee's range for the primary
 5   standard, that is, 0.060 parts per million, be
 6   chosen as the new standard.
 7               Thank you for the opportunity to
 8   be here today.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
10   here today.
11               We'll take a break and wait for
12   more people to come in and register and
13   continue with the hearing here shortly.
14                       - - -
15               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
16   from 3:58 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.)
17                      - - -
18               MR. PAGE:  Nancy, you're ready to
19   go?  Very good.  Thank you for coming by, and
20   we gather you're ready to present your
21   remarks?
22               MS. HIP (PH):  Okay.
23               MR. PAGE:  If you could spell
24   your name, also, for the court reporter.
25   We're doing a transcript of this, and all of
0273
 1   your comments will be entered into the record,
 2   as well as any written materials you want to
 3   leave with us.
 4               MS. HIP:  My name is Nancy Hip,
 5   and I'm a senior citizen.  I'm a retired
 6   school psychologist and coordinator of special
 7   education.  The group that I am here to lobby
 8   for are Oxygen Dependent Beings.  So far I
 9   believe I'm the only lobbyist with this
10   particular name.  Now, the particular cohort
11   of the group that I am representing are the
12   children, the little people, the
13   oxygen-dependent little people.
14               When I first began my career,
15   there would be a small number of children who
16   brought inhalers to school with their school
17   books, and those children would, during the
18   course of the day, if they needed to use the
19   inhaler, would use it.  By the time I had
20   finished my career, seven years ago, children
21   were no longer allowed to carry them around
22   with them in the school setting because
23   there's a drug inside, and they needed to have
24   them administered by someone, the school
25   nurse.
0274
 1               When I retired, at that time,
 2   those drugs were being brought in and given to
 3   the school nurse, and then at multiple times
 4   in the course of the day, children would be
 5   lining up at the nurse's office -- actually
 6   there were two lines:  one for the inhalers
 7   and one for the Ritalin.  My concern is the
 8   number of children.  When I saw these sad
 9   little lines lining up, I thought, what is the
10   problem?  What are we doing to theses kids?
11   There only used to be a few of them.  The air
12   feels as nice as it used to be.  Well, it's
13   not as nice as it used to be in 1997, when the
14   controls were not good then, and it definitely
15   was not that good seven years ago, and it's
16   worse.  And I'm sure that the sad little lines
17   are longer.
18               So the reason I am here
19   representing my people is because I want you,
20   when you return to Washington, to be the
21   people's voice on this issue of air quality
22   and what is needed.  I want you to speak for
23   people.  But first, before you do that, I want
24   you to visit your child's school, or if don't
25   have a child of your own, visit someone else's
0275
 1   child's school and watch the sad little lines,
 2   the sad little parades and ask yourself what
 3   we're doing to our future, our children, and
 4   that's the message that I would like to have
 5   taken back to Washington.
 6               Thank you.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
 8   for your comments.
 9               Audience Member:  What do we do
10   if no one else?
11               MR. PAGE:  Off the record.
12                       - - -
13               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
14   from 4:39 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.)
15                       - - -
16               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Lourdan?
17               MR. LOURDAN:  My name is Denny
18   Lourdan, and I'm from the Boston area.  I used
19   to work for Greenpeace, so I know all about,
20   you know, what's going on with the
21   environment, the ecology, you know, and -- but
22   I'm here to talk about two people.  My
23   brother, Bob Lourden, he was a teacher.  He
24   just retired from the Muldoon (ph) School
25   District, after, you know, teaching for 40
0276
 1   years.  But I grew up with him wheezing, you
 2   know, and going for that Albuterol all the
 3   time, so I'm here to talk for him.  You know,
 4   I know how desperately we need to reduce the
 5   ozone so that he can breathe easier.  When I
 6   got married to my wife, Lisa Weinberg (ph),
 7   her brother, Jeff, is also an asthmatic, so
 8   I'm here to speak for him as well.  I love
 9   these two men very dearly, and that's why I'm
10   here today.
11               I want to thank Penn
12   Environmental for setting this up.  It's the
13   most important thing and it's really the
14   greatest that they exist.  They're as good as
15   Greenpeace at getting it done.  I have signed
16   up for everything they do online, but I also
17   told my daughter, Leona (ph), about you and
18   told her I was going to be here today -- and
19   my son too, Jeremy.  Jeremy also is borderline
20   asthmatic, so I'm also here for him.
21               It's really sad, last year when
22   Jeff got a present from his dad, Kenny
23   Weinberg, of a breathing machine, you know,
24   so...
25               I guess that's all I have to say.
0277
 1               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Thank you for
 2   coming by.  We appreciate you making the
 3   effort.
 4               MR. LOURDAN:  Thank you very much
 5   for having this.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 7               MR. LOURDAN:  The pleasure is all
 8   mine.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Any more speakers or
10   are we...
11                       - - -
12               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
13   from 4:48 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.)
14                       - - -
15               MR. PAGE:  I don't believe I got
16   your name.
17               MS. LAVELLE:  It's Alice.  My
18   name is Alice-Eve LaVelle, and Alice-Eve is a
19   hyphenated first name.
20               MR. PAGE:  How do you spell your
21   last name?
22               MS. LAVELLE:  L-A-capital V, as
23   in victory-E-L-L-E.  And believe it or not,
24   it's Irish.  We're Bell Telephone Bells.
25   That's why we capitalized it.  One of my aunts
0278
 1   decided she wanted to put on airs and make it
 2   look French.  But there are no French
 3   LaVelles.
 4               MR. PAGE:  All right.
 5               MS. LAVELLE:  Okay.  Well, I'm a
 6   native Philadelphian and a naturalized Texan,
 7   and I lived here for most of 40 years of my
 8   life.  I began life as a very active, skinny
 9   kid, who could, because I loved horses, leap
10   over two picnic benches, one on top of the
11   other, like it was nothing.  They didn't let
12   girls go and run for track in my day, so, you
13   know, all of that.
14               But I began to, as I became an
15   adult, have less and less ability to breathe.
16   Part of that was due to my father's smoking,
17   but not all of it.  The climate here is crappy
18   anyway, and then with the smog and so forth,
19   it gets worse and worse.  I have, according to
20   one doctor, the lung capacity of an
21   80-year-old.  And as time came, I could not
22   move around as much, so I got heavier and
23   heavier and could move around less.
24               At 40, I moved down to Texas,
25   into Austin, which was a wonderful place.
0279
 1   Then George Bush became governor and the place
 2   became incredibly crowded.  It went from
 3   350,000 people to over a million almost
 4   overnight.  It's a constant traffic jam down
 5   there.  It takes hours to get from one end to
 6   the other; it used to take 20 minutes.  And I
 7   began to not be able to breathe even more, and
 8   I have now the little Albuterol thing to carry
 9   around.
10               This is pretty upsetting.  When I
11   moved back up here, it was because of -- we
12   all got too poor to be able to stay there,
13   unless you were very well off.  And I moved to
14   a couple of places, and then I was living in
15   Holmesdale, Pennsylvania, in the Poconos.  I
16   lived at the top of a hill.  It took me 20
17   minutes to walk from my house to the town part
18   to where the shopping area was, but it took me
19   an hour and a half to walk back up the hill
20   home because I can't breathe.  This is insane.
21               And I love my cars as much as
22   anybody.  Texans are -- first we creep, then
23   we crawl, then we drive.  But this is getting
24   crazy.  And all of this nonsense about keeping
25   the levels higher so the oil companies and
0280
 1   power companies and so forth can continue to
 2   pollute is crazy.  The rest of the world and
 3   those people like us, we're your canaries, and
 4   when we're dying, you are too.  You know, I
 5   read about how they're trying to leave it
 6   until 2050 for these companies to come to
 7   compliance with various things.  We don't have
 8   that kind of time.  This earth doesn't have
 9   that kind of time.  And I can buy my cars from
10   Europe and Japan, where they're actually
11   paying attention to getting better gas mileage
12   and using less fossil fuels.  I think that
13   once I can afford again to have a car, that's
14   what I'll do.
15               And if we don't strengthen this
16   up and we -- we don't have much time.  We have
17   maybe 10 years, 20 at tops, to get this
18   straightened out.  And if 0.060 is a goal, I
19   think it needs to be the actual absolute
20   maximum and you need to even bring it down
21   further than that.  And it can be done.  I
22   have no doubt that Detroit already has all the
23   things on the books to start with cars that
24   are better now, and that oil companies can
25   straighten up.  They can change and they can
0281
 1   use -- they can put their money into something
 2   different.
 3               The other day, I heard that five
 4   nations are trying now to go up and claim the
 5   Arctic ice cap and the petroleum that's
 6   underneath it.  At the same time, the next
 7   thing on 60 Minutes two weeks ago was what is
 8   happening to the Arctic and the Antarctic and
 9   how desperate this situation is.  We don't
10   have time.  We need to do this as strictly as
11   possible.
12               I'm tired of the EPA having to
13   become the IPA, the industrial protection
14   agency.  And I'm not talking about you or
15   talking you all down, but I know that you've
16   been given some really rotten people to work
17   for by this administration.  They don't care
18   about us.  They don't care about whether we
19   breathe.  And enough is enough.  We need to
20   have a clean world because everybody is going
21   to die with this, not just the poor, not just
22   the middle class.  There's not an amount of
23   money in the world that's going to save us if
24   we keep destroying the environment we live in.
25                       - - -
0282
 1               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
 2                       - - -
 3               MS. LAVELLE:  Can I get one more
 4   second?
 5               MR. PAGE:  (Indicating.)
 6               MS. LAVELLE:  I talked to a woman
 7   one day who was talking about "the
 8   environment," "the environment," like it was
 9   something nasty.  It's where we live.  We're
10   part of it.  We have got to protect it.
11               Thank you.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
13   for coming by.  Appreciate it.
14               MS. LAVELLE:  Oh.  Just one more
15   thing I wanted just to note generally.  I was
16   born and raised here, on the Main Line,
17   upper-middle class, plenty of money.  I am now
18   living in a rooming house that is rat-infested
19   on $657 a month disability, SSI.  I cannot go
20   up and down the stairs in my building very
21   easily.  I was not raised to live like this.
22   Think about it.  If it can happen to me, it
23   can happen to anybody.
24                       - - -
25               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
0283
 1   from 5:12 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.)
 2                       - - -
 3               MR. PAGE:  Kate, thank you for
 4   coming by.  Have you been given material out
 5   at the front?
 6               MS. HAWK:  I have.
 7               MR. PAGE:  You're properly
 8   registered and all?
 9               MS. HAWK:  I am.
10               MR. PAGE:  Good.  All right.
11   We'll look forward to your comments then.
12   Thank you.
13               MS. HAWK:  Thank you.  My name is
14   Kate Hawk, and I'm a second-year medical
15   student at Drexel University of Medicine and a
16   student leader with Physicians for Social
17   Responsibility and the American Medical
18   Student Association.
19               I urge the EPA to follow the
20   recommendations of their Clean Air Scientific
21   Advisory Committee and set the 8-hour ozone
22   limit for 0.060 parts per million.  As a
23   medical student, I feel it's an important part
24   of my responsibility to advocate for the
25   health of future patients and the overall
0284
 1   health of our country.  Current standards do
 2   not adequately protect the health of our
 3   county and scientific evidence shows that smog
 4   is a powerful lung irritant, leads to reactive
 5   airway disease, asthma -- I mean, I know you
 6   guys have been hearing this all day.  I'm
 7   sorry.
 8               MR. PAGE:  That's all right.
 9               MS. HAWK:  But I guess my point
10   is that this isn't just -- it's not even
11   amongst our most vulnerable populations.  This
12   is one of the things that seems to strewn
13   about.  I am currently -- almost 29.  I moved
14   to Philadelphia three years ago.  I had no
15   problems with respiratory illnesses at all.
16   In less than four months of living in downtown
17   Philadelphia, I developed asthma.  So this is
18   something that I both, you know, I see in
19   clinic, certainly with kids, older
20   populations, but I also have experienced it
21   myself.
22               So I guess to sum up, I don't
23   feel like the current recommendations really
24   satisfy the margin of safety, and I really
25   urge the EPA to uphold its obligation to
0285
 1   protect public health.
 2               Thank you very much.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
 4   by.  I know you have a busy schedule, and we
 5   appreciate your comments.
 6               MS. HAWK:  Thank you so much.
 7                       - - -
 8               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
 9   from 5:26 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.)
10                       - - -
11               MR. PAGE:  Claudia, are you
12   ready?
13               MS. CRANE:  Yes.
14               MR. PAGE:  Registered and
15   everything?
16               MS. CRANE:  Yes.
17               MR. PAGE:  For the sake of our
18   court reporter, would you spell your last
19   name?
20               MS. CRANE:  Crane is my last
21   name, C-R-A-N-E.  Claudia is my first,
22   C-L-A-U-D-I-A.
23               I'm an asthma sufferer, but so
24   what?  Don't we all have the right to breathe
25   clean air?  This hearing is sort of
0286
 1   ridiculous.  Why do we even have to keep on
 2   being here at these things over and over
 3   again, talking about, you know, what right do
 4   we have -- the rights we have to breathe clean
 5   air?  No amount of ozone is good; everybody
 6   knows that.  No amount of particulate is good;
 7   everybody knows that.
 8               I call upon the EPA -- I am, of
 9   course, in support of these new smog
10   standards.  But I call upon the EPA, if not in
11   this administration, in the next, to -- this
12   administration, I don't think, is going to
13   support anything -- to do all that it can to
14   -- any process that uses energy causes air
15   pollution of some kind.  Even windmills create
16   air pollution, if only by their construction.
17               So the EPA needs to promote
18   policies that take a global look at the energy
19   inputs into any kind of process and promote
20   those policies that use the least amount of
21   energy cradle to grave.  I mean, obviously,
22   windmills are one end and burning dirty coal
23   is at the other end.
24               I am a bicyclist, that's how I
25   get around, so I'm very aware of the air I
0287
 1   breathe all the time.  I'm confronted with it
 2   all the time.  I live in the city, but some
 3   suburbanites are just as much confronted; they
 4   just don't realize it.  I'm a member of the
 5   Clean Air Council, Penn Environment.  I'm a
 6   nurse, a registered nurse, so I have some
 7   modicum of scientific literacy.  And I'm so
 8   annoyed that this stuff has to keep getting
 9   repeated over and over again.  You know, I've
10   been an activist, as much as I can be in the
11   time I have, for all kinds of environmental
12   stuff for many years.
13               Let the EPA do whatever it can --
14   let it make -- make environmentalism
15   patriotic.  We need to wrap the flag around
16   it.  EPA should come up with an environmental
17   quotient, you know, as opposed to IQ and EQ,
18   and have some sort of checklist that
19   individuals and corporations can score
20   themselves on and make it -- you know, it's
21   just -- the (inaudible) is just missing
22   because we really need the government to take
23   the lead on it, and it's not.  And I hope it
24   happens soon.  If not, again, in this
25   administration, but in the next.
0288
 1               Thank you very much.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 3   for coming by and sharing your comments.  If
 4   you want to give your written comments so we
 5   can put them in the docket --
 6               MS. HAWK:  I'll mail them later.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  You have until
 8   October 9th.
 9               MS. HAWK:  Okay.
10               MR. PAGE:  Terrific.
11                       - - -
12               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
13   from 5:56 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
14                       - - -
15               MR. PAGE:  Just for the record, I
16   want to let people know that we're now going
17   to take our scheduled break.  We'll be back at
18   7:30 and start the meeting portion.
19                       - - -
20               (Whereupon, a dinner recess was
21   taken, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:43 p.m.)
22                       - - -
23                MR. PAGE:  Welcome, Dr. Emmett.
24   You'll be our first speaker of the evening.
25   During different segments of the day, we've
0289
 1   stopped to kind of go over the EPA's proposal,
 2   et cetera.  I have been told that you're very
 3   familiar with the EPA's proposal and you don't
 4   need the three-minute intro, that kind of
 5   stuff; that you came ready to fire away.  So
 6   we are ready to hear you.
 7               DR. EMMETT:  Okay.  And I will
 8   apologize because I'm getting a migraine, so
 9   reading's going to be real exciting right now.
10               MR. PAGE:  Well, then you sure
11   don't need me yammering at you for 20 minutes,
12   so let's call a truce and you dive in.
13               DR. EMMETT:  My name is Gary
14   Emmett.  I a professor of pediatrics at Thomas
15   Jefferson University, one of the founding
16   members of Philadelphia Allies Against Asthma,
17   I'm chair of Providers Committee that produced
18   the Philadelphia State Asthma Action Plan, and
19   I'm also a member of the Board of Health for
20   the City of Philadelphia.  Maybe a little bit
21   more relevant, I am the pediatric consultant
22   for the Region 3 EPA, in terms of asthma.
23               One out of every six children in
24   Philadelphia has an asthma attack during
25   childhood.  Asthma is the number one medical
0290
 1   cause of school absenteeism in Philadelphia.
 2   A major cause of childhood asthma
 3   exacerbations is air pollution.
 4               According to a May 2007 EPA
 5   handout:  Asthma prevalence is inversely
 6   related to wealth, so that the poorest people
 7   with the least resources are the ones most
 8   affected by this often life-threatening
 9   disease; asthma is the most prevalent chronic
10   disease of childhood; indoor air pollution --
11   secondhand smoke, dust mites, cockroaches --
12   and outdoor pollution -- ozone and particulate
13   matter -- contribute to asthma attacks.
14               When ozone levels are high, more
15   people with asthma have attacks that require a
16   doctor's care.  Indoor causes of asthma are
17   more likely to set off an attack when the
18   outdoor levels are raised.
19               Internationally, increased ozone
20   levels, particularly from truck exhaust, are
21   major promoters of asthma.  Children living
22   along busy truck routes are found in multiple
23   countries to have 60 percent or more chances
24   of having an asthma attack.  In southern
25   California, communities with high ozone
0291
 1   concentrations, children who played outside
 2   had three times higher chance of developing
 3   asthma than those who played in less
 4   concentrated ozone environments.
 5               According to Joel Schwartz, a
 6   professor at the Harvard School of Public
 7   Health, a number of papers have reported that
 8   prenatal exposure to air pollution results in
 9   early fetal loss, premature delivery, and
10   lower birth weight.  In short, maternal
11   exposure to air pollution during pregnancy is
12   associated with adverse birth outcomes and
13   adverse perinatal outcomes.  At the same time,
14   multiple papers have shown that raised ozone
15   and particulate levels can cause predominance
16   of the TH-2 hormonal immunity over the TH-1
17   cellular immunity, and we know this
18   displacement of TH-1 by TH-2 is associated
19   with increased levels of asthma.  Significant
20   air pollution is associated with increased
21   childhood deaths, especially among
22   adolescents.
23               Ozone levels are high in the
24   summer when the sun is shining and lower at
25   night and in the winter.  Unfortunately, ozone
0292
 1   is highest when children are outdoors and most
 2   likely to be affected by it.  High ozone
 3   levels in Paris, France are strongly
 4   associated with increased physician house
 5   calls for asthma treatment.
 6               During the Atlanta Olympic ban on
 7   trucks and cars, asthma emergency visits to
 8   regional hospitals to Atlanta went down by
 9   more than 50 percent.
10               College freshman have their lung
11   functions go down as the ozone levels of their
12   surroundings increase.  Ozone and/or
13   particulate material, especially that produced
14   by trucks, are associated at all ages of
15   childhood with increased asthma exacerbation.
16               I'm a primary caregiver for over
17   3,000 children in the city of Philadelphia.
18   One of my patients is a multiply handicapped
19   young man with congenital heart disease,
20   congenital lung disease, and the residua of a
21   stroke that has left him partially paralyzed.
22   He is 13 years old and would like to do
23   nothing better than go outside and enjoy the
24   summer sun, and within his limited abilities,
25   he loves to hit, throw, and hobble around the
0293
 1   baseball fields, just as any other 13-year-old
 2   boy would like to.  Unfortunately, on a day
 3   when pollution is higher, especially late in
 4   the afternoon in the summer, he literally
 5   cannot step out of his house and breathe
 6   without developing an asthma exacerbation and
 7   the need for more oxygen.  He is trapped in
 8   the house if the ozone level goes up from its
 9   Philadelphia baseline.  He doesn't have much
10   he can do with his ravaged body other than
11   play carefully outside, and even then, his
12   play is very limited.  Ozone makes it
13   impossible.
14               In short, we know ozone hates
15   children -- hurts children.  We know ozone
16   specifically affects children like my young
17   friend.  Driving down the average level of
18   ozone, and more importantly, driving down the
19   peak levels of ozone, will enable all our
20   children to enjoy the warmth of every summer
21   afternoon.
22               Thank you.
23               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
24   for coming by.
25                       - - -
0294
 1               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
 2                       - - -
 3               DR. EMMETT:  I guess I was done.
 4   Do you have any questions?
 5               MR. PAGE:  No.  No.  Thank you
 6   very much, sir.
 7               DR. EMMETT:  Do you want a copy?
 8               MR. PAGE:  Absolutely, yes.  They
 9   usually take a copy of it right when you get
10   in the doorway.
11               DR. EMMETT:  Okay.  No one asked
12   me when I came in.
13               MR. PAGE:  We'll put it in the
14   record, actually in the docket.  Thank you.
15                       - - -
16               (Whereupon, a recess was taken
17   from 7:50 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
18                      - - -
19               MR. PAGE:  Whenever you're ready,
20   Mr. White.  I guess spelling your name won't
21   be too difficult for the court reporter, Ron
22   White, as far as names go.  Welcome.
23               MR. WHITE:  My name is Ronald
24   White.  For identification purposes, I'm
25   employed as an associate scientist in the
0295
 1   Department of Epidemiology at the Johns
 2   Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
 3   However, I'm presenting my testimony at public
 4   hearing as a private citizen, and I am not
 5   representing Johns Hopkins University.
 6               EPA Administrator Johnson's
 7   forthcoming decision regarding whether to
 8   revise the current ozone standard, and if so
 9   to what level, has enormous potential
10   consequences for the health and welfare of
11   this nation's population.  As I will discuss,
12   the scientific evidence is overwhelming that
13   the current ozone NAAQS is inadequate to
14   protect the health of Americans, particularly
15   the young, the elderly, people with
16   preexisting respiratory disease, and those
17   most exposed to ozone, such as outdoor workers
18   and exercisers.
19               As early as 1990 evidence emerged
20   from human clinical studies conducted in EPA's
21   own laboratories indicating that some healthy
22   young adults exposed to ozone levels of 80
23   parts per billion, which is below the
24   effective 8-hour ozone standard of 84 parts
25   per billion, while exercising for 6.6 hours
0296
 1   responded with clinically relevant reductions
 2   in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and
 3   biochemical evidence of injurious respiratory
 4   inflammation.  By the mid 1990s evidence had
 5   emerged indicating that respiratory tract
 6   inflammation and injury in healthy subjects
 7   persisted beyond initial exposure to ozone and
 8   were not correlated to decrements in lung
 9   function or symptoms, raising concerns that
10   individuals incurring lung injury would not
11   necessarily have exercise-limiting lung
12   decrements or respiratory symptoms and could
13   potentially continue to expose themselves to
14   injurious levels of ozone.
15               Of particular concern was the
16   finding that asthmatics responded with greater
17   respiratory tract inflammation and injury than
18   healthy subjects.  Consistent with this
19   clinical evidence was information from
20   epidemiological studies indicating that mean
21   daily ozone levels as low as 60 parts per
22   billion and above were associated with a 26
23   percent increase in hospital emergency
24   department visits for asthma.  My point in
25   highlighting these older studies is to note
0297
 1   relatively early evidence that exposure to
 2   ozone levels below the effective current ozone
 3   standard is associated with various adverse
 4   respiratory health outcomes, suggesting that
 5   the ozone NAAQS adopted in 1997 was not
 6   sufficient to protect public health let alone
 7   providing an adequate margin of safety as,
 8   required by the Clean Air Act.
 9               The 2006 EPA Ozone Criteria
10   Document does an excellent job of summarizing
11   the massive amount of health study data that
12   has emerged over the past decade, much of
13   which supports and extends the earlier
14   evidence of acute adverse respiratory health
15   effects from ozone exposures below the current
16   NAAQS.  For example, the clinical study by
17   Adams of lung function in healthy adult
18   subjects extends the range of ozone exposures
19   down to 40 parts per billion, and the EPA
20   Ozone Criteria Document notes that lung
21   function decrements of greater than 10
22   percent, which were clinically significant,
23   were found in 7 percent of the subjects
24   undergoing 6.6 hours of moderate exercise at
25   both the 40 and 60 ppb exposure concentrations
0298
 1   when results are corrected for comparison with
 2   filtered air, that is, the ozone-induced
 3   changes.  As previously mentioned, asthmatics
 4   are particularly at risk to the acute effects
 5   of ozone.  Of the four major air pollutants --
 6   ozone, PM10, SO2, and NO2 -- studied by
 7   Mortimer, et al. in eight US cities, multi-day
 8   ozone levels had a small but significant
 9   impact on morning peak expiratory flow lung
10   function in asthmatic children exposed to mean
11   8-hour ozone averaged levels of approximately
12   50 ppb, and an association of ozone levels
13   with increases in respiratory symptoms was
14   found even when excluding days with levels
15   above 80 ppm.  Consistent with the evidence of
16   increased impact of ozone on respiratory
17   symptoms and medication use in asthmatics, the
18   Ozone Criteria Document notes that most of the
19   studies of respiratory hospital admissions in
20   the US and Canada have found associations
21   during the warm seasons with ozone levels as
22   low as 50 ppb.
23               Of particular concern from a
24   public health perspective is the evidence that
25   exposure to ozone levels well below the
0299
 1   current standard is associated with increased
 2   risk of premature death.  Several
 3   well-designed and analyzed US multi-city
 4   epidemiologic studies, which avoid the issues
 5   of limited statistical power and publication
 6   bias potentially associated with single-city
 7   studies, have found robust associations with
 8   increases in ozone levels and all-cause and
 9   cardiovascular death.  Of particular relevance
10   to consideration of the adequacy of the
11   current ozone NAAQS were findings indicating
12   that the association between ozone and
13   mortality was preserved even when data was
14   restricted to 24-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb
15   or less.  In addition, associations between
16   ambient ozone and mortality were found in
17   meta-analyses of time-series studies conducted
18   independently by three different research
19   groups.  A recent study by Bell, et al. found
20   that the relationship between ambient ozone
21   and mortality in 98 US communities was not
22   confounded by PM10 and PM2.5 and that this
23   relationship persisted even when only
24   extremely low ozone levels, less than 10 ppb,
25   were considered, suggesting there are benefits
0300
 1   to reducing ozone concentrations to the lowest
 2   possible levels.
 3               Time limitations prevent further
 4   review of the compelling scientific evidence
 5   that levels of ozone allowed under the current
 6   primary air quality standard are not
 7   protective of public health.  As summarized by
 8   CASAC in their own ozone staff paper review
 9   letter, the health effects associated with
10   ozone levels below the current NAAQS include
11   the following in addition to lung function
12   decrements... "an increase in school
13   absenteeism, increases in hospital emergency
14   department visits among asthmatics and
15   patients with other respiratory diseases, an
16   increase in the hospitalizations for
17   respiratory illness, an increase in
18   respiratory symptoms associated with adverse
19   effects, including chest tightness and
20   medication use, and an increase in mortality
21   reported at levels well below the current
22   standard."  I agree with CASAC's finding that
23   the scientific evidence is compelling that the
24   current ozone standard is not adequate to
25   protect public health.
0301
 1               EPA's risk assessment document
 2   provides documentation of substantial
 3   reductions in premature total, respiratory and
 4   cardiorespiratory deaths, hospital admissions
 5   for respiratory admissions, asthmatic symptoms
 6   in moderate and severe asthmatic children, and
 7   lung function decrements in children at a
 8   level of -- ozone NAAQS level of 64 ppb, the
 9   lowest alternative NAAQS level considered in
10   the risk assessment analysis, when compared
11   with higher alternative standards.  Given both
12   the evidence that low levels of ozone down to
13   and including the range of background
14   concentrations can result in serious adverse
15   health effects, and the substantial
16   interindividual variability in human response
17   to ozone pollution, there are likely to be
18   some sensitive individuals who will not be
19   fully protected from the health effects of
20   ozone even at 60 ppb, the lowest level
21   recommended by CASAC.  In fact, the World
22   Health Organization recently identified an
23   8-hour ozone guideline level equivalent to 51
24   parts per billion as providing adequate
25   protection of public health, though noting
0302
 1   that some health effects may occur below even
 2   this level.  While I concur with CASAC's
 3   finding that the scientific evidence for
 4   adverse effects at levels below 60 ppb are
 5   less certain, I also support their finding
 6   that there are substantial and achievable
 7   gains in public health that can be achieved by
 8   significantly lowering the ozone NAAQS level.
 9               In conclusion, I strongly urge
10   EPA Administrator Johnson to adopt a revised
11   primary ozone standard no higher than 60 ppb
12   averaged over eight hours in order to provide
13   improved public health protection from this
14   pollutant.
15               Thank you.  I'll be happy to
16   answer any questions.
17               MR. PAGE:  No questions.  Thank
18   you for your statement, and we appreciate the
19   effort that you took in coming here.
20               We are calling up our speakers
21   two at a time to save a little bit of time
22   here.  So if Dr. Gwen DuBois and Dr. Richard
23   Humphrey are ready to talk.
24               Have each of you and you all been
25   registered at the front, I gather, and been
0303
 1   told about the five minute limit and...
 2               (Indicating.)
 3               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Very good.
 4               DR. HUMPHREY:  Is it five total
 5   or five for each?
 6               MR. PAGE:  Five for each.
 7               MS. DUBOIS:  And how do you let
 8   us know?
 9               MR. PAGE:  Good question.  The
10   lights here.  So you've got green, you've got
11   three minutes.  I think at two minutes left,
12   you've got yellow.  And then you're going to
13   hear this really annoying alarm, and it will
14   give you the same reaction that you get from
15   your alarm clock.  It will make you cringe,
16   and that's when your time is up.
17               By the way, I do want to tell you
18   that if you don't get through your statements,
19   the commentary is open until October 9th and
20   we will accept written statements and we'll
21   make it a part of the original record.
22               MS. DUBOIS:  I am Dr. Gwen
23   DuBois, and I'm a busy internist at Sinai
24   Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland and instructor
25   of medical students at Johns Hopkins School of
0304
 1   Medicine.  I'm also the mother of four
 2   children, two whom have asthma despite the
 3   fact that neither in my husband or my family
 4   is there any history of asthma.  The
 5   occurrence of asthma in two of our four
 6   children, despite the lack of family history
 7   puzzled me until I read studies in the
 8   respected journal Lancet, which found that
 9   physically active children who play in
10   communities where there's a high level of
11   ozone pollution were likely to develop
12   new-onset asthma than active children in less
13   ozone polluted environments.
14               I've come to testify in favor of
15   stronger air quality standards for ozone
16   pollution that is consistent with the growing
17   body of evidence that ozone pollution harms
18   and ozone pollution kills.
19               A recent study in the District of
20   Columbia found a statistically significant
21   relationship between pediatric ER visits for
22   asthma, hospital admissions and ozone
23   pollution.  The strongest relationship was
24   seen in five to twelve-year-olds.  And in
25   addition, the higher the level of poverty, the
0305
 1   more likely the risk of the asthma admissions.
 2               Another study from Belgium found
 3   inflammatory changes in the airways of
 4   children at ambient ozone levels below current
 5   air quality standards for that country, and
 6   I'm quite certain that Belgium has lower
 7   standards than the US if they conform with the
 8   World Health Organization standards.
 9               A study from the Harvard School
10   of Public Health that was conducted in 36
11   cities found that a 5 parts per billion
12   cumulative two day increase in ozone was
13   associated with significant increase in COPD
14   and pneumonia admissions.
15               Another study looking at the
16   relationship between serious cardiac
17   arrhythmias and air pollution using data from
18   patients with implantable cardiovert
19   defibrillators, ICDs, found a significant
20   increase in atrial fibrillation associated
21   with ozone concentrations, and, of course,
22   atrial fibrillation is a major cause of
23   stroke, so that means that there is likely
24   more strokes on days when there are higher
25   ozone levels.
0306
 1               A Spanish study found a
 2   correlation between ozone levels and hospital
 3   admissions for cardiovascular and heart
 4   diseases.
 5               The World Health Organization
 6   currently recommends 60 parts per billion
 7   average 8-hour standards.
 8               Canada's standards are 50 parts
 9   per billion, or I guess that's 0.050 parts per
10   million.
11               As we know, EPA's own Clean Air
12   Advisory Committee recommended the standard
13   should be reduced between 0.060 and 0.070
14   parts per million.
15               Dr. Ingbar, president of the
16   American Thoracic Society, called for the EPA
17   -- there's a typo there -- to reduce standards
18   to 0.060 parts per million, and he called the
19   proposed standards of 0.075 unhealthy for
20   America's kids, unhealthy for American
21   seniors, and unhealthy for America.
22               On August 25th -- I don't know
23   how many people here heard -- NPR reported a
24   study about Arvin, California, a city where
25   there are more ozone violations than any other
0307
 1   community in the country.  The reporter
 2   interviewed one of the doctors in the clinic
 3   there.  Of the doctors, 50 percent have
 4   asthma -- and I think the incidence -- I
 5   looked on the Internet and found the incidence
 6   of asthma was 17.5 percent -- and some
 7   children have such severe disease that he
 8   discussed children who couldn't even eat and
 9   read at the same without difficulty.  Looking
10   at Arvin, California, is that the future we're
11   looking at?  Will we need to tell our children
12   to stay inside and play cards rather than swim
13   or play baseball outside, as we used to do?
14               The stockholders not here today
15   are the children or our children's children
16   yet to be born.  Who will speak for them?  Not
17   the lobbyists from trucking or fossil fuel
18   industry, nor the federal administration who
19   has little interest -- not you guys -- in the
20   air we breathe if there are profits to be lost
21   to the fossil fuel industry in cleaning up the
22   air.
23               What about the EPA?  Will you
24   protect from environmental degradation and the
25   loss of life and quality of life that we risk
0308
 1   without the protection, or should we compete
 2   with China to be one of the nations with the
 3   dirtiest air on the planet?  The answer rests
 4   with you.
 5               Thank you.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 7   for your statement.
 8               DR. HUMPHREY:  My name is Richard
 9   L. Humphrey.  I am in my 48th year at Johns
10   Hopkins University School of Medicine,
11   enjoying appointments over the years in
12   internal medicine, oncology, pathology, and in
13   the school of public health policy and
14   management.
15               When I began my career in
16   oncology, one of the drugs that we were
17   looking at -- this was a long time ago, of
18   course, but one of the drugs that we were
19   looking at was nitrogen mustard.  And nitrogen
20   mustard was developed during World War I by
21   the Germans for use in the battlefield.  It
22   had a lot of problems because once you
23   released it into the air, it was heavy and it
24   clung to the ground, but change in wind would
25   blow it back on you.  And the purpose of this
0309
 1   nitrogen mustard was to cook the interior
 2   lining of the lungs.  And as it was breathed,
 3   the chemical reaction going on inside the
 4   lungs caused fluids from the body to come into
 5   the lungs, and the person would drown in their
 6   own body fluids.
 7               We were using it because it's
 8   also very effective and helpful in
 9   chemotherapy and was one of the drugs that led
10   to the solution of and cure of Hodgkin's
11   disease when used in combination with other
12   drugs.  But dramatic effects of this drug,
13   when you tried to give it intravenously, if --
14   and it had to be given intravenously -- if it
15   leaked out of a blood vessel at all, the toxic
16   effects of this drug were remarkable.  It
17   would cause extraordinary pain, and as it
18   leaked out, it destroyed the tissues around
19   the vein, in muscle, tendon, bone, skin, and
20   so on, and the patient was left with huge
21   ulcerations, difficult to heal.
22               And as I prepared for my
23   testimony here about this ozone, I don't know
24   why this keeps coming back into my head, but
25   the ozone seemed to me to be very much like a
0310
 1   slow low-level nitrogen mustard that is
 2   exposing children and the elderly people who
 3   go outside to exercise and -- and all of us,
 4   in fact; the air belongs to all of us.  As a
 5   sort of slow-acting nitrogen mustard or a
 6   mustard gas in which we all breathe and that
 7   have the demonstrated toxic effects on the
 8   lungs that are well-documented and -- as
 9   you'll be hearing about from the testimony as
10   you go across the country -- leading to
11   premature deaths, leading to disability,
12   triggering asthma.
13               Asthma is one of the largest
14   costs of chronic illness in the country.
15   Billions of dollars are spent by people who
16   come to the emergency room, have to take
17   medications chronically, are unable to climb
18   and go up and down stairs, loss of employment
19   time, disability, and so on.  The ozone does
20   this, and I encourage you and hope that you
21   will report back to the other folks in the EPA
22   that we need as stringent as possible -- not
23   practical, not economic; those are not the
24   considerations, public health is the thing
25   that is most important -- but that we need to
0311
 1   get our levels down consistent with what's
 2   been published and adopted by other leading
 3   industrial nations in the world -- Canada the
 4   European Union, and so on -- to see if we
 5   can't get rid of some of this chronic nitrogen
 6   mustard gas exposure that we're all exposed
 7   to.
 8               And I appreciate you're being
 9   here and your efforts in this regard, and I
10   know you're going to hear additional similar
11   testimony across the country, but I thought my
12   perspective might be helpful.
13               MR. PAGE:  It is helpful, and we
14   appreciate you being here.
15               MR. HUMPHREY:  Any questions?
16               MR. PAGE:  No.  Thank you.  Thank
17   you very much.  We appreciate you making the
18   effort to be up here to --
19               DR. HUMPHREY:  Sorry we were
20   late.
21               MR. PAGE:  No problem.  No
22   problem at all.
23               The next two speakers we'll call
24   up are Dr. Cindy Parker and Dr. Steven
25   Shapiro.
0312
 1               Welcome.
 2               DR. SHAPIRO:  Thank you.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Dr. Parker, you're the
 4   next one listed here.
 5               DR. PARKER:  Okay.  I am Cindy
 6   Parker.  I'm a preventive medicine physician
 7   at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
 8   Health.  I specialize in environmental health
 9   issues, in particular, climate change and how
10   that interacts with air and water and
11   ecosystems, et cetera.
12               I figured you probably have
13   already heard a lot of information about the
14   direct effects of ozone on human health, so I
15   thought that perhaps I would talk more about
16   the indirect effects of ozone on human health,
17   and that that might be something new.  Who
18   knows.
19               There's truckloads of evidence
20   that ozone causes damage to human lung tissue
21   and such, but it turns out that plants aren't
22   any happier about, quote, breathing ozone,
23   than we are, and it's actually quite damaging
24   to plants, and it actually the whole plant,
25   from the roots to the leaves; it really
0313
 1   affects every life function of the plant; it
 2   reduces growth; it reduces their ability to
 3   reproduce; it reduces their ability to take in
 4   nutrients and to metabolize.  And this is an
 5   important thing for humans because, obviously,
 6   our food system is plant-based, and so
 7   anything that affects the base of our food
 8   chain will also affect our health.  It's not
 9   very reasonable to think about or to talk
10   about a healthy population if we don't have
11   enough to eat.
12               In addition to food crops, ozone
13   also has the same effect on forests and
14   wetlands, for example, that help to filter our
15   water.  It also, then, is intimately involved
16   with how much water availability we have.
17   And, again, without sufficient water, the
18   current health is somewhat meaningless to a
19   population.  So I'd like for you to think
20   about the effects of ozone not just on humans,
21   but then on the other things that we
22   absolutely rely on for our health and for our
23   very well-being.
24               And then how ozone interacts with
25   climate changes is sort of another ballpark
0314
 1   altogether.  It does so in a variety of ways.
 2   One is that climate change is its own separate
 3   stressor for plants and ecosystems, already
 4   causing them to be stressed and to not produce
 5   as well; and then we know that climate change,
 6   warmer temperatures are going to make ozone
 7   concentrations higher, and so there is a real
 8   sort of snowball effect there.
 9               One of the other things is that
10   the summer ozone produces season -- or the
11   warm -- or the warm summer is apt to get quite
12   a bit longer in a warmer world as well.  So
13   even though the dates on the calendar may not
14   change, a functional spring will come earlier,
15   fall will come later, and we'll have a lot
16   more sort of ozone alert time period in there
17   to damage both humans and plants and
18   compromise the ecosystems on which we live.
19               Heat waves in a warmer world are
20   expected to come more frequently, last longer,
21   be more severe, and ozone was actually thought
22   to play a major role in the 45,000-plus deaths
23   in western Europe that occurred during the
24   summer heat wave of 2003.  They're still
25   trying to tease out sort of how many of those
0315
 1   deaths could be directly attributed to ozone
 2   and how many to heat alone.  We may never be
 3   able to split that out completely.  But the
 4   two of them working together, which is what
 5   we're going to have in a warmer world, is a
 6   really deadly combination both for humans and
 7   for the ecosystems.
 8               And in thinking about all the
 9   things together, the direct and the indirect
10   effects to humans, I would urge the EPA and
11   Administrator Johnson to adopt the 8-hour
12   ozone standards that your own CASAC
13   recommended, the lower end of the range of
14   0.060, getting rid of the rounding factor, to
15   0.070 parts per million.  For the secondary
16   standard, I would also recommend that you go
17   with what CASAC has recommended; that the
18   3-month 12-hour W126 parts per million-hours
19   method, with a level no higher than 15 parts
20   per million-hours, which is what CASAC
21   recommended, and, again, preferably much lower
22   than that.
23               Do I still have some time?  If
24   so, one other thing is that there's some
25   complex chemistry involved with whether ozone
0316
 1   is actually adding to climate change or not,
 2   and there's some very new evidence from Jim
 3   Hansen and his group out of the NASA Goddard
 4   Institute of Space Studies showing that
 5   actually with increasing concentrations of
 6   methane forming ozone and then so that the NOx
 7   and the VOCs that we're used to thinking about
 8   as holding ozone and sort of on top of that
 9   background effort, and so we've got sort of
10   double concentrations of ozone and greenhouse
11   gases, again, forming this major snowball
12   effect of climate change.
13               MR. PAGE:  Great.  Thank you for
14   comments.
15               MR. SHAPIRO:  Thank you for
16   allowing us to come talk this evening.  I'm a
17   child psychologist in Baltimore.  I'm
18   community-based.  I work for Johns Hopkins as
19   well.  I'm going to offer a slightly different
20   perspective this evening from the public
21   health perspective.  I talk from a public
22   mental health perspective, which we don't
23   often hear about.  I work with indigent,
24   mult-ethnic families in Baltimore City that
25   are by in large very poor, live in communities
0317
 1   where they're facing pollution from industry
 2   and have limited access to resources.  So
 3   ozone is one of the factors in their life that
 4   we don't often hear about, and I'll talk
 5   briefly in a moment about the data about how
 6   ozone, in particular, affects behavior.
 7               But I'm concerned about children
 8   in part because of some of their physiological
 9   differences from adults.  They have higher
10   breathing rates, greater activity and greater
11   play outdoors, more mouth breathing, more apt
12   to have respiratory tract infections.  All
13   those impact them differently when they're
14   subjected to ozone.
15               And then a case history, an
16   example, might be, I have a client I'll call
17   Vicky.  She lives in intercity subsidized
18   housing.  She has a history of health
19   problems, including asthma, fatigue, high
20   blood pressure.  On high-ozone days,
21   interestingly, she tends to be less
22   functional, she doesn't attend school, she has
23   more difficulty breathing, she tends to be
24   more anxious and so she stays home, and it
25   prevents her from actually doing well
0318
 1   academically, and that's created other
 2   behavioral problems for her.
 3               That's a common case history with
 4   some of the kids we work with.  There is some
 5   mental health research, interestingly, that
 6   looks at ozone.  It looks at ozone apart from
 7   other pollutants, other air pollutants and
 8   also looks at ozone in particular, so I'll go
 9   through some of them.  Importantly, there's an
10   increase in visits to emergency rooms when
11   there are ozone-alert days.  As you probably
12   know, the cost to our kids and families is
13   high because they end up going and spending
14   quite some time in emergency rooms.  There are
15   all kinds of stressors related to sitting in
16   emergency rooms when you experience that.
17               There are several studies,
18   interestingly, that indicate that
19   schizophrenia is associated with higher air
20   pollution and possibly ozone, so it appears
21   that there is a correlation between high rates
22   of schizophrenia that is triggered by ozone
23   and other air pollutants, and that's something
24   to be taken into consideration when we talk
25   about air quality.
0319
 1               There's also risk for
 2   developmental delays in children who have
 3   higher exposure to pollution, including ozone,
 4   and several studies point that out, and
 5   there's also a risk for increased learning
 6   disabilities.
 7               There are a couple of rat studies
 8   and mouse studies that are probably worth
 9   knowing about.  When rats and mice are exposed
10   to ozone in relatively low concentrations,
11   they show greater demonstrations of anxiety,
12   memory deficits, and motor activity losses.
13   And so some of the researchers associate that
14   with humans and say it's possible that they
15   have the same effects in human beings.  We
16   certainly see the increased anxiety and the
17   lowered motor activity when they're exposed to
18   ozone, when our kids are.
19               And there's also this lose
20   connection with increased risk for behavioral
21   disorders when exposed to pollution, including
22   ozone.
23               So as you examine the federal
24   limits for ozone, I hope you'll take into
25   account the public mental health perspective,
0320
 1   which is that our kids are subject to ozone
 2   red-alert days just like everybody else, and
 3   the possible repercussions are quite serious,
 4   and they go beyond just the typical lung
 5   damage that you might hear about, breathing
 6   problems you might hear about and include all
 7   kinds of stressors that actually affect their
 8   lives, their functioning.
 9               Thank us.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming.
11   Did you leave your statements of any papers
12   that you wanted that refer to that at the
13   front desk?
14               MR. SHAPIRO:  (Indicating.)
15               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
16   Appreciate you coming.
17               Our next speaker is Doug
18   O'Malley.
19               MR. O'MALLEY:  Good evening.  My
20   name is Doug O'Malley.  I'm the field director
21   for Environment New Jersey.  And before I
22   begin, I just wanted to thank the previous
23   testifiers for coming here all the way from
24   Baltimore and for talking on, obviously, a
25   late August night about an issue that everyone
0321
 1   gets, but certainly if you were to say CASAC
 2   on the street, people would think you're
 3   talking about some odd Polish slur.
 4               Environment New Jersey is the new
 5   home for New Jersey NJPIRG, founded in 1972,
 6   the same year of the passage of so many
 7   landmark environmental laws in Washington.
 8   And really since our founding, we've worked to
 9   help enforce the Clean Air Act in New Jersey,
10   bringing lawsuits against some of the state's
11   largest power plants, and then our state
12   government has a strong record of just
13   recently, two years ago, using the Clean Air
14   Act to sue the pants off Martin's Creek, right
15   across the river, in Delaware, which provided
16   more pollution from power plants than all of
17   our facilities.
18               And, really, the reason we're
19   here today is because -- and, obviously, this
20   is not a big crowd, but in a place like
21   Philadelphia, you don't have to go very far --
22   actually, just go across the river, to a
23   neighborhood like Waterfront South in Camden,
24   New Jersey, which has had a long record of
25   environmental justice issues, namely, of
0322
 1   facilities that are violating the Clean Air
 2   Act.  But, really, all of New Jersey and
 3   really all of the northeast is a hazard area.
 4   It is dangerous to be in and to live in,
 5   especially for those who are most vulnerable.
 6               And, really, that's the intent of
 7   the Clean Air Act.  It was passed with the
 8   idea of actually getting a health-protective
 9   standard in our air quality by the late '70s,
10   and that's something that we should not
11   forget.  And I think it's important to
12   understand exactly the magnitude that we're
13   facing, just in one state, for research we
14   help to conduct using the EPA's own documents
15   in a late in 2003 -- or issued in late 2003,
16   using the EPA data, including DP data,
17   (inaudible) data, data from Department of
18   Health.
19               The impacts of ozone,
20   ground-level ozone in New Jersey is intense,
21   and I just want to -- you've heard a lot of
22   stats today, but I just want to read a couple
23   of them.  Respiratory hospital admissions up
24   to 5,900; asthma ER visits, 12,000; asthma
25   attacks up to 30 -- actually, well, not 30 --
0323
 1   300,000; and then restricted activity days, to
 2   adopt the very vague category, is up to 1.7
 3   million.  Those are numbers that should not be
 4   dismissed because, obviously, behind all of
 5   those numbers that we started to hear are our
 6   personal stories, and I'll be submitting some
 7   of the stories that we have heard.
 8               I think it's critical, though, at
 9   the end of the day not only to be talking
10   about who, you know, ideally here and helping
11   to testify on behalf of this rules, which
12   would be a vast majority of the public, but
13   also to talk about who is not here:  folks
14   like the American Electric Power, folks like
15   Edison Electric, folks like GM and Ford, who
16   obviously have a vested interest in not seeing
17   this stronger protections.
18               And that's why at the end of the
19   day, I urge the EPA to listen to their own
20   scientists, to listen to the review, and to do
21   what everyone else has testified to here
22   today, which is to have a health-protective
23   standard that is stronger than what's on the
24   books right now, and it's 0.060 parts per
25   million.
0324
 1               And I want to finish by reading
 2   just a few of the testimonies from people that
 3   we have talked to across the state, and I
 4   think that it brings home why that we have to
 5   listen to the public, we have to listen to the
 6   science, and not to folks like Edison
 7   Electric.
 8               This is from AnneMarie Bomhoff
 9   from Toms River, New Jersey:  My husband has
10   been recently diagnosed with asthma.  He's a
11   police officer who at the beginning of his
12   career seven years ago was running five miles
13   a day at the beach and the police academy.
14   Since then he has served his community as a
15   officer at the Lincoln Tunnel and Newark
16   Liberty Airport -- mainly in the street as a
17   traffic officer.  Obviously, that's some of
18   the highest places you're able to get, you
19   know ground-level ozone.  A year ago he
20   returned home after a shift not feeling well.
21   A few moments later he was gasping for air and
22   falling on the floor.  If I pass out before
23   they come, roll me onto my side, he said.
24   After that, I could not recognize no words,
25   just gurgling.  I called 911 that day and one
0325
 1   other occasion since.  He is currently on two
 2   medications and takes his inhaler several
 3   times a day.  He has no stamina and engages in
 4   few activities.  Consequently, he has gained
 5   weight, unable to cut the lawn, and carry
 6   storage in and out of the attic.  Please clean
 7   up our air so my husband can have the quality
 8   of life that he so deserves, as he happily
 9   serves others.
10               The other are testimony about our
11   children who cannot play outside because of
12   air quality.  They talk about elderly who are
13   affected by this.  They talk about people who
14   pass out because of asthma attacks.  It is
15   clear, and in this situation, the story that I
16   read, a healthy male in his early thirties
17   should not be passing out.  This is clearly
18   being aggravated by the situation and where
19   his job takes him.
20               But I want to again remind the
21   EPA, as you've heard so far so much today,
22   this issue comes down to listening to the
23   science, and we ultimately depend upon the EPA
24   issuing those science-based standards so that
25   at the state level we have a chance to fight
0326
 1   for strong protective measures to ensure that
 2   everyone, not just healthy males, will be able
 3   to breathe the air each and every day.
 4               Thank you.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
 6   O'Malley.  Did you submit your written paper
 7   for the record?
 8               MR. O'MALLEY:  Yes.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Great.  Thank you.
10   Thank you for coming here so late in the
11   evening.  We appreciate it.
12               We have one more registered
13   speaker, and that person's not here right now.
14   If anyone else would like to speak that's not
15   here, we would ask you to register there at
16   the desk right outside in the hall.  We're
17   going to be here until 9:00, waiting on the
18   registered speaker or anybody else who wants
19   to talk, so if you feel so moved, we'll be
20   here.
21                       - - -
22               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
23   from 8:34 p.m. to 8:36 p.m.)
24                       - - -
25               MR. PAGE:  Welcome, Mr. Benson.
0327
 1               MR. BENSON:  Thank you.  I didn't
 2   have anything necessarily prepared.  This is
 3   rather impromptu.  I just got here about maybe
 4   an hour ago, and I've been listening to a
 5   number -- first of all, my name is Reginald
 6   Benson.  I've been listening to a number of
 7   the comments, and I'm a concerned citizen, of
 8   course, about the environment.  Not only am I
 9   concerned citizen, but I've been seeking out
10   solutions to not only pollution but also
11   environmental issues.  I'm an investment
12   banker, and along the way, I have discovered a
13   number of solutions.
14               We hear a lot of talk about the
15   various problems that we have with the
16   environment as far as pollution is concerned,
17   ozone, various environmental issues.  I
18   happened to be privileged enough to stumble
19   upon one of the solutions, if not the only
20   solution known to mankind right now,
21   literally, for pollution control as well as
22   exhaust and things of that sort.  It's a
23   product that's actually patented.  It has been
24   in existence for about 14 to 15 years.  It is
25   used all over the world.  It's approved by the
0328
 1   US EPA as well as equivalent EPAs around the
 2   world for oil spills, remediation, cleanup,
 3   things of that sort.  It's a product called
 4   Petrotech, or PTI25, which is used to clean up
 5   oil spills and things of that sort, and in
 6   fact, has been, as I've said, used all over
 7   the world.
 8               It's also being used for fire
 9   extinguishing.  It not only extinguishes
10   fires -- let's say a jet fuel fire is burning,
11   let's say 660 gallons of jet fuel is burning
12   for a couple minutes.  Petrotech literally
13   puts that fire out in 50 seconds -- not 50
14   minutes, 50 seconds -- and you can literally
15   take a blow torch to the area and it would not
16   reignite.
17               It's completely environmentally
18   safe, environmentally friendly.  Not only is
19   it environmentally friendly, it literally
20   helps the environment.  It turns the product
21   into fertilizer.  Not only does it put out
22   that 660-gallon jet fuel fire in 50 seconds,
23   it does it with just 80 gallons of water -- a
24   half a gallon of our solution mixed with the
25   water, and the solution itself is never used
0329
 1   in a 100 percent concentrate.  That's how
 2   strong it is.  To put out a jet fuel fire, we
 3   only use a 1 percent solution; so in other
 4   words, 1 percent verses 99 percent form, and
 5   in some cases up to 10 percent.  The only
 6   thing for which we would use a 10 percent
 7   solution is for something heavy, like crude
 8   oil.  As you know, crude oil takes about 22
 9   years for nature to biodegrade it naturally.
10   This stuff is in 22 days.  And as I've said,
11   it's completely environmentally safe.
12               We're proposing to use this -- in
13   fact, I'll be going to China next mouth for
14   about a mouth -- to implement it in China and
15   use it for the Beijing Olympics.  What we're
16   going to be doing is actually taking planes,
17   dust croppers, and literally layering the city
18   overnight, while people are sleeping.  It's
19   completely that safe.  And it will completely
20   eliminate the pollution and the smog.  I don't
21   know if anybody here has been to China, but
22   it's notorious.  This will completely
23   eliminate the pollution.  It
24   microencapsulates, so it doesn't just mask it.
25   It's completely gone.  It doesn't exist.
0330
 1   Gone, period.
 2               We're also proposing to introduce
 3   here in the United States a device called
 4   BEAD, which is B-E-A-D, Bayless Exhaust
 5   Arrestive Device.  What that device does, it's
 6   a device that's installed on smokestacks as
 7   well as exhaust pipes of automobiles.  So if
 8   you have an automobile that's an older
 9   automobile that has the catalytic converter
10   that's burning all kinds of emissions and
11   fumes and what have you, what this particular
12   device does is it acts as a sensor and it
13   detects the pollutant emissions or fumes and
14   then it emits the petromist and it micro
15   capsulates the pollution, the fumes, and turns
16   it into water, literally, and so it's safe to
17   just run off into the street and just go into
18   the systems.
19               So I'm here, I'm actually from
20   southern California, and I know there's a
21   similar meeting in Los Angeles, in Orange
22   County, but I had to be here on business, so I
23   figured I'd come here and hear what the folks
24   were saying, just to see whether there are
25   other solutions that are being offered as
0331
 1   opposed to problems, because we can talk about
 2   problems from now until infinity, but the idea
 3   is to try to develop some solution that would
 4   actually help this problem.
 5               And just one more thing.  There
 6   are a number of Superfund sites here in the
 7   States that we're also going to tackle.  Not
 8   only the one in -- I'm sure you're familiar
 9   with the one in Ringwood, New Jersey, but also
10   the site that's supposed to be remediated in
11   Ecuador.  It's an Ecuador versus Chevron case.
12   It's probably the biggest case in the world at
13   this point.  So we'll be very instrumental, if
14   you will, to say the least, in cleaning up
15   those sites.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
17   for coming by.
18               MS. SPINK:  Can you tell me what
19   the "A" in BEAD stands for?  I think you said
20   Bayless exhaust something device.
21               MR. BENSON:  Arrestive, arrestive
22   device.  The Bayless -- and I'll tell you what
23   that acronym's for.  Dr. Robert G. Bayless
24   actually -- you're familiar with Dr. Bayless?
25               MS. SPINK:  Yes.  B-A-Y-L-I-S-S?
0332
 1               MR. BENSON:  L-E-S-S.  Dr. Robert
 2   Bayless is an internationally renowned
 3   microencapsulation specialist.  He has a
 4   number of -- like 30, 40, 50 patents to his
 5   credit.  Over the years, he's developed a
 6   microencapsulated fertilizer for CertainTeed,
 7   he invented the mood ring, a carbonless paper
 8   you know, you write on a piece of paper and it
 9   goes to the other side, well, he invented
10   that.  Most important, he co-invented
11   Petrotech, this product that I just spoke
12   about.  He actually brought it home, so to
13   speak, with the microencapsulation process.
14   He's actually a client of mine.  I have an
15   interest in the company.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
17   thank for coming by.
18               MR. BENSON:  Thank you.
19                       - - -
20               (Whereupon, a recess was taken
21   from 8:43 p.m. to 8:51 p.m.)
22                       - - -
23               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Weir.  When you're
24   ready, we're ready.  Thank you for coming,
25   sir.
0333