3                STATEMENT OF TERRY YOSIE

              4        MR. YOSIE:  Good morning, my name is Terry

              5   Yosie, Y O S I E.  I served as the first Executive

              6   Director of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory

              7   Committee and I'm the former director of EPA's

              8   Science Advisory Board.  Today I'm appearing on

              9   behalf of the International Truck and Engine

             10   corporation.

             11              My role as a public official and as a

             12   representative of the private sector has provided a

             13   bird's eye view on the process of developing

             14   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

             15   and their implementation.  Ozone standard-setting

             16   is one of the most scientifically challenging and

             17   administratively difficult problems that EPA has to

             18   address.

             19              My testimony this morning will present a

             20   proposal to minimize such controversy and will

             21   enable ozone standard-setting to proceed without

             22   delay.  Over the past 30 years, EPA has made great

             23   strides in improving scientific basis and integrity

             24   of its process for establishing ambient air quality                                                                      81

              1   standards.  Too little effort and too few resources

              2   have been placed on developing better

              3   implementation tools and for ensuring that the

              4   scientific information and analysis for

              5   implementing standards are more robust.

              6              Approximately 16 years ago, the National

              7   Research Council published a report entitled

              8   Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional

              9   Air Pollution.  The report represented a

             10   comprehensive evaluation of some of the most

             11   important issues related to ozone standards

             12   development, implementation and attainment.

             13              The 1991 NAS report represented not only

             14   an important benchmark in the nation's

             15   understanding of the dimension of the ozone

             16   problem, but it helped create a road map for future

             17   ozone research and decision-making.

             18              As EPA proceeds to promulgate revised

             19   ozone standards in 2008, there are a number of

             20   large challenges confronting the Agency's ability

             21   to effectively implement its decisions on ozone.

             22   These include improving the State Implementation

             23   Planning process, assessing the effects of

             24   co-pollutant exposures and evaluating the impacts                                                                      82

              1   upon ozone formation for continuous changes in the

              2   mix of fuels and vehicles.

              3              These and other major challenges, and

              4   EPA's ability to successfully address them will be

              5   shaped by the changing scientific understanding in

              6   the role of nitrogen oxides in ozone formation.

              7   The conclusion that NOx should be reduced in the

              8   VOC/NOx ratio exceeded 15 to 1 was one of the

              9   principle scientific judgments of the 1991 NAS

             10   report.  Since that time, due to the implementation

             11   of controls, that ratio was much lower across air

             12   quality and regions.

             13              More recent scientific reports in the

             14   peer-reviewed and professional literature recommend

             15   that the time has arrived to reassess the role of

             16   nitrogen oxides in creating ground level ozone.

             17   Several examples support this conclusion:  The

             18   staff of the California Air Resources board

             19   evaluated and acknowledged what's called the

             20   weekend effect, the phenomenon in which ozone

             21   levels on Saturdays and Sundays are higher on

             22   average than those recorded during the week.  CARB

             23   officials have written that and I quote, "The focus

             24   of ozone control policies must now begin shifting                                                                      83

              1   from the traditional analysis and modeling of

              2   weekday to weekend," unquote.

              3              Second, Researchers at the National

              4   Renewable Energy Laboratory and other research

              5   institutions have examined the hypothesis that

              6   lower ozone of NOx on weekend mornings resulting

              7   largely from fewer trucks on the road at that time

              8   is the single largest contributor to elevated ozone

              9   levels.  Other peer-reviewed research findings

             10   document that this is not a phenomenon limited to

             11   the South Coast Air Quality basin but in fact

             12   becoming nationwide across the midwest and the

             13   northeast corridor.

             14              Finally, last year the National Research

             15   Counsel issued a major report that's included, and

             16   I quote, "Because NOx can result in both ozone

             17   formation and removal as well as secondary PM

             18   formation, there is some debate as to the

             19   effectiveness of NOx emissions reduction for ozone

             20   and PM control.

             21              I believe the EPA should ask the

             22   National Academy of Sciences to conduct a new study

             23   focusing on the role of nitrogen oxides and the

             24   relationship of VOCs in ozone formation.  At a                                                                      84

              1   minimum, such a study should address the following

              2   issues:  Review the accuracy of air quality data,

              3   emission inventories and modeling tools related to

              4   ozone formation, assess the weekend effect

              5   phenomenon and evaluate the role of NOx control

              6   strategies and mobile source emission control

              7   technologies in meeting mandated air quality goals

              8   for ozone and particulate matter.

              9              Like the 1991 study, the new NAS effort

             10   to deliver timely, valuable and relevant

             11   information to guide future decision-making.  I

             12   recommend the EPA adopt this proposal.  Thank you.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions from the panel?

             14        MS. TYSON:  No.

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             16              Ms. Geertsma?

             17            STATEMENT OF MELEAH GEERTSMA.

             18        MS. GEERTSMA:  Good morning.  Thank you for

             19   this opportunity to address the Agency regarding

             20   the need to pass a new more protective ozone

             21   standard.

             22              My name is M E L E A H, G E E R T S M A,

             23   and I'm a staff attorney and public health

             24   specialist for the Environmental Law and Policy                                                                      85

              1   Center here in Chicago.  ELPC is the Midwest's

              2   leading public interest in environmental advocacy

              3   organization working here to improve the region's

              4   air quality through various smart policies as

              5   initiatives.  My comments today come from dual

              6   background in law and public health and I provide

              7   my comments on behalf of myself and my colleagues

              8   at ELPC.

              9              Rarely and unlikely in the complicated

             10   Clean Air Acts are there clear directives as to

             11   what the agencies must do.  Even more rarely it

             12   seems does the Supreme Court make unanimous

             13   decisions.  The basis for setting the National

             14   Ambient Air Quality Standards thus presents a point

             15   of clarity and unanimity.  The standards must be

             16   based on public health considerations alone.

             17              As those involved in Clean Air Act would

             18   know, opportunities and often mandates abound at

             19   the state and federal levels for considering costs

             20   and achieving the standards.  Costs should not and

             21   indeed cannot be allowed to dilute the NOx in the

             22   first instance.  The legal aspects of air work are

             23   not the only areas where clarity and consensus are

             24   rare.  Those of us who have acted on the public                                                                      86

              1   health side have read plenty of studies to report

              2   calling for more research before action is taken.

              3   Here, again, the ozone NOx presents a unique

              4   opportunity.  The Clean Air Act advisory committee

              5   has unanimously and unambiguously advised the

              6   USEPA to substantially reduce the AR ozone NOx to

              7   protect humans in the range of 60 to 70 parts per

              8   billion.

              9              My father is an inner city pediatrician

             10   who has been in practice for over 30 years.  In his

             11   current position, he serves a largely minority

             12   population.  Asthma affects close to 40 percent of

             13   the children served and uncontrolled asthma

             14   contributes to a major proportion of pediatric

             15   hospital admissions and emergency room visits.

             16              Despite successive treatment and

             17   improved preventative management, Asthma

             18   complications, hospitals, lost school time and

             19   increasing treatment, costs continue to rise in the

             20   city as elsewhere.  Ozone, even at levels below the

             21   current NOx, is a major contributor to these social

             22   and economic costs.

             23              I chose to go into environmental law and

             24   policies to help address the system and problems                                                                      87

              1   which so frustrate my father's profession of

              2   medicine.  NOx are not simply numbers on a page.

              3   In my own work, I've seen firsthand how the NOx

              4   direct policy as well as individual project

              5   decisions of construction of highways to clean car

              6   legislation to the degree of air pollution control

              7   required a -- a strong air quality standard is

              8   critical to protecting the health of my clients,

              9   individuals and local environmental groups

             10   throughout the Midwest.  For these people as well

             11   as segments in the general population, high ozone

             12   levels are not assessed by a reading on a monitor

             13   but determinant of their daily and long-term

             14   well-being.

             15              As my clients, they put their trust in

             16   me to hold companies and individual polluters, the

             17   standards that will protect their health.  This

             18   trust is diluted where the standards themselves are

             19   watered down and inadequate.  I in turn rely on the

             20   USEPA to promulgate the strong, scientifically

             21   based standards that I combat in my work and that

             22   act as a gauge for assessing progress towards clean

             23   air.

             24              The USEPA has the tools and information                                                                      88

              1   and indeed the obligation to provide with my

              2   father, myself and the advocacy community with a

              3   benchmark of both here in the Midwest and in the

              4   rest of the country.  For these reasons the agency

              5   should promulgate a standard of 60 parts per

              6   billion.  I also urge the Agency to properly issue

              7   guidance to implement the updated standards as the

              8   standards themselves are little lacking in these

              9   implementation plans.

             10              Thank you again for this opportunity.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you both.

             12              Our next speaker is Raymond Brytan and

             13   Gregor Sosnowski.  Again, I apologize for the

             14   pronunciation.  Please spell your names for the

             15   reporter.

             16              Mr. Brytan.

             17             STATEMENT OF RAYMOND BRYTAN

             18        MR. BRYTAN:  Raymond Brytan, B R Y T A N.  I'm

             19   a private citizen.  I have no remarks prepared

             20   other than to express my support for the .06 parts

             21   per million standard which the majority of the

             22   testimony here has also expressed.  If I may, I

             23   would like to respond to some of the things I've

             24   been listening to this morning so far.                                                                      89

              1              First of all, I thought that loss of

              2   manufacturing jobs had a lot more to do with

              3   cheaper overseas labor than air quality standards.

              4   I think we have to remind ourselves this, it has

              5   been implied here previously that there is a cross

              6   in the treatment of respiratory uses in terms of

              7   public health system and into the individual and

              8   that's all I have to say.  Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             10              Gregor Sosnowski.

             11             STATEMENT OF GREGOR SOSNOWSKI

             12        MR. SOSNOWSKI:  Good morning.  It's

             13   G R E G O R, my last name S O S N O W S K I.

             14              I'm also a private citizen and by no

             15   means an expert.  I would like to testify here

             16   today.  I'm also in favor of more stringent air

             17   pollution restrictions.

             18              I want to say I really love living in

             19   the city.  Today I biked downtown to be here along

             20   our beautiful lakefront.  This past Labor Day we

             21   swam in Lake Michigan.  We try to stay as active as

             22   we possibly can, but I worry about our six-year-old

             23   daughter growing up in a place where the air

             24   quality is so poor.  I developed asthma as a child                                                                      90

              1   and as a result, I was hospitalized on more

              2   occasions than I care to remember.  Only recently

              3   have I come to understand that asthma is a

              4   condition that's exacerbated by air pollution.

              5              My mom was always a nervous wreck when I

              6   had my asthma attacks, I would cough and wheeze and

              7   as you know you could hardly breathe.  When I was

              8   really bad, she took me to ER and I was often

              9   admitted and hooked up to IVs and asked to breathe

             10   through a tube which had some sort of vaporized

             11   medicines in it.  I try not to think about it -- as

             12   a kid, I stayed active and played outdoors.  I try

             13   not to think about it now.  In fact, clean air and

             14   clean water is not something we should have to

             15   think about.  Yet all of us are here to testify in

             16   front of you, the Environmental Protection Agency,

             17   and advocate for more stringent standards than the

             18   ones that have been proposed.

             19              When I was a child my mother instilled

             20   in me a great faith in America and its ideals.  She

             21   had sincere trust that governmental agencies were

             22   in a place to protect us from harm, that is what

             23   she taught me, that is what made America great.

             24   The federal institutions like the EPA were above                                                                      91

              1   political influence regardless of the various

              2   cultural shifts, religious beliefs, financial, or

              3   social status.  We as Americans are all due the

              4   same protection under mandate of law and this is

              5   what I want to believe, this is what I want my

              6   daughter to believe.

              7              It is your agency's duty to protect the

              8   health of individual citizens over the interest of

              9   industry, and as I understand, the EPA is legally

             10   bound to do, so please finalize an ozone standard

             11   of 0.06 parts per million.

             12              Thank you.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.  Thank you,

             14   gentlemen.

             15        MR. BRYTAN:  Excuse me, since we both have cut

             16   ourselves short, could I add one other thing to my

             17   testimony?

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Sure.

             19        MR. BRYTAN:  I didn't mean to say that --

             20   there has been a lot of contradictory testimony

             21   here this morning in terms of lab studies and so

             22   forth, and I think that what we will really need to

             23   keep in mind is the incidence of respiratory

             24   incidences in places like L.A. and Chicago.  Those                                                                      92

              1   have laboratory results from the smog and

              2   particulate concentrations.

              3              Thank you.

              4        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

              5              Our next two speakers are Ellen

              6   Rendulich and Carol Starks.  Ms. Rendulich, go

              7   first.

              8             STATEMENT OF ELLEN RENDULICH

              9        MS. RENDULICH:  Ellen Rendulich,

             10   R E N D U L I C H.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Could you get a little closer

             12   to the mic or the mic closer to you?

             13        MS. RENDULICH:  I'm a founder and director of

             14   a Grass Roots organization, Citizens Against

             15   Ruining the Environment, CARE.  We're located in

             16   Will County, Illinois.  We banned together in 1995,

             17   local citizens and we formed our group to protect

             18   the community's health and environment.  At the

             19   time there weren't any other environmental groups

             20   and there are many more today.

             21              Will County is one of the fastest

             22   growing counties in the nation, and new polluting

             23   industries are approaching our neighborhoods daily.

             24   We are also experiencing heavy population growth                                                                      93

              1   which of course brings pollution from other

              2   sources, including diesel and gasoline fuels.

              3   Millions of us that live in the small mid sized

              4   communities are home to extremely healthy polluting

              5   industries including three coal fired power plants.

              6   We have numerous polluting industries including

              7   chemical and refinery plants such as Citgo, BP and

              8   Exelon, that according to the EPA, spew

              9   neurotoxins, PMs, coarse particles and other

             10   hazardous chemicals into our air.

             11              The death rate from asthma, lung

             12   diseases, heart attacks and stroke will only

             13   continue to worsen as the population and pollution

             14   increases in our areas.  American Lung gave Will

             15   County an "F" for ozone.  The score card has ranked

             16   Will County in the 90 to 100 percent range of the

             17   dirtiest counties in the United States.

             18              Why would the EPA consider lowering the

             19   standards with the ever-growing population of the

             20   United States.  Why would the EPA not consider the

             21   fact that the population of baby boomers is growing

             22   daily in historic proportions.  According to

             23   American Lung's research report dated July '05

             24   which was based on 2003 reports, over 10 percent of                                                                      94

              1   the population in Will County was suffering from

              2   various forms of lung diseases.  To hear that the

              3   administration proposes to maintain the status quo

              4   and reject the more protective standards in our

              5   communities is ludicrous.  When taxpayers pay for

              6   scientific studies by the EPA, when independent

              7   scientists confirm that the health impacts of ozone

              8   and its standard are not adequate to protect human

              9   health, the standards must be substantially

             10   strengthened, not weakened, and not kept status

             11   quo.  Doesn't the law require you, the EPA, to base

             12   your decision solely on the need to protect public

             13   health?

             14              I think I'll let Carol finish reading

             15   the rest of this.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Stark.

             17                  STATEMENT OF CAROL STARK

             18        MS. STARKS:  Industry should not dictate nor

             19   should you allow them to influence decisions as to

             20   lowering the standards.  The Clean Air Scientific

             21   Advisory Committee has recommended to protect our

             22   health, the EPA should set the ozone standards at

             23   0.060 parts per million.  This is who the EPA

             24   should listen to, not industry, as this committee                                                                      95

              1   was formed to protect citizens' health and

              2   well-being.

              3              Nine out of ten CARE members have a

              4   family member that is affected by respiratory

              5   disease.  Nine out of ten of our neighbors, their

              6   children or friends are suffering from some type of

              7   respiratory or lung disease.  Thousands are using

              8   inhalers for asthma and respiratory problems

              9   because of the pollution caused by industry.  My

             10   own family, my daughter has been affected by asthma

             11   and she was on a nebulizer for three years.

             12   Ellen's family, her sister-in-law died leaving two

             13   babies due to lung disease.  Her husband and

             14   herself, they're both on inhalers.  We expect

             15   immediate protection.

             16              Future generations will one day ask "Why

             17   didn't they do something?"  They will be talking

             18   about us.  Now is the time to control pollution.

             19   We have to be responsible.  This is not going to be

             20   easy, doing the right thing rarely is.

             21              Why do private citizens have to

             22   continuously defend our right for clean air and

             23   water?  CARE has attended public hearings, written

             24   letters and networked without pay for more than 12                                                                      96

              1   years.  The government is being paid to protect us

              2   and we expect nothing less.  Thank you.

              3        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.  Let me

              4   remind you to please leave a copy of the written

              5   testimony.

              6              Our next two speakers are Kathy Chan and

              7   Caroline Herzenberg.

              8              Ms. Khan.

              9                STATEMENT OF KATHY CHAN.

             10        MS. CHAN:  Good morning and thank you for the

             11   opportunity to testify.

             12              My name is Kathy Khan and I'm the policy

             13   director for the Illinois Maternal and Child Health

             14   Coalition, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to

             15   promoting and improving the health of women,

             16   children and families through advocacy, education,

             17   community empowerment and policy development.

             18              I am here today because we're concerned

             19   that the USEPA's proposed revisions to the ozone

             20   standards do not go far enough to protect public

             21   health, especially the health of some of society's

             22   most vulnerable populations, children and pregnant

             23   women.

             24              It has been proven that ozone poses a                                                                      97

              1   serious threat to respiratory health, especially

              2   for those who already have a compromised breathing

              3   condition, the most common of which is asthma.

              4              More than 3.2 million children breathe

              5   the air here in Illinois.  Data from the Centers

              6   of Disease Control and Prevention's National

              7   Survey of Children's Health shows that one in ten

              8   Illinois children suffers from asthma.  The

              9   prevalence of asthma is even higher for

             10   African-Americans where one in five children were

             11   reported having asthma.

             12              In comparison to adults, children tend

             13   to spend more time outdoors but have narrower

             14   airways and inhale more pollutants relative to

             15   their body weight.  Childhood exposure to ozone can

             16   also be detrimental to normal development of

             17   healthy lungs.

             18              Additionally, pregnant woman who are

             19   exposed to levels of ozone at an even lower rate

             20   than the 0.07 parts per million to .075 parts per

             21   million range proposed to be adopted by the EPA are

             22   at a higher risk of giving birth to low birth

             23   weight babies and subject to intrauterine birth

             24   retardation.                                                                      98

              1              The data is clear, exposure to ozone at

              2   levels even below current standards results in

              3   adverse health outcomes, not only for those

              4   suffering from asthma for other respiratory

              5   conditions, but even for healthy individuals.  The

              6   children's Health Protection Advisory Committee

              7   proposes that the standard be set at .060 ppm in

              8   order to afford the greatest protection to

              9   children.

             10              We agree with the consensus of the

             11   scientific medical communities that the EPA should

             12   strengthen the ozone standards to maintain the

             13   adequate margin of safety for public health as

             14   required by law.  Everyone deserves the right to

             15   clean air.

             16              Thank you.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             18              Ms. Herzenberg.

             19            STATEMENT OF CAROLINE HERZENBERG,

             20        MS. HERZENBERG:  Thank you.

             21              Good day.  My name is Caroline

             22   Herzenberg, C A R O L I N E, H E R S E N B E R G.

             23   I'm a scientist, a physicist retired from Argonne

             24   National Laboratory.  I want to thank you for                                                                      99

              1   providing me with this opportunity to speak to you.

              2              I find it gratifying that the EPA is

              3   considering taking a step toward cleaner air by

              4   proposing to strengthen the National Ambient Air

              5   Quality Standard for ozone.  However, it is

              6   disappointing that EPA's proposal falls short of

              7   the ozone standard that its own scientific advisors

              8   indicated is necessary to protect public health,

              9   and it is even more unfortunate that the current

             10   EPA proposal leaves open the possibility of not

             11   strengthening the ozone standards at all, even

             12   though the current standard has been shown to be

             13   unsafe.  I recommend that EPA adopt a new standard

             14   to keep ozone levels below .06 parts per million,

             15   which is at the lower and safer end of the range

             16   recommended by EPA's scientific advisory committee.

             17              The current EPA standard of .08 parts

             18   per million is not acceptable because it was not

             19   set low enough to protect the public from

             20   respiratory damage from ozone.  Recent

             21   epidemiological and clinical studies have shown

             22   that there are adverse health impacts from

             23   breathing ozone at levels below the current ambient

             24   air quality standards.  In fact, it has been                                                                     100

              1   reported that clinical studies of otherwise healthy

              2   adults have found decreased lung function,

              3   increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation

              4   and increased susceptibility to respiratory

              5   infection at or below the current standard of

              6   .08 parts per million, which was set in 1997.

              7   it's clear the ozone standard should be

              8   substantially strengthened by lowering the level

              9   significantly below its present value in order to

             10   protect public health.

             11              I know that you all have access to the

             12   air quality statistics that show that the pervasive

             13   extent of air pollution in the greater metropolitan

             14   area here, and you are undoubtedly aware that

             15   Chicago is one of the ten smoggiest cities in the

             16   United States, and you may also know that Cook

             17   County has some of the worst ozone pollution in

             18   the state as well as problematic particulate

             19   pollution.

             20              As a Chicagoan, I can personally tell

             21   you that air pollution has been and continues to be

             22   a serious problem in the Chicago area.  I live in a

             23   high-rise condominium building, and we can look out

             24   over the city and see the characteristic                                                                     101

              1   yellowish-brown haze hanging over the Chicago

              2   skyline and extending out over Lake Michigan.  I

              3   have cardiovascular disease and my younger daughter

              4   has asthma, and we are affected by pollution in the

              5   ambient air.  I personally am even more seriously

              6   affected, I've noticed, when winds from the

              7   southeast blow pollution in from southeast Chicago

              8   and northwest Indiana.  I not only experience acute

              9   pain in the mucous membranes of my nose and throat

             10   and eyes from the polluted air, but I also am

             11   systemically affected, and find it difficult or

             12   impossible to engage in intellectual activity or

             13   even much physical activity during days with high

             14   air pollution levels.  And there are many other

             15   people here who suffer as we do.  These detrimental

             16   impacts on physical activities and mental

             17   activities are taking a disabling toll on the

             18   wellness and well-being and physical performance

             19   and creativity of people throughout the Chicago

             20   metropolitan area.

             21              I have somewhat of a longer statement

             22   that appears to be impossible to present in the

             23   time that appears to remain.  If you would like, I

             24   will continue, or if you prefer, I will terminate                                                                     102

              1   and wrap it up rapidly and hand it in as a written

              2   statement.

              3        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We'll take your written

              4   statement.  I cannot see how many minutes you have

              5   left, but it's up to you to continue until the

              6   clock runs out.

              7        MS. HERZENBERG:  Briefly, I think I'm -- I

              8   think I conveyed my ideas.  I also believe that the

              9   EPA should eliminate this rounding loophole, which

             10   I won't go into, but I think you're well aware of

             11   what it is.

             12              To wrap it up, I do think that everyone

             13   in the Chicago area and everyone in the United

             14   States deserves to breathe clean air and the EPA's

             15   responsible for this.  We rely on the EPA to

             16   maintain -- to set the standards for maintaining

             17   the air.  I believe as do my friends and family

             18   that the EPA should reject industry pressure to

             19   simply retain the inadequate current ozone standard

             20   and instead that the EPA should adopt a new safer

             21   ozone standard of .06 parts per million consistent

             22   with the recommendations of the scientific advisors

             23   and many other organizations.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.                                                                     103

              1        MS. HERZENBERG:  You're very welcome.

              2   Remember, EPA has a duty to protect public health,

              3   so let's do it.

              4        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions from the panel?

              5              Thank you very much.  We'll take your

              6   written testimony.

              7              Our next speakers are Samuel Dorevitch

              8   and Ruth Johnson.

              9        DR. DOREVITCH:  Good morning.  My name is

             10   Samuel Dorevitch, D O R E V I T C H, and I'm a

             11   physician and environmental health researcher at

             12   the University of Illinois at the Chicago School of

             13   Public Health.  Thank you for the opportunity to

             14   provide input into the process of reviewing and

             15   hopefully establishing a more protective National

             16   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.

             17              I fully support the CASAC's unanimous

             18   statements that the primary ozone standard should

             19   be lowered.  In reviewing the arguments that have

             20   been put forth against improving the ozone

             21   standard, it makes me think that Yogi Berra had in

             22   mind the NAAQS review process when he said, "It's

             23   like deja vu all over again."

             24              Arguments like the science contains                                                                     104

              1   uncertainties, the air is getting cleaner anyway so

              2   why complicate things with a new standard, we've

              3   heard these before, almost word for word, in the

              4   statements made in the 1996 hearings on the

              5   proposed ozone standard.  As it has turned out,

              6   science has become more certain over time.  We have

              7   a larger body of scientific evidence demonstrating

              8   negative effects of ozone in concentrations below

              9   0.8 parts per million, and it isn't coincidence

             10   that the air quality happens to be improving.

             11              The reason the air quality is improving

             12   is because of progressive improvements in air

             13   quality standards.  In fact, the same standards

             14   that special interest groups say we ought to stick

             15   with now are the very standards they opposed in

             16   public comments in 1996 and subsequently in legal

             17   battles going all the way to the United States

             18   Supreme Court.

             19              I'd like to address one argument against

             20   protecting the health of the public by improving

             21   the current primary ozone standard, and that is the

             22   argument that the ozone standard recommended by the

             23   panel of independent scientists, which shift to

             24   many parts of the country from ozone standard                                                                     105

              1   attainment to non-attainment.  This argument says

              2   it's better to not raise the bar of air quality

              3   because too many parts of too many states will be

              4   in violation of the new standards.

              5              This approach says it's not better --

              6   I'm sorry, this approach says it's better not to

              7   establish air quality goals that provide better

              8   protection for children and those with underlying

              9   lung disease.  I'd like to provide an alternative

             10   approach from another area of public health.

             11              40 years ago we knew that very high

             12   levels of blood pressure led to heart disease and

             13   stroke.  Over the last 40 years it's become clear

             14   that even levels that were once considered

             15   acceptable, the risk of heart disease and stroke is

             16   elevated.  For that reason, doctors now try to

             17   treat blood pressure of people who in a previous

             18   era would have gone untreated.

             19              There has been no outcry that by

             20   revising downward the range of normal blood

             21   pressure you would create a problem by identifying

             22   too many people as having blood pressure that

             23   worked in the non-attainment range.  Instead, the

             24   new scientific evidence that showed significant                                                                     106

              1   health risk to blood pressures once thought to be

              2   normal was seen as an opportunity to prevent heart

              3   disease and stroke and in fact rates of heart

              4   disease and stroke have went down nationwide as

              5   treatment for blood pressure has become more

              6   widespread.

              7              Yes, a standard of 0.60 ppm would bring

              8   parts of the country into non-attainment initially,

              9   but state implementation plans would be developed

             10   and by acting responsibly to protect public health,

             11   ambient ozone concentrations would be brought down,

             12   asthma attacks would be prevented.  Such action to

             13   protect the health of the vulnerable population is

             14   the intent of Section 109 in the Clean Air Act.  I

             15   commend Administrator Johnson on his interest in

             16   improving the ozone standard and I endorse the

             17   primary standard of 0.60 parts per million.

             18              Thank you.

             19        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Dorevitch.

             20              Ms. Johnson.

             21              STATEMENT OF RUTH JOHNSON.

             22        MS. JOHNSON:  My name is Ruth Johnson and I'm

             23   a private citizen.  I'm a small business owner and

             24   Realtor and also an asthmatic and under the care of                                                                     107

              1   Dr. Chris McGrath at Northwestern Hospital.

              2              I was born and raised in Chicago in the

              3   late '40s but have lived in Houston, Southern

              4   California, New Jersey, New York City and Tucson,

              5   Arizona during my time in corporate America from

              6   the 1970s to 1998.  In returning to Chicago for

              7   family reasons in late 1998, I found it necessary

              8   to rely on daily asthmatic medication in order to

              9   perform daily activities.  If I did not use these,

             10   I would die.

             11              In Chicago, we have high levels of

             12   ozone, fine particles which result from

             13   coal-burning power plants and refineries.  Also,

             14   diesel fuel levels used by trucks, buses, trains

             15   and some private vehicles contribute to these high

             16   pollution levels unhealthy for all people.

             17              I ask that the EPA follow the mandate to

             18   protect the citizens of the United States and to

             19   set the ozone rate at .060 level parts per million

             20   for all air in the United States.  I believe that

             21   by this action, the EPA will increase the levels of

             22   health in America and over time provide economic

             23   benefits to the health and insurance industries and

             24   I thank you for this opportunity.                                                                     108

              1        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

              2              Our next two speakers, Andrew Fisher and

              3   Ari Weitzman.

              4              Mr. Fisher, you go first.

              5        MR. FISHER:  I'm Andrew Fisher, F I S H E R.

              6   I am the chair of the Environmental Task Force for

              7   the Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice.  I

              8   over half of my adult life have suffered with

              9   asthma and am familiar with the negative effects on

             10   the physical activity.  I've learned a couple

             11   things from the American Lung Association rating

             12   Cook County -- giving it a grade of F.  It was very

             13   high ozone of 5.7 on orange days and red days of 7.

             14   And as far as people affected, I'll cite about

             15   three here, young people, pediatric asthmatics,

             16   it's 122,000, and for adult asthmatics it's over

             17   272,000 for cardiovascular disease it's over

             18   1,204,000.

             19              We all know asthmatic rates in children

             20   are growing at exponential rates at our current

             21   ozone level which should be reduced.  We found one

             22   definite backup to this, the CBS news Asthma

             23   Sufferers Pay Price For Ozone, about young

             24   children.  In a 55 major urban communities study an                                                                     109

              1   increase in daily ozone levels was associated with

              2   more than 3,700 associated deaths each year from

              3   cardiovascular and respiratory illness.  Many

              4   things besides the asthma are causing the ill

              5   effects of this air pollution from studies done

              6   both at Yale and at Johns Hopkins.  I'm turning

              7   them both in as evidence later.

              8              Another piece of written evidence I'd

              9   like to present is from the environmental health

             10   prospectus which basically says that ozone and

             11   second-hand smoke outweigh the genetic influences

             12   on causing asthma.  I submit that entire statement

             13   to you.  Basically I'm -- I urge EPA to lower the

             14   NAAQS below .06 parts per million or even lower to

             15   greatly increase our health and the EPA's main

             16   responsibility is for the public health of this

             17   country and not for the profits of the oil

             18   companies and the utilities.

             19              Thank you.

             20        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Mr. Weiztman.

             21             STATEMENT OF ARI WEITZMAN.

             22        MR. WEITZMAN:  Thank you for the opportunity

             23   to speak.  My name is Ari Weitzman, A R I,

             24   W E I T Z M A N.                                                                     110

              1              I'd like to start off with a story.

              2   It's a very good story.

              3              The EPA has set the National Ambient Air

              4   Quality Standards for six major --

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Excuse me, sir, can you get a

              6   little closer to the mic?

              7        MR. WEITZMAN:  Previously the standards for

              8   ozone was set to .08 parts per million.  To review

              9   the safety of this, the EPA set up the Clean Air

             10   Advisory Committee, composed of 22 scientists

             11   responsible for reviewing this standard.  The

             12   unanimous vote was the standard should be lower

             13   than .06 ppm or no more than .07 ppm.  On June 20th

             14   the EPA decided to lower the standards to .075 ppm.

             15   The Clean Air Act states that the air must

             16   breathable for every one.  The standard must be no

             17   more than .07 parts per million and should be .06

             18   parts per million.

             19              We, as concerned citizens, are here to

             20   convince you that the ramifications -- these are

             21   ramifications that most notably are major helpers,

             22   a general threat to all people and a specific

             23   threat to those at risk.  I am not one of those

             24   specific at-risk citizens, but being somebody who                                                                     111

              1   exercises a lot outside, I could appreciate that.

              2   You also are trying to weigh the positive

              3   ramifications, and I'm in no position to accurately

              4   stipulate upon what those might be, but you will

              5   remember the prior testimony in that regard.  I

              6   will comment, though, that even if Chicago doesn't

              7   reach the non-attainment, a stronger standard will

              8   prevail much more convincingly than if no action is

              9   taken.  To ensure the health of those at risk the

             10   Clean Air Act requires that they do this.  If you

             11   could look in the reports before you and aren't

             12   worried about making incorrect decisions, please

             13   note that certainly no one can fault you for

             14   abiding by the CASAC numbers.

             15              As far as personal testimony goes, I

             16   have very little to say about the negative

             17   ramifications of your actions, they won't affect me

             18   personally as much as they will other testifiers

             19   here.  I don't have asthma, I don't suffer from

             20   lung disease, I'm like most of you, I can

             21   appreciate the general ramifications of these and

             22   also I'm probably the youngest testifier here, I

             23   can say that it is important that you set the

             24   standard for the future.  If you set a poor                                                                     112

              1   standard here, you're only helping to complete a

              2   bleaker overall picture that I and your children

              3   are going to have to deal with.  I hope that

              4   sufficient strides are taken to improve the air

              5   quality.

              6              I thank you for the opportunity to speak

              7   with you.

              8        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Weitzman, we have a

              9   question.  Can you tell us whether you are

             10   supporting the 0.70 or the .075.

             11        MR. WEITZMAN:  I'm supporting .070.

             12        MR. RICHMOND:  One quick clarification, the

             13   June -- the July 11th proposal cited a range of

             14   .070 to .075 not just .75.

             15        MR. WEITZMAN:  Yes.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, gentlemen, and

             17   we'll take copies of your written testimony and

             18   supporting documentation also.

             19              Before I announce the next two speakers,

             20   I would like to say does anyone in the audience

             21   like to speak that has not registered?  We have a

             22   few spaces open, so if you're interested, please

             23   register at the registration table outside and

             24   we'll give you a chance to speak.                                                                     113

              1              Our next speakers are Wende Fox-Lawson

              2   and Caroline Baier-Anderson.

              3              Ms. Fox-Lawson, you're first.

              4             STATEMENT OF WENDE FOX-LAWSON

              5        MS. FOX-LAWSON:  Hi, my name is Wende

              6   Fox-Lawson and first I wanted to say I appreciate

              7   very much this opportunity to speak.

              8              I live in Chicago with my husband and

              9   our two children ages 9 and 11, and I'd be

             10   interested in sharing our -- the experience of our

             11   nine-year-old who would have come except for it's

             12   his first day of school.  He has severe asthma

             13   which is exacerbated by the poor air quality, and I

             14   wanted to share with you just one example of many

             15   young children who are affected by asthma and by

             16   whom asthma management is becoming more difficult,

             17   we believe because of air quality concerns.

             18              James, who is now nine, has been

             19   hospitalized twice for asthma, he has had numerous

             20   emergency room visits.  He was diagnosed at six

             21   months.  He's been seen at Children's Memorial here

             22   and he's been fortunate enough to be seen by the

             23   head of -- first Dr. Richard Evans, who

             24   unfortunately passed away six years ago, and now                                                                     114

              1   Dr. Jack Lynch.  He's been on the most aggressive

              2   medication that we believe is available including

              3   daily inhalant steroids since age eight months and

              4   also he has -- albuteral is needed and occasionally

              5   when he gets a fever, he takes an oral prednisone,

              6   so his management of asthma is considered to be

              7   best that's available.

              8              Despite this, he does have some problems

              9   when he gets a fever, probably twice a year.  The

             10   other times he has problems, however, are during

             11   outdoor activities, primarily during the school

             12   recess and when he plays soccer outdoors.  I think

             13   this is significant for children because I point

             14   out that he participants in some very vigorous

             15   indoor sports activities.  He's an avid ice hockey

             16   player, which amazingly is a common pursuit for

             17   children with asthma because it's a way of

             18   strengthening their lungs in a controlled air

             19   environment.  He's never needed his albuteral

             20   during hockey, and he's both a player, they call it

             21   a skater, and a goalie.  Amazing for a 55 pound

             22   nine-year-old.  And swimming, he's had no problems

             23   at all.  But when he's outdoors, the nurse

             24   frequently has to bring him in from recess, give                                                                     115

              1   him a dose of albuteral.  This occurs -- we tried

              2   to count it out -- approximately 20 days during the

              3   school year last year and that's aside from the

              4   times that he had a fever, which would, of course,

              5   explain an asthma condition.

              6              We also take significant precautions at

              7   home.  We have HEPA filters.  We use the air

              8   conditioner regularly, we try to keep the indoor

              9   air quality very high.  I'm concerned that there

             10   are a lot of children who aren't able to take

             11   precautions that we're able to take with James, who

             12   don't have access to the excellent medical care

             13   that he has.

             14              In fact, Dr. Evans, who I mentioned

             15   earlier, was very interested in the plight of

             16   children in Chicago who were in public housing and

             17   commented to me -- this was six years ago, I know

             18   there's been a lot of research on it and I'm not

             19   familiar with all of it, but at that time he was

             20   very concerned these children didn't have care in

             21   place that James does, so I can't imagine how

             22   they're doing with poor air quality.

             23              I encourage you to lower the standard.

             24   I'll be happy to provide any additional                                                                     116

              1   information.

              2        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

              3              Dr. Baier-Anderson.

              4         STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BAIER-ANDERSON, MD.

              5        MS. BAIER-ANDERSON:  My name is Caroline

              6   Baier-Anderson, C A R O L I N E, B A I E R hyphen

              7   Anderson, and I'm a health scientist at

              8   Environmental Defense, a national non-partisan

              9   science-based environmental organization.  Thank

             10   you for the opportunity to testify about the EPA's

             11   proposed revisions to the nation's health-based

             12   ambient air quality standard for ground-level

             13   ozone.

             14              Next March, administrator Johnson will

             15   be making his final decision on the ozone NAAQS.

             16   According to the law, these standards must protect

             17   the public health with an adequate margin of

             18   safety.  We are concerned that EPA's final decision

             19   will not be adequate to meet the statutory mandate,

             20   so we are requesting that the EPA set the NAAQS at

             21   60 parts per billion.  This is the protective end

             22   of the range unanimously recommended by the CASAC,

             23   an EPA-appointed panel of the nation's leading air

             24   quality experts.                                                                     117

              1              Retaining the current health standard is

              2   not supported by science and will continue to put

              3   large numbers of individuals at risk.

              4              The CASAC unanimously and unambiguously

              5   advised the EPA administrator, 1, there's no

              6   scientific justification for retaining the current

              7   primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 parts per million

              8   and; 2, the NAAQS must be substantially reduced to

              9   protect human health, particularly in sensitive

             10   subpopulations.  The Committee also clearly and

             11   unanimously agreed upon a recommended range of 60

             12   to 70 parts per billion.

             13              Now, in the technical support document

             14   prepared by the EPA staff, it also demonstrates the

             15   inadequacy of the current ozone standard.  Quoting

             16   from Page 6-38 of the EPA Staff Paper, quote,

             17   "Based on the strength of the currently available

             18   evidence of adverse health effects, especially

             19   indicators of respiratory morbidity, and on the

             20   extent to which the evidence indicates that such

             21   effects likely result from exposures to ambient

             22   ozone concentrations well below the level of the

             23   current standard, we conclude that the available

             24   evidence clearly calls into question the adequacy                                                                     118

              1   of the current standard and provides strong support

              2   for giving consideration to advising the standard

              3   to provide increased protection, especially for

              4   sensitive groups, against a broad array of adverse

              5   health effects.

              6              But EPA has inexplicably included

              7   retaining the current standard ozone as an option.

              8   The CASAC addressed this matter and found there's

              9   no longer significant scientific uncertainty

             10   regarding CASAC's conclusion that the current

             11   eight-hour primary NAAQS must be lowered.  An ozone

             12   standard above 70 parts per billion will result in

             13   unacceptable residual health risks.

             14              The EPA risk assessment demonstrates

             15   that there is no evidence that a threshold exists

             16   below which there are no adverse health effects.

             17   In fact, EPA has concluded, quote, "If a threshold

             18   exists, it is well below the current standard,

             19   probably within the range of ambient exposures, end

             20   quote.

             21              Moreover, there's abundant evidence that

             22   children, people with asthma, outdoor workers and

             23   elderly are more severely affected by ozone, due to

             24   increased sensitivity, greater exposures or both.                                                                     119

              1              A health protective ozone standard

              2   within CASAC's recommended range of 60 to 70 ppb

              3   will significantly reduce premature mortality.

              4              The EPA Staff Paper concludes that the

              5   evidence for the association between ozone and

              6   premature mortality as robust and credible.

              7              I'm going to skip ahead a little bit to

              8   get this all in.

              9              Lowering ozones also lowers particulate

             10   matter, a critical co-benefit.  So the lowering of

             11   ozone requires the lowering of chemical precursors

             12   such as NOx and VOCs; NOx also contribute to the

             13   formation of PM 2.5.  The EPA's calculated the

             14   value of the co-benefits.  For example, an ozone

             15   standard is 65 parts per billion translates to a

             16   combined morbidity plus mortality benefit of

             17   $4.7 billion.  So when you add in the co-benefits

             18   of decreasing PM 2.5 and call it decreasing ozone,

             19   and add it to the total, the co-benefits skyrocket

             20   to 14 to $27 billion.  So I think this is a really

             21   important point that merits emphasis.

             22              A standard at the more protective end of

             23   the CASAC recommendation is needed to protect

             24   public health.  Given the preponderance of evidence                                                                     120

              1   of ozone health effects at ambient concentrations,

              2   it is unfortunate that EPA has chosen to ignore its

              3   own staff and the recommendations of the CASAC to

              4   focus on standards that will adequately protect

              5   public health.

              6              Environmental Defense supports an ozone

              7   standard of 60 parts per billion as offering the

              8   best protection for vulnerable populations against

              9   an array of ozone-related adverse health effects

             10   and premature mortality.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Baier-Anderson.

             12   Any questions from the panel?

             13              Thank you both and we will submit your

             14   written statements in the record.  Thanks.

             15              The next speaker is Anne McKibbin and

             16   Glenn Frederick.

             17              Please state your name and spell it for

             18   the court reporter.

             19              STATEMENT OF ANNE McKIBBIN

             20        MS. McKIBBIN:  Anne McKibbin, A N N E,

             21   M C K I B B I N.

             22        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Please get closer to the mic.

             23        MS. McKIBBIN:  I'm the chair of the Air and

             24   Energy Committee of the Sierra Club's Chicago                                                                     121

              1   Group.  Our group has approximately 8,600 members

              2   in Cook County and we strongly encourage the EPA to

              3   do as its own scientific advisors have recommended

              4   and go to the eight-hour primary ozone standard.

              5   We urge you to set the final standard at the low

              6   end of the recommended range, 60 parts per million,

              7   which is supported by a number of studies of the

              8   effects of ozone on human health.  I also urge you

              9   to eliminate the rounding loophole that allows

             10   states to round ozone concentrations down to

             11   artificially meet the standard.

             12              The law requires EPA to base its

             13   standard on the levels needed to preserve our

             14   health.

             15              Ozone pollution, as you heard, is a

             16   serious health threat.  We know that breathing

             17   ozone can shorten our lives, even at the current

             18   standard levels, and we know that it aggravates

             19   chronic diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and

             20   emphysema.

             21              And ozone adversely affects the health

             22   of vulnerable populations, which include elderly,

             23   children and teens, and even people who exercise

             24   outdoors and just want to take a nice morning jog.                                                                     122

              1              All Americans deserve to breathe clean

              2   air.  EPA can assure cleaner air in our

              3   communities.  Retaining the current standard levels

              4   would ignore overwhelming scientific evidence that

              5   a standard of 60 parts per billion is needed to

              6   preserve human health, so we strongly encourage you

              7   to lower the standard.

              8              Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             10              Mr. Frederick.

             11             STATEMENT OF GLENN FREDERICK.

             12        MR. FREDERICK:  My name is Glenn Frederick.

             13   I'm a private citizen.  I believe that Ari Weitzman

             14   spoke probably earlier today.  I'm just a member of

             15   the organization, I don't have a bunch of numbers

             16   or anything.  I just wanted to come down and show

             17   my support and just to say a couple of common

             18   sense, I guess, statements or facts.

             19              I'm a small businessman and entrepreneur

             20   and most of these things probably affect, you know,

             21   when the policy changes are going to affect the

             22   outcome of -- new policies usually affect me harder

             23   and quicker than it does -- because I don't have

             24   the money coming in.  But if something is important                                                                     123

              1   to make whatever changes are required of me, which

              2   is like for us to do the correct thing in this

              3   situation.  I would say that me, myself, I look at

              4   it as a form of risk management as a business

              5   person dealing with my day-to-day things, it's a

              6   form of risk management, what's the reward versus

              7   what's the risk.  And when I look at maintaining or

              8   staying at the level that we are at, currently at,

              9   we've already been told by your advisors that the

             10   reward of us just staying there -- there's really

             11   no reward other than saying we're going to be able

             12   to stay the same, we're not going to be forced to

             13   make a change.  We're going to be just going on

             14   with the day-to-day as we do.  But the risk is so

             15   great, the fact that we don't know what the outcome

             16   is, we still don't know and will not know for who

             17   knows how many years what effect we're having on

             18   our environment, and there's not going to be a

             19   second chance for us to go back and say we made the

             20   wrong decision back in 2007.  So me, myself, as a

             21   constituent, as a businessman, I urge you to drop

             22   the levels to what has been suggested by your own

             23   people to the .60 part per million.

             24              And I would like to say one other thing.                                                                     124

              1   When reading the information that I get in e-mails

              2   just with being a member of the organization, it's

              3   almost probably to the taxpayer also it's almost

              4   irritating to always see the independent advisors,

              5   the independent scientific board always paid for

              6   to get their suggestions, our tax dollars paid for

              7   to get their suggestions, So I ask that you

              8   reconsider.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We have the last of the

             10   registered speakers for the morning, Dr. Helen

             11   Binns and Ms. Liane Casten.

             12              Dr. Binns, you go first, please.

             13             STATEMENT OF HELEN BINNS, MD

             14        MS. BINNS:  Thank you.  My name is Helen

             15   Binns, B I N N S.  I was the chairperson at the

             16   American Academy of Pediatrics.  I speak on

             17   behalf of that organization of 60,000 pediatric

             18   members.

             19              I'm a professor of pediatrics at

             20   Northwestern University, an attending physician at

             21   the Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago.  Thank

             22   you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of

             23   children.

             24              Since the passage of the Clean Air Act,                                                                     125

              1   the air quality has improved in many parts of our

              2   nation.  However, many regions in the United States

              3   still experience serious air pollution.  Further,

              4   numerous scientific studies continue to identify

              5   adverse health effects at ozone levels below the

              6   current air qualities.  This special vulnerability

              7   of infants, children and adolescents to ambient air

              8   pollution compel our nation to craft standards that

              9   will safeguard ourselves against this threat.  The

             10   science is unambiguous.

             11              Ozone air pollution harms children.  We

             12   have the ability to reduce this threat.  The

             13   American Academy of Pediatrics calls upon the

             14   Environmental Protection Agency to propose ozone

             15   standards at or below an eight-hour exposure 70

             16   parts per billion.  The AAP support rounding down

             17   to meet this standard.

             18              Children are especially susceptible to

             19   the adverse effects of the ambient air pollution

             20   due to their extensive lung growth and development

             21   after birth.  80 percent of the alveoli, which is

             22   the smallest portion of the lungs where gas

             23   exchange occurs, are formed after a child is born.

             24   The lungs continue to develop through adolescence.                                                                     126

              1   During the early post-neonatal period, the

              2   developing lung is highly susceptible to damage

              3   from the exposure to environmental toxicants.

              4              Compared to adults, children have

              5   increased exposure to many air pollutants because

              6   of their relatively higher amounts of air breathed

              7   per minute in relationship to their size and due to

              8   higher levels of physical activity.  Children also

              9   have high exposures to outdoor air pollution than

             10   adults, because they spend more time outdoors.

             11              Ozone is a powerful oxidant gas and

             12   respiratory tract irritant.  Exposure to ozone at

             13   lower concentrations than other ambient gaseous

             14   pollutants can cause shortness of breath, chest

             15   pains when inhaling deeply, wheezing, coughing and

             16   inflammation in the lungs.  Studies of children at

             17   summer camp and epidemiological studies and other

             18   settings found that on days with the high levels of

             19   ambient ozone children have decreases in lung

             20   function, increased respiratory tract symptoms and

             21   asthmatic exacerbations, increased respiratory

             22   room -- emergency room visits and increased school

             23   absences.  Hospitalizations and premature mortality

             24   have also been linked to increases in ozone.                                                                     127

              1             Additionally, long-term exposure to

              2   ozone may have lifelong consequences for children.

              3   A prospective study in southern California found

              4   that children involved in high levels of team

              5   sports who grew up in communities with high ozone

              6   levels were at increased risk for developing

              7   asthma.  Another study from the chronic long-term

              8   exposure to ambient ozone was associated with

              9   decreased levels of small airway function in

             10   college students.

             11              Controlled human exposure studies in

             12   young, healthy adults have found reduced lung

             13   function, increased respiratory symptoms, increased

             14   airway hyper-reactivity, and increased airway

             15   inflammation after ozone exposure.  Exposures to

             16   ozone concentrations as low as 80 parts per billion

             17   for 6.6 to eight hours in young, healthy exercising

             18   adults caused decreased lung function, airway

             19   hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation.

             20   These studies conducted in laboratory settings did

             21   not include young children or individuals with

             22   moderate to severe asthma or other respiratory

             23   diseases, which are two groups more likely to

             24   experience acute adverse effects than healthy                                                                     128

              1   invidious.

              2              The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific

              3   Advisory Committee recently recommended

              4   consideration of an eight-hour average standard in

              5   the range of 55 to 60 parts per billion at the

              6   lower end to 70 parts per billion.  To protect

              7   children, the American Academy of Pediatrics

              8   strongly recommends a tighter eight-hour standard

              9   for ozone and supports adoption of the revised

             10   ozone eight-hour exposure standard at or below 70

             11   parts per billion.

             12              Thank you.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             14              Ms. Liane Casten.

             15             STATEMENT OF LIANE CASTEN.

             16        MS. CASTEN:  My name is Liane Casten and I've

             17   lived in Evanston, Illinois for 33 years.  I am an

             18   environmental journalist, have researched and

             19   published the book, Breast Cancer: Poisons, Profits

             20   and Prevention.  I've watched with total dismay and

             21   disgust how our regulatory agencies have operated

             22   for a very long time now.  The operative word is

             23   "Politics."

             24              So my talk will not be about science.                                                                     129

              1   In fact, I'm certain most of those in the room are

              2   fully aware of the science and the desperate need

              3   to establish high standards now, with enforcement

              4   capabilities that will improve air quality and the

              5   health of all of our citizens.

              6              I'm here to discuss public policy and

              7   the politicization of our regulatory agencies.  I'm

              8   here because over the years I watched EPA knuckle

              9   under to the pressures of industry profit to the

             10   point where there are epidemics of cancer, asthma,

             11   bronchitis, childhood leukemia and limited brain

             12   development, ailments that are absolutely

             13   preventable for the most part.

             14              When Richard Nixon signed on to the

             15   establishment of the EPA in 1971, U.S. citizens

             16   were thrilled.  At last, there was an agency that

             17   protects us from wanton corporate/industrial

             18   toxicity.  Well, that mandate has changed.

             19              I cite three examples.  When the

             20   International Joint Commission came forward in the

             21   early 1990s, after massive independent research and

             22   review, to recommend the phase-out of chlorine in

             23   industrial processes, EPA buckled under to the

             24   pressure of the chlorine industry, it sat on its                                                                     130

              1   collective hands and did nothing.  As a

              2   consequence, massive amount of POPS, persistent

              3   organic poisons, have been released into the

              4   waters, the air and into the food chain, with

              5   serious consequences to humans.

              6              Another example, when EPA did not one

              7   but two definitive studies on the properties of

              8   dioxin, the contaminant in Agent Orange, not only

              9   has the second and final re-assessment been totally

             10   suppressed, a green light has been given to

             11   industry to keep it up, to allow this very

             12   dangerous known carcinogen to be allowed into our

             13   air, water and food during various manufacturing

             14   processes.  Again, the regulatory agency mandated

             15   to protect public health rather has been perverted

             16   to protect industry profits.

             17              As for the Toxic Release Inventory, that

             18   went out with Bush pretty fast, during his first

             19   administration, under EPA leadership.  It used to

             20   be an effective tool to curb industry's flagrant

             21   indifference to anything but its own profits.  Now

             22   we just don't know what the industry is spewing out

             23   where and how much of it's poison.

             24              Perhaps the EPA will go after some poor                                                                     131

              1   individual with a little clout whose business sits

              2   on a toxic dumpsite or whose home has radon in his

              3   basement.  But, will the Agency raise the standards

              4   on air pollution when those with big money and

              5   clout pressure and bribe the politicians?  The

              6   administration has already shown its contempt for

              7   public health, on all levels, when profits are

              8   involved.  The fact has been verified many times.

              9              So I write this with the remainder for

             10   all of you working at EPA now.  If it's your job

             11   you're protecting, I can't say much, you do have a

             12   family to feed; but if you're going along because

             13   everyone else is, I urge you all to find your

             14   conscious and independence and work to protect

             15   those who not only pay your salaries but who do not

             16   deserve to be assaulted by chemicals alone or in

             17   synergistic combination with each other can create

             18   the kind of public health crisis we now see across

             19   the country.  Americans deserve better.

             20              Thank you, Miss Casten.  Questions from

             21   the panel?

             22        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             23        MS. TYSON:  No.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We'll take the written                                                                     132

              1   testimony if you could please put it on the table.

              2              We do have two more speakers, Ellen

              3   O'Rourke and Brian Urbaszewski.

              4              Ms. O'Rourke, you go first.

              5             STATEMENT OF ELLEN O'ROURKE.

              6        MS. O'ROURKE:  My name is Ellen O'Rourke and

              7   I'm one more citizen from the City of Chicago here

              8   to encourage you to support the encouraged

              9   standards of .06 parts per million.

             10              I am very recently under a doctor's care

             11   for an undiagnosed lung ailment.  I have masses in

             12   my lungs that are being monitored ever six months

             13   with CT scans.  I'm an otherwise healthy,

             14   non-worker runner.  I'm here to ask you to set the

             15   standard to protect our environment.  Change can be

             16   difficult, especially for businesses that feel an

             17   initial impact with their profitability.  We need

             18   the EPA to set the standards recommended by its own

             19   scientists.  I believe that this is the only way to

             20   improve the condition of our environment.  I also

             21   feel that there's nothing more important in life

             22   than good health.  Thank you for allowing me to

             23   speak today.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.                                                                     133

              1              Mr. Urbaszeweski.

              2             STATEMENT OF BRIAN URBASZEWSKI.

              3        MR. URBASZEWSKI:  My name is Brian, B R I A N,

              4   Urbaszewski, U R B A S Z E W S K I.  I'm the

              5   Director of Environmental Health Programs,

              6   Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan

              7   Chicago.

              8              Thank you for the opportunity to testify

              9   on the Agency's proposal for revising the ozone

             10   NAAQS.

             11              Respiratory Health Association of

             12   Metropolitan Chicago has been a leading lung health

             13   advocate since 1906.  In addition to providing

             14   educational services within Illinois communities on

             15   the topic of lung health and supporting needed

             16   medical research, we also advocate for cleaner air

             17   in order to preserve lung health and improve the

             18   lives of people who live with lung disease every

             19   day.  Likewise, we serve as host to the Chicago

             20   Thoracic Society, the local presence of the

             21   American Thoracic Society in metropolitan Chicago.

             22              While air quality has improved, Chicago

             23   still faces challenges in meeting the current

             24   1997 ozone standard.  Chicago-area monitors in                                                                     134

              1   Illinois alone have already counted exceedences of

              2   the ozone NAAQS on eight days this year.  But as

              3   the record and the proposal under consideration

              4   today show, the 10 million people in metropolitan

              5   Chicago are not being served by the current ozone

              6   standard.

              7              In the last ten years, research has

              8   convincingly demonstrated that there are

              9   significant negative health outcomes when people

             10   are exposed to ozone levels that are below the

             11   level of the current federal standard.  Those with

             12   lung disease often fare worst when exposed to

             13   ozone.  Over the past decade, published research

             14   has found that children with asthma, newborns, the

             15   elderly and workers breathing ozone at levels well

             16   below the current federal health standards still

             17   suffer adverse health effects.  We have also

             18   learned that ozone is associated with significant

             19   numbers of premature deaths, no matter how many

             20   times the numbers are reanalyzed.  In short, ozone

             21   is more dangerous than previously thought, and at

             22   lower concentrations.

             23              The current ozone standard is not

             24   protecting people and it most certainly is not                                                                     135

              1   protecting people with asthma and other reactive

              2   airway diseases.  Thankfully, the administrator

              3   agrees with this contention as he made this point

              4   when testifying on the new ozone standard proposal

              5   before Congress.

              6              Today, there are 400,000 people in Cook

              7   County alone with asthma.  Approximately one-third

              8   of these people is children; asthma is the most

              9   chronic disease among children.  In fact, like

             10   New York, Chicago has one of the highest rates of

             11   asthma in the country.  Some population subgroups

             12   in our area such as residents of Puerto Rican

             13   ancestry, have asthma rates that are amazingly

             14   high, as much as a third of all school aged

             15   children in certain Chicago neighborhoods.  While

             16   it is documented that ozone increases asthma

             17   attacks as well as respiratory hospital admissions

             18   and emergency room visits, some research suggests

             19   that ozone may also increase children's risk of

             20   developing asthma in the first place.  Others

             21   testifying will recount specific studies EPA has

             22   considered as well as present new information that

             23   reenforces what the Clean Air Act Advisory

             24   Committee has twice told the Agency.  Specifically,                                                                     136

              1   retaining the current standard is not supported by

              2   the science, and the standard must be lowered in

              3   order to protect sensitive groups.

              4              We urge the EPA to listen to its own

              5   advisors such as CASAC and the children's Health

              6   Protection Advisory Committee as well as

              7   independent experts who recommend a tighter ozone

              8   health standard than the Agency has proposed.

              9   Public health professionals and organizations such

             10   as the American Thoracic Society, the American

             11   Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health

             12   Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of

             13   America and Respiratory Health Association of

             14   Metropolitan Chicago all endorse a standard of .06

             15   parts per million.

             16              People also have a right to know when

             17   the air they are breathing can put their health at

             18   risk and EPA should not be hiding this information

             19   from them.  People with asthma and parents of

             20   children with asthma are very interested in the

             21   concept of air pollution action days and the

             22   services provided by EPA's AIRNOW system, as it

             23   gives some people some realtime knowledge as to the

             24   risks of high ozone levels that can be used in a                                                                     137

              1   judgment to modify or avoid outdoor activities that

              2   might trigger an attack.  It also allows parents of

              3   children with asthma to be extra vigilant about

              4   children carrying rescue medication.

              5              While these tools are somewhat useful

              6   today, this is a sad situation that should simply

              7   not exist since the problem is largely preventable.

              8   The EPA staff discusses how children with asthma

              9   may have greater responses to ozone and greater

             10   reductions in lung functions but that such children

             11   may also be spending more time indoors in more

             12   sedentary pursuits and that may counterbalance the

             13   effect of them being more at risk from ozone

             14   pollution.  How sad to assume that.  It does a

             15   disservice to those children and their long-term

             16   health and well-being and sets up a

             17   blame-the-victim scenario whereby children who

             18   experience health problems should simply have known

             19   not to be active when ozone levels are high.  It is

             20   a tired argument used by industry to abdicate

             21   responsibility for setting an appropriate health

             22   standard or move toward meeting such a standard.

             23              Air quality standards should be set at a

             24   level that will protect everyone's health, period.                                                                     138

              1   Regarding the language covering the reasonable

              2   margin of safety demanded by the Clean Air Act, we

              3   agree with others making comments who contend that

              4   if there is any uncertainty in where the standard

              5   should be set, people at risk deserve the benefit

              6   of the doubt, not polluters.

              7              I have two or three more sentences.

              8              Because the reasonable margin of safety

              9   was explicitly put in statutory language, we

             10   believe this was the original congressional intent

             11   as well.  Since the Staff Paper states, "The

             12   selection of any particular approach to providing

             13   an adequate margin of safety is a policy choice

             14   left specifically to the Administrator's judgment,

             15   we sincerely hope Mr. Johnson takes these comments

             16   to heart when he makes his final decision and

             17   imagines how he would be treated if he were a very

             18   young child living with severe asthma in one of the

             19   largest cities of America.

             20        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you both.  Please

             21   leave copies of your written documents for the

             22   record.

             23             The next speaker is Jennifer James.

             24             STATEMENT OF JENNIFER JAMES                                                                     139

              1        UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  Good morning.  My name

              2   is Jennifer James.  I'm a stay-at-home parent in

              3   Chicago.  My husband is a pediatrician who has

              4   practiced in the urban Chicago neighborhoods for

              5   over the last five years.  I'd like to urge the

              6   EPA to substantially threaten their ozone standard

              7   to maintain the standards that is recommended by

              8   all of your advisory groups at all times at this

              9   point.

             10              As a mother of two small children in

             11   Chicago who attend a small urban public school, I

             12   can attest to the fact that more than half of the

             13   Hispanic students at my son's largely Hispanic

             14   school have asthma and they suffer greatly on days

             15   like today, which is an ozone action day.  Several

             16   of those children won't attend recess today and

             17   they will not be let outside.

             18              The day-to-day impact of weekend ozone

             19   standards on the public health and children in

             20   Chicago could be extremely detrimental to many,

             21   many children in many, many communities in our

             22   large urban city.

             23              That's all I have to say.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you so much, Ms. James.                                                                     140

              1              It's 12:18, we don't have anymore

              2   registered speakers.  We will remain here until

              3   12:30, our scheduled lunch break, 12:30 until 2:00,

              4   at which time we'll resume again.  Again, I

              5   encourage any of you who may wish to speak to

              6   register at the registration table outside.

              7              I'd like to thank our other EPA

              8   colleagues behind the scenes that have helped so

              9   much running this public hearing smoothly and the

             10   ECR Corporation and our audio person and reporter,

             11   thank you for their help.

             12                  (WHEREUPON, a recess was had from

             13                  12:20 p.m. until 12:27 p.m.)

             14        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We have one more speaker

             15   before we break for lunch and her name is Elaine

             16   Lemieux.  I would ask that you restate your name

             17   and spell it for the court reporter.

             18             STATEMENT OF ELAINE LEMIEUX

             19        MS. LEMIEUX:  Okay.  My name is Elaine

             20   Lemieux, L E M I U E X.

             21              Almost every day I walk with my daughter

             22   to her elementary school.  Personally I'm grateful

             23   to take this time and walk with her.

             24   Unfortunately, on our way to school we see on the                                                                     141

              1   streets all kind of cars and trucks idling, for

              2   example, vehicles owned by the City of Chicago.  By

              3   leaving their engines running, the city workers

              4   pollute the air as well as waste fuel and money.

              5   The following was written by Rebecca Stanfield, the

              6   Environment Illinois State Director.

              7              "There is no question that reducing

              8   pollution from cars, now the source of about

              9   one-third of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions,

             10   will have to be a large part of the plan to protect

             11   the planet and our future from the threat of global

             12   warning."  It is clear that this also applies to

             13   cars, SUVs, trucks, buses and other motor vehicles.

             14              After much thought when I see all these

             15   cars and these trucks idling, I decided to do

             16   something.  I now talk directly to the city workers

             17   and every person I encounter on the street whose

             18   vehicles are idling.  One by one I ask them to turn

             19   off their engines.  To be more convincing, I

             20   designed the Pure Air card.  Every time I hand out

             21   the card, I ask them to turn off their engines.  I

             22   also ask them to spread the word.

             23              Recently I wrote a letter to the

             24   alderman, Mrs. Margaret Laurino, about my concerns.                                                                     142

              1   I was very pleased to receive a letter from the

              2   Department of Fleet Management of the City of

              3   Chicago.  The Commissioner, Mr. Howard Henneman,

              4   informed me that in 2005, the City of Chicago took

              5   a step to implement its Vehicle Idling Management

              6   Policy.  In addition, the City of Chicago sent me

              7   some important information and this is what I put

              8   on the back of my card:  "Unnecessary idling of the

              9   City's fleet wastes approximately one gallon of

             10   fuel per hour for diesel vehicles and roughly .75

             11   gallons of fuel per hour for automobiles or

             12   light-duty vehicles," et cetera, all these facts,

             13   these many, many facts.  But there's a lot of

             14   carbon dioxide.  From a cost perspective, the same

             15   amount of idling would result in 2,900,000 in

             16   unnecessary fuel expenditure, lots of waste.

             17              These facts apply only for the City of

             18   Chicago Department of Fleet Management.  Imagine

             19   the number of the whole city and beyond.  So many

             20   cities and many states all around the U.S. adopt a

             21   new adoption law and regulation for better air

             22   quality.

             23              You know, we could put in the

             24   supermarket, in the Chicago Public Schools and in                                                                     143

              1   the idling zone.  It's very easy to do, many

              2   parents waiting for their children idling their

              3   cars.  So this action can really make a difference.

              4   Unnecessary idling, it's a habit that costs us

              5   millions of dollars a day in wasted fuel and

              6   energy, produces enormous amount of pollutant and

              7   after all gets us nowhere.  When you have it, an

              8   easy idea has to be put into practice by everyone,

              9   it is simply by turning off our engine when not

             10   driving and when you're waiting.

             11              I really wish that everyone could

             12   receive this Pure Air message so we could

             13   altogether really make a difference.  This country

             14   is capable to be one of the leaders in environment

             15   issues.

             16              Thank you.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.  And we will take

             18   your written testimony and your card.  Thank you

             19   very much.  We are going to take two more

             20   presenters before a lunch break, Mr. Vinson Hellwig

             21   and Ms. Andrea Daniels.

             22              I just want to make sure that at our

             23   registration table they informed you of the

             24   logistics here.  You have five minutes to speak,                                                                     144

              1   green light, yellow light and red light.

              2              Mr. Hellwig.

              3             STATEMENT OF VINSON HELLWIG

              4        MR. HELLWIG:  My name is Vince Hellwig, I'm

              5   Chief of the Air Quality Division at the Michigan

              6   Department of Environmental Quality.  I'm also a

              7   member of the National Association of Clean Air

              8   Agencies, NACAA, on the Board of Directors and

              9   serve as co-chair of the association's Air Toxics

             10   Committee.  I am testifying today not for the state

             11   of Michigan, but rather on behalf of NACAA, which

             12   is an association of air pollution control agencies

             13   in 54 states and territories and over 165

             14   metropolitan areas across the country.  I'm

             15   testifying today on EPA's ozone National Ambient

             16   Air Quality Standards.  I'm testifying here today

             17   on behalf NACAA.

             18              NACAA commends EPA for proposing to set

             19   a more stringent primary ozone NAAQS to protect

             20   public health.  Ozone exposure is linked to a

             21   myriad of diverse health effects including

             22   premature mortality in people with heart and lung

             23   disease and recent evidence shows that the adverse

             24   health effects occur in concentrations lower than                                                                     145

              1   the current standards.  Although we appreciate

              2   EPA's proposal for tighter standards, we

              3   nevertheless have significant concerns with the

              4   agency's proposal.

              5              The EPA is a congressionally chartered

              6   body of independent scientific advisors, the Clean

              7   Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC,

              8   unanimously concluded based on several significant

              9   ethnological studies and clinical studies that the

             10   primary ozone standard needs to be substantially

             11   reduced and recommended strengthening the primary

             12   ozone facts to a level within the range of .060,

             13   .070 parts per million.

             14              However, EPA's proposed range of level,

             15   .070 to .075 parts per million, falls outside the

             16   range that were recommended unanimously by CASAC.

             17   The proposal coincides only if CASAC's upper bound.

             18   In determining the levels requisite to protect the

             19   public health and welfare, NACAA strongly believes

             20   that EPA should follow the science, the learned,

             21   informed advice of CASAC.

             22              Given CASAC's statutorily defined role

             23   from NACAA review process, EPA needs to

             24   specifically indicate why it should follow the                                                                     146

              1   advice of its independent scientific advisors.  In

              2   addition, we question why EPA is considering

              3   retaining the current standard at .084 parts per

              4   million when as CASAC points out, a large body of

              5   scientific evidence clearly demonstrates adverse

              6   health effects at the current standard.  CASAC said

              7   it best, there's no scientific justification for

              8   retaining the current primary eight-hour NAAQS.

              9              Turning now to the secondary ozone

             10   standards to protect public welfare, NACAA is

             11   pleased that EPA has proposed a distinct,

             12   cumulative seasonal standard.  Ozone inhibits

             13   photosynthesis, inhibits root growth, negatively

             14   affects tree growth and causes visible damage to

             15   leaves and reduces agricultural crop yields.  A

             16   cumulative seasonal standard more directly

             17   correlates with the exposure of plants to ozone,

             18   since plants are exposed to ozone during the entire

             19   ozone season.

             20              As with the primary standard, EPA's

             21   proposal is a step in the right direction but falls

             22   short of what science indicates is needed.  While

             23   EPA did propose promulgating a distinct, cumulative

             24   seasonal standard W126, the Agency's proposed range                                                                     147

              1   for a level just outside CASAC's range.

              2              In addition, we are troubled that EPA

              3   proposed as an alternative secondary making the

              4   secondary standard identical to the primary

              5   standard, despite agreement among CASAC, the

              6   ecological experts convened in a 1997 workshop and

              7   EPA staff on the need for a distinct, cumulative,

              8   seasonal secondary standard to protect vegetation.

              9              Finally, with respect to both primary

             10   and secondary standards, to the extent that new

             11   peer-reviewed scientific studies have been

             12   published in scientific journals since EPA proposed

             13   this rule, we encourage the Agency, time

             14   permitting, under the court-ordered deadline, to

             15   review these studies during its deliberation of a

             16   final rule.

             17              We are further concerned that EPA in its

             18   proposal, as in the particular matter NAAQS is

             19   mixing in implementation issues in a rule setting a

             20   health-based standard.

             21              EPA needs to erect a strong firewall

             22   between standard setting and health-based issues.

             23   The Supreme Court in Whitman versus American

             24   Trucking Association was very clear that EPA may                                                                     148

              1   not consider the cost of implementation in setting

              2   the NAAQS.  In addition, for quality reasons, the

              3   EPA should not let considerations of implementation

              4   to bleed into standard-setting.

              5              The benefits of setting strong standard

              6   are part of a measure.  One cannot precisely

              7   identify whose life was saved, whose child had

              8   fewer asthma attacks, which trees grew faster and

              9   stronger because of less ozone pollution.  The

             10   cost, on the other hand, can be more easily

             11   tallied, and once considerations of implementation

             12   bleed into standard-setting, then the human

             13   propensity for avoiding pain makes it likely that

             14   some stakeholders will clamor for a weaker standard

             15   to avoid these talks.

             16              Let me close by staying that while EPA

             17   should not conflate implementation and

             18   standard-setting issues in this rulemaking,

             19   whatever decision EPA makes on the level and form

             20   of the primary and secondary NAAQS will have a

             21   profound impact on the work of state and local

             22   clean air agencies.  EPA must recognize this, not

             23   in setting the NAAQSs, but in timely future

             24   rulemakings and appropriation requests by                                                                     149

              1   requesting sufficient funds for state and local

              2   clean air agencies to carry out work associated

              3   with meeting the new NAAQS.

              4        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you Mr. Hellwig.  We'll

              5   take down your written comments and put them in the

              6   record.

              7              Thank you.

              8        MR. HELLWIG:  Thank you for allowing me to

              9   testify.

             10        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Daniels.

             11            STATEMENT OF ANDREA DANIELS.

             12        MS. DANIELS:  Thank you for allowing me to

             13   speak on this issue.  I'm a private citizen and I

             14   just want to say a few simple comments about a

             15   complex issue to me as an no-brainer that the

             16   environmental protection agency should lower the

             17   standard to 0.060.  I am an avid bike rider, I ride

             18   my bike to work every day and I notice the effects

             19   of air pollution.  I also have asthma and it's not

             20   fun to use your inhaler when you get to work

             21   because you are sucking in all of the polluted air.

             22   There has to be something is addressed.  This is

             23   the world in which we live, and as I said, it is a

             24   no-brainer, to me and to everyone who wants to                                                                     150

              1   breathe clean air.

              2              So thank you for my time to speak here

              3   and I hope that we can reach a consensus.  Thank

              4   you.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Ms. Dennis.  We

              6   will break now for lunch and we'll resume the

              7   public hearing on at 2:00.

              8                (WHEREUPON, the hearing was

              9                        recessed until 2:00 p.m.,

             10                        this date.)

             11

             12

             13

             14

             15

             16

             17

             18

             19

             20

             21

             22

             23

             24