estimony of Christopher Recchia 20 was concluded.) 21 MR. HELMS: Blake Early? 22 MR. EARLY: Yes. 23 111 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. HELMS: The podium is yours, Blake. 1 TESTIMONY OF A. BLAKEMAN EARLY 2 MR. EARLY: Good morning. I am Blakeman Early. 3 I am speaking on behalf of the American Lung Association. 4 I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Many of my 5 remarks are going to sound familiar to you because they, 6 in fact, repeat many of the same things that have been 7 raised by other people who have testified. 8 The only element which I will focus in on is 9 that we believe that the elements of the EPA proposal is 10 deja vu all over again. When the Senate Environment and 11 Public Works Committee reported its version of the 1990 12 Clean Air Act amendments, it took note of the lack of 13 success in providing the nation with clean air. After 14 observing that in 1989, 150 million people still lived in 15 areas that violated the health standards for ozone and 16 carbon monoxide, the Committee found the following: 17 The responsibility for the widespread failure to 18 meet the ambient standards rests with both states and 19 local governments, and EPA predicting future air quality 20 based on assumed control programs is a complicated 21 undertaking that is susceptible to paper demonstrations of 22 attainment, that they are little relation to the 23 112 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 likelihood of actual attainment. 1 The Committee went on to find that the 2 inadequacies in emissions inventories and modeling, 3 failure to implement needed controls and the failure of 4 EPA and the states to require additional controls when 5 needed reductions were not achieved all contributed to the 6 lack of success of combatting air pollution during the 7 1980s. The Committee also notes that, quote, a lack of 8 resources at the federal, state and local level has 9 severely hampered implementation of the Act's 10 requirements. 11 The Committee proposed legislation that was far 12 more prescriptive, requiring that minimum emission control 13 programs be included in the state implementation plans, 14 adopted in accordance with emission reduction milestones 15 and mandatory revisions when deadlines were exceeded. 16 This scheme is at the heart of the so called Subpart 2 of 17 the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 that were adopted. 18 The American Lung Association believes that this 19 approach has been successful. We are now striving to 20 launch a new initiative to combat air pollution, in 21 recognition of new research which shows that human 22 exposure at lower concentrations of ozone for longer 23 113 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 periods of time is equally dangerous, if not more so, than 1 spikes of ozone. As a result, EPA estimates 178 million 2 people live in areas that will be designated nonattainment 3 for the 8 hour standard for ozone. This number is 4 significant, not because it represents a failure of the 5 effort to reduce ozone in the 1990s, but because it 6 provides a sense of how big a job lies ahead to reduce 7 unhealthy levels of ozone. 8 The American Lung Association finds that many of 9 the elements of this proposal, if adopted, use the exact 10 failed approach of the 1980s in the name of providing 11 flexibility for those new nonattainment areas that violate 12 the 8 hour ozone health standards but not the 1 hour 13 standard. In light of a lack of resources at the state 14 and local level and at EPA, just as was noted occurred in 15 the 1980s by the Environment Committee, we conclude the 16 inevitable result of this approach will be failure. 17 Furthermore, although the EPA claims the 18 proposal would maintain progress in reducing ozone in 19 areas that still violate the 1 hour health standard, we 20 believe it weakens requirements and extends deadlines for 21 action and that such progress will unnecessarily be slowed 22 and, perhaps, even halted. 23 114 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 The EPA asserts that a more flexible approach 1 will achieve attainment at a lower cost. While EPA 2 acknowledges that the Clean Air Act requires attainment as 3 soon as practicable, the implication is that there are not 4 sufficient benefits for achieving attainment earlier than 5 the numeric deadlines required in the statute to merit 6 such an effort. EPA has provided no information to 7 substantiate such a position. The American Lung 8 Association asserts that in light of the fact that a 9 succession of deadlines for achieving healthy levels of 10 ozone have been missed for nearly 30 years, a maximum 11 effort is called for. This proposal contains far too many 12 options that we fear would result in a minimal effort in 13 many areas of the country. 14 While the EPA proposal may provide lower 15 financial cost to polluters, it is far too likely to 16 provide a higher personal and financial cost to our 17 nation's children, seniors and citizens who suffer from 18 asthma or chronic lung disease. The cost to these people 19 in increased medical expenses, hospital visits, emergency 20 room visits, lost work time and decreased quality of life 21 is well documented and preventable with aggressive action 22 to reduce pollution. 23 115 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 The ALA will provide detailed comments, but let 1 me just highlight some major recommendations that we will 2 be going into in greater detail. First of all, the Agency 3 should not revoke the 1 hour ozone standard. Such a 4 policy in essence delays attainment with ozone reduction 5 goals by our calculation five to ten years, and possibly 6 even longer. EPA should not allow maintenance areas, 7 areas that previously violated the 1 hour standard and now 8 are operating under a so called maintenance plan, to 9 abandon those maintenance plans and to abandon 10 transportation conformity requirements. 11 Maintenance plans provide the benefit of 12 preventing increases of ozone in such areas that are using 13 them during the preparation and implementation of their 14 8 hour state implementation plans. EPA should apply 15 Subpart 2 to all new 8 hour nonattainment areas classified 16 moderate or above to the greatest extent possible. It is 17 clear that Congress abandoned the approach of Subpart 1 18 for reducing ozone in areas with moderate or more serious 19 ozone levels. 20 We believe EPA should adopt an approach that is 21 consistent with the intent of Congress that follows 22 Subpart 2. EPA should significantly limit the use of 23 116 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 modeling to avoid emission reduction programs or 1 requirements. We have seen that Congress noted that 2 models were gained in the past. Notwithstanding the 3 advances in modeling technology and analysis, we believe 4 the burden falls on EPA to justify the broad substitution 5 of modeling for actual emissions reductions. We do not 6 need to return to the days of the paper demonstrations. 7 EPA should not reduce SIP requirements for clean 8 air development communities. While the American Lung 9 Association encourages efforts to promote development in 10 ways that reduce its impact on air quality, there is 11 simply insufficient information available today to 12 calculate the amount and time frame of these benefits for 13 purposes of providing SIP credit or relaxing new source 14 review requirements. 15 As I said, the Lung Association will provide 16 detailed comments in writing. I do want to acknowledge 17 the effort of the Agency to involve the public and 18 stakeholder groups the opportunity to influence the 19 development of these regulations, but we need tighter 20 regulations, and we need them as quickly as we can so we 21 can get on with the job of reducing health threatening air 22 pollution. 23 117 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Thank you. 1 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 2 Questions, comments? 3 MS. TIERNEY: Could you repeat the point you 4 made? Toward the end you said apply Subpart 2 to all and 5 then you said something about moderate, and I didn't quite 6 catch what you were saying. 7 MR. EARLY: Areas that the Agency is proposing 8 to classify as moderate and above should be subject to a 9 Subpart 2 style of requirement. As is true with the 10 1 hour standard, areas classified as marginal, in light of 11 the fact that they only have a three year deadline, you 12 use a more Subpart 1 style of requirements, and we think 13 that is appropriate. But for moderate and above, we think 14 it needs a full Subpart 2 approach. 15 MS. TIERNEY: Okay. 16 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 17 ( Whereupon, the testimony of A. Blakeman Early 18 was concluded.) 19 MR. HELMS: Katy Hubener? 20 ( Whereupon, there was a brief discussion off the 21 record.) 22 23 118 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 TESTIMONY OF KATY HUBENER 1 MS. HUBENER: Good morning. My name is Katy 2 Hubener, and I am the executive director for the North 3 Texas based air quality group, The Blue Skies Alliance. 4 Today I am here to speak on behalf of the 4.5 million 5 North Texas residents who are still living with lung 6 scorching ozone and have for far too long. 7 As you know, and as Region 6 has had many 8 discussions with us, you are well aware that the region 9 has repeatedly missed key clean air deadlines, both in 10 1996 and 1999, and is currently not on track to reach 11 attainment by 2005 or 2007. It is in reviewing the 12 repeated failures to attain the 1 hour standard which 13 gives me great pause. 14 I am further troubled by the 8 hour plan before 15 us, primarily because it appears that as we move towards a 16 cleaner standard, the EPA has offered a series of menu 17 items which will weaken clean air protections. These 18 rollbacks send a clear message to folks in Texas that 19 dirty polluters have more political power than do 20 breathers. Furthermore, these rollbacks give credence 21 that if you like to breathe or need to breathe, then you 22 should send President Bush back to Texas. 23 119 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 It is important to note that these national 1 policies were born and bred in Texas, and they ring an all 2 too familiar tune. What we are seeing now are things like 3 voluntary emission reductions, Cap and Trade programs, 4 failure to ratchet down on industrial sources and enforce 5 new source review, regulatory flexibility, reluctance to 6 designate areas nonattainment and fuzzy map policies. 7 It is important to note that these policies, rooted 8 more in political prowess rather than sound science, 9 didn't work in Texas and won't work for the country. 10 In regards to the current items before us, let 11 me cite specific concerns with the following frameworks: 12 We agree with our colleagues that revoking the 1 hour 13 standard for the 8 hour standard  we disagree with the 14 EPA's position on that. We disagree with extensions of 15 deadlines for nonattainment areas. We disagree with 16 looser NSR requirements for areas which violate the 8 hour 17 standard but not the 1 hour standard. We think that there 18 needs to be more stringent controls, and we disagree with 19 the flexibility of Subpart 1. 20 Like many of my colleagues before, we take issue 21 with the EPA's willingness to revoke the 1 hour standard 22 before areas reach attainment. In North Texas, we believe 23 120 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 this would be a setback for human health and would allow 1 for perpetual ozone season. It is sound public policy to 2 keep the 1 hour standard in place to ensure that momentum 3 continues towards clearing the air. 4 As EPA is well aware, advancements in clean air 5 coincided with the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment and the 6 implementations of specific Subpart 2 measurements and 7 designations. These Subpart 2 measures were marked with 8 much success, especially for North Texas breathers. We 9 note that the EPA will utilize a framework which offers 10 specific, proscriptive and mandatory reductions, including 11 those strategies included in Subpart 2. 12 Becky Bornhorst, a resident of North Texas, 13 testified before the EPA in Dallas, saying no extensions, 14 no delays; clean air is about public health, and the EPA 15 should not forget that. What Ms. Bornhorst didn't tell 16 you is that she began working for clean air when her 17 children were in preschool. Today, one of her kids is in 18 college, and the other is about to graduate from high 19 school. Ms. Bornhorst, like many others in North Texas, 20 believed that if they just told you they wanted clean air, 21 you would deliver. 22 On behalf of her and the remaining 4.5 million 23 121 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 residents of North Texas, we are asking that you deliver, 1 deliver the promises of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments 2 and the 1970 Clean Air Act. No more extensions, no more 3 delays; deliver. 4 On behalf of Sue Pope and Debbie Markwardt, who 5 live beneath the ominous stacks of Texas Industries, the 6 largest polluter in North Texas and a toxic toilet for 7 burning hazardous waste, we wish to raise concerns with 8 the literal weakening of clean air protection while we 9 impose a cleaner and more protective standard. 10 Specifically, it is our concern that by not imposing the 11 same stringent requirements for areas which violate the 12 8 hour standard but not the 1 hour standard constitutes a 13 loophole. 14 In North Texas, four counties are designated 15 nonattainment for the 1 hour standard; however, one 16 county, Ellis County, also violated the 1 hour standard 17 and was not designated accordingly. Coincidentally, that 18 county is home to the largest concentration of industrial 19 sources in North Texas and the home of Congressman Joe 20 Barton, the author of the bill, which, if passed, will 21 make legal the dirty air plants before us today. 22 It is our hope that the EPA will implement the 23 122 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 same stringent requirements for areas which fail to attain 1 solely the 8 hour standard and those which fail to attain 2 both the 1 hour and 8 hour standard. By implementing less 3 stringent requirements, the EPA is allowing for continued 4 ring around the regions, like Dallas Fort Worth, where 5 industrial sources moved literally a block away from the 6 county line to escape complying with LAER and offset 7 requirements. 8 In conclusion, we hope that the EPA will 9 deliver, deliver more than 33 years of promises that 10 industrial sources will do their fair share of clean air. 11 Deliver on a commitment to public health, which should be 12 your first charge. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 15 Questions? 16 ( No response.) 17 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 18 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Katy Hubener was 19 concluded.) 20 MR. HELMS: Pamela Irwin? Is Pamela Irwin 21 present? 22 MS. IRWIN: I'm sorry. I wasn't expecting to be 23 123 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 called yet. 1 MR. SILVASI: Do you need more time? 2 MS. IRWIN: If you could give me more  3 MR. HELMS: Yes, we can do that, certainly. 4 Would be glad to. 5 MS. IRWIN: Thanks. 6 MR. HELMS: I would like to call Mark Mitchell 7 and then Colleen Kiernan next. 8 Mark Mitchell, the podium is yours. 9 TESTIMONY OF MARK MITCHELL 10 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 11 opportunity to speak. I am Mark Mitchell. I am a public 12 health physician. I was previously the director of the 13 Hartford Health Department and, before that, I was the 14 deputy director of the Kansas City, Missouri Health 15 Department. Now I am president of the Connecticut 16 Coalition for Environmental Justice. I am here to speak 17 in opposition to the use of option 2, that would delay the 18 implementation of the ozone standards, and also in 19 opposition to the elimination of the 1 hour ozone 20 standards. 21 I went into environmental health and 22 environmental justice because of my concerns about health, 23 124 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 about public health, and that many of the diseases in the 1 U. S. that are increasing are, in fact, related to the 2 environment. We are particularly concerned in Connecticut 3 about asthma. The community is particularly concerned 4 about asthma. There are several studies in Connecticut, 5 one of them showing that as much as 41 percent of children 6  7 MR. HELMS: Hold on a second. 8 Could I ask all of you to either take a seat or 9 take your conversations outside? It is not fair to the 10 speaker to have competing conversations, so please do 11 that. 12 Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we 13 want to hear your testimony. 14 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. 15 As I was saying, I went into environmental 16 health because I was concerned because so many illnesses 17 that we see in public health that are increasing are 18 related to the environment. The community residents in 19 Connecticut are particularly concerned about asthma, and 20 we have very high rates of asthma and there are some 21 pockets that are higher than others. 22 There is one study in Hartford of 11,000 23 125 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 children, a screen that showed that 41 percent of the 1 children and 48 percent of the Latino children have 2 asthma. We believe that a lot of that asthma has to do 3 with air pollution, both industrial sources as well as the 4 ozone. Children are the most vulnerable people for 5 asthma. The asthma incidence, the new cases of asthma, is 6 highest in children between 1 and 5 years of age. The 7 group that has the second highest incidence of asthma are 8 people in their 30s. 9 The asthma deaths, though, about half of the 10 asthma deaths are in the elderly, people over 65 years of 11 age. Both of these groups are more susceptible to ozone 12 exposure and asthma. Also, as you know, the leading 13 chronic  the leading cause of school absenteeism for a 14 chronic disease is asthma, according to several studies. 15 There are studies that show that when the ozone is 16 elevated that the emergency room rates for people coming 17 in for respiratory conditions increase 20 percent. 18 That is why we believe that is important that 19 EPA go with all deliberate speed at implementing both the 20 1 hour and the 8 hour ozone standard. As you know, asthma 21 is an acute condition. Exposure to ozone for short 22 periods of time, for periods of 10 minutes, can trigger 23 126 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 asthma attacks in people who already have asthma. People 1 who have asthma  the asthma rates have increased over 2 the last 20 years. They have approximately doubled in the 3 last 20 years. The asthma death rates have about tripled 4 in the last 20 years. As you know, people don't die of 5 asthma unless they have asthma attacks. 6 Now, obviously, all of the asthma is not due to 7 ozone. It is a very complicated multifactorial disease. 8 But recent evidence shows that not only can ozone trigger 9 asthma attacks in people who already have asthma, but that 10 ozone actually can cause asthma in healthy individuals. 11 For these reasons, we believe that short term exposure is 12 very, very important, that the 1 hour standard needs to 13 stay in place so that we can both lower asthma attacks in 14 people who already have asthma and also prevent 15 particularly children from developing asthma. 16 Again, I would ask that EPA go with all 17 deliberate speed in implementation of both the 8 hour 18 standard and maintenance of the 1 hour standard to protect 19 the health of our residents. 20 The last thing that I wanted to talk about was 21 about environmental justice. As you may know, 22 environmental justice refers to the fact that low income 23 127 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 communities and communities of color are 1 disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and 2 are disproportionately burdened with environmentally 3 related diseases. The asthma hospitalization rates are 4 much higher in communities of color and the  the major 5 concern is with Clear Skies and other recent initiatives 6 that the lack of enforcement on powerplants  powerplants 7 are also disproportionately located in low income 8 communities and older communities. 9 If we do not have new source review, if we 10 exempt powerplants from more stringent standards, then we 11 will continue to see a disparity in asthma rates for urban 12 areas versus non urban areas, and we believe that this is 13 simply not fair. 14 So I want to thank you for your time, and I will 15 answer any questions that you may have. 16 MR. HELMS: Thank you, Dr. Mitchell. 17 Questions? 18 ( No response.) 19 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 20 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Mark Mitchell was 21 concluded.) 22 MR. HELMS: Colleen Kiernan. 23 128 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN KIERNAN 1 MS. KIERNAN: Good morning. Thank you all for 2 being here today and thank you for giving us the 3 opportunity to comment on this sort of idea of a proposed 4 rule. My name is Colleen Kiernan, and I am the Georgia 5 energy project organizer for the Sierra Club. I am based 6 in Atlanta, Georgia. I would like to start out by 7 supporting the comments of my fellow Atlantans from 8 earlier, both Dr. Frank and Anthony and Illai from the 9 Georgia Kids Against Pollution. 10 The comments that I would like to make today are 11 four points regarding my concern for possible implications 12 that this proposed rule could have on Atlanta and Georgia. 13 The first is that EPA's proposed transition from the 14 1 hour to the 8 hour standard is troubling. 15 On April 15, 2004, metro Atlanta will be a 16 severe nonattainment area that will still be operating 17 under a serious nonattainment SIP because Georgia will 18 still be in the process of writing a severe nonattainment 19 SIP. If EPA had not illegally extended Atlanta's 20 attainment deadline, we would not have it. We would have 21 had a severe nonattainment SIP in 2000 or 2001. Thus, the 22 regulations must require Georgia not to backslide from a 23 129 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 severe nonattainment SIP. To do otherwise would be to 1 continue to use this illegal downwind extension and would 2 be an end run around the 11th Circuit Court decision. 3 The second point is that the incentive feature 4 has no statutory basis and is, in fact, contrary to the 5 statute. The first example I would like to give is the 6 city of Macon, Georgia. Macon has been violating the 7 1 hour standard but has never been designated 8 nonattainment for the 1 hour standard. So under this 9 proposed 8 hour rule in the incentive feature, they can 10 get designated at a lower area, whereas  you know, the 11 reality of the situation is they should have already had 12 been required to write an implementation plan and they 13 should already be moving forward to clean up their air. 14 You know, particularly for the city of Macon, EPA's 15 proposed rule is definitely going to extend in delayed 16 pollution cleanup and leave Macon area residents at risk. 17 Also, it doesn't account for the increase in 18 mobile source pollution or increase stationary source 19 pollution that would come on line after the incentive 20 feature was used. So, for example, if a coal fired 21 powerplant got permitted in South Carolina  which it is 22 my understanding that it will be in August of 2004  23 130 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 there would be no way to go back and account for this, 1 because the incentive feature would have already been 2 used. 3 The incentive feature also would allow 4 nonattainment areas to avoid additional local controls, 5 which contradicts the many years of work that the Southern 6 Appalachian Mountain initiatives did, which found that 7 local controls do the most to reduce episodes of 8 ground level ozone. 9 My third point is that EPA asserts that regional 10 modeling shows that most 8 hour nonattainment areas will 11 attain in 2007. That is based on reductions from the NO x 12 SIP call. However, there is reason to believe that 13 Georgia, Alabama, Missouri or Michigan will be compliant 14 with the NO x SIP call by 2007, because EPA has failed to 15 finalize the rule for those states in response to the 16 Court's remand in the Michigan versus EPA suit. So either 17 EPA needs to re do the air modeling or not rely on this 18 assumption at all. Furthermore, this assumption is 19 probably based on NSR before it was gutted in the recent 20 Bush Administration rollbacks of NSR. 21 My last point is that marginal nonattainment 22 should start at 80 parts per million, not 85 parts per 23 131 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 million. The scientific evidence indicated that levels 1 between 80 and 84 parts per million is not safe and the 2 monitors can go out three decimal places now, and there is 3 just no reason to leave that area unprotected. 4 So, in conclusion, I would like to urge EPA to 5 take a much more aggressive and speedy way to get us to 6 clean air. Thank you. 7 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 8 Questions? 9 MR. SILVASI: Do you plan to submit written 10 comments also? 11 MS. KIERNAN: I will. My printer wasn't 12 working, so we will get them in. 13 MR. SILVASI: Okay. Thank you. 14 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Colleen Kiernan was 15 concluded.) 16 MR. HELMS: Is Jill Stephens here? 17 Jill, the podium is yours. 18 TESTIMONY OF JILL STEPHENS 19 MS. STEPHENS: Thank you for the opportunity to 20 speak today. I am here representing the National Parks 21 Conversation Association, on behalf of our more than 22 300,000 members across the United States. NPCA was 23 132 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 founded in 1919. We are the only national nonprofit 1 conservation organization dedicated exclusively to the 2 preservation, protection and enhancement of our national 3 parks. 4 We are concerned that this proposal to implement 5 the 8 hour ozone standard delays the cleanup of ozone 6 pollution, which means unhealthy air for parks and people. 7 Our national parks were created to preserve some of 8 America's most inspirational, natural, cultural and 9 historic landmarks. They attract nearly 300 million 10 visitors each year. On too many occasions, both visitors 11 and park employees find their health at risk by simply 12 breathing the air in our national parks. 13 For example, at Joshua Tree National Park in 14 California, ozone levels exceeded the 8 hour standard on 15 68 days in one year alone. Joshua Tree frequently records 16 pollution levels that violate the less protective 1 hour 17 standard. This park preserves nearly 800,000 acres as 18 extinct Colorado and Mojave Desert, as well as more than 19 700 plant species and a variety of wildlife, including 20 bighorn sheep and threatened desert tortoises. Despite 21 the poor air quality, visitors come to the park to rock 22 climb, to hike, to bike, to walk along the park. 23 133 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Unfortunately, Joshua Tree is not alone. In 1 fact, nine national parks fail to meet the 8 hour ozone 2 standard, based on pollution data from 1997 through 1999. 3 These are Joshua Tree, Sequoia and Yosemite in California, 4 Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North 5 Carolina, Shenandoah in Virginia, Mammoth Cave in 6 Kentucky, Acadia in Maine, along with Cape Cod National 7 Seashore and Cowpens National Battlefield. 8 It is important to note that this is only a 9 small sample of the parks that violate this standard, 10 where air quality violates this standard, air pollution 11 violates this standard. Only a small number monitor 12 pollution. There are many parks located in or near urban 13 areas where there are all too many Code Red Days. 14 Plants are vulnerable to damage from ozone 15 levels much lower than those set to protect human health. 16 Ozone can decrease yielded agricultural crops, reduce 17 forest growth and leave plants more susceptible to 18 disease, drought and pests. From black cherry trees in 19 Shenandoah to Jeffrey and Ponderosa pines in Yosemite, 20 vegetation in our parks already shows signs of damage from 21 ozone. Sequoia seedlings are sensitive to ozone levels 22 present almost constantly in the summer months at Sequoia 23 134 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 and Kings Canyon National Parks. A correlation exists 1 between ozone exposure and decreased growth rates in 2 Eastern white pine, the official tree of Maine and 3 dominant species in Acadia National Park. 4 It is clear that park visitors, staff and 5 resources already are affected by ozone pollution. But, 6 most disturbing, trends throughout the ' 90s show ozone 7 levels in many parks are getting worse. This is true for 8 nearly every eastern national park that monitors ozone, as 9 well as western parks such as the Rocky Mountains and 10 Grand Canyon. The majority of pollution impacting parks 11 comes from outside park boundaries. This proposal gives 12 too much flexibility to areas violating federal health 13 standards. 14 To protect our homes and improve polluted 15 conditions in our parks, EPA needs to implement and 16 faithfully enforce a stronger proposal to produce timely 17 results. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 20 Questions? 21 ( No response.) 22 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 23 135 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Jill Stephens was 1 concluded.) 2 MR. HELMS: Several people have apparently asked 3 is there going to be a lunch break. You can take a lunch 4 break if you wish. We are going to continue right on. We 5 have people that need to catch planes, get back to other 6 locations, so we will run the hearing straight through to 7 5: 00, if necessary. 8 ( Whereupon, there was a brief discussion off the 9 record.) 10 MR. HELMS: We will go off the record now. We 11 will convene about 11: 48. 12 ( Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11: 32 a. m. 13 to 11: 48 a. m.) 14 MR. HELMS: Valerie True, the podium is yours. 15 TESTIMONY OF VALERIE TRUE 16 MS. TRUE: Good morning. I am Valerie True, and 17 I am with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. I came 18 up here from Knoxville, Tennessee to be with you today. 19 I don't feel like I have to go into too much 20 detail about the problem with ozone and why it is a 21 concern, given the horrible air quality that we have had 22 the last few days in most of the Southeast, and we have 23 136 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 had it down in Tennessee as well. But I do want to touch 1 on a few points that concern me about the plan and over 2 the last few days have concerned me even more about 3 delaying  a plan that delays ozone reductions throughout 4 the country, and particularly, my concern is with the 5 Southeast. 6 One area that I am particularly concerned about 7 is the provision for Early Action Compacts. We have been 8 involved in that process in Tennessee, and I really hope 9 that this does not get expanded to the rest of the 10 country, because we do not find that these plans are going 11 to bring us cleaner air anytime sooner. The localities 12 are not prepared to make the tough decisions that it takes 13 to truly reduce ozone pollution, and the nonattainment 14 designation counts for something when EPA comes in and 15 says you must do transportation conformity, you must do 16 new source review to your industry. And local mayors, 17 county councilmembers who get voted in by the people, if 18 they stand up there and say oh, the large industry  19 Eastman Kodak, you know, you have to reduce your pollution 20 by a large amount, they are going to have a hard time 21 getting reelected. So this is a serious concern that we 22 have got, of this being expanded and having the weight 23 137 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 being put on the localities for the program, and this is 1 why we don't feel that this program is going to work. 2 We have found a lot of confusion in Tennessee, 3 and I could go into a lot more detail of the problems that 4 we have been having down in our area in terms of getting 5 these programs to work. The proposals that are coming out 6 of them are stuff like ride sharing and very fluffy stuff 7 that will not bring clean air. We fear that the Early 8 Action Compact will end up delaying the nonattainment 9 designation and thereby delay getting clean air to the 10 people in these areas. 11 In the Southeast, we are looking at 25 to 30 12 areas being put into the 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. 13 This is up from only two places with the 1 hour. Most of 14 these areas have opted for the Early Action Compacts, and 15 I haven't heard much of a positive feedback from most of 16 them. 17 The other concern that I have got just 18 specifically is the flexibility or the ability to roll 19 back to reduce the classification for areas based on the 20 numbers crunched into a computer on projected pollution 21 decreases and proposed pollution reduction plans. Also, 22 through our work with the Early Action Compacts, we are 23 138 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 definitely learning a whole lot about modeling in the way 1 that, you know, if you model something one way, it comes 2 out to one thing and if you model something another way  3 I fear that modeling will be used in order to reduce these 4 classifications and thereby will reduce the power of 5 having an area classified as serious or severe and make 6 these classifications mean virtually nothing and make it 7 hard to have the stronger provisions of new source review 8 put into place in these areas. 9 I guess those are just a couple of specific 10 things, and I have got a couple of colleagues here who 11 will highlight a few other main points. Those were the 12 glaring parts to me. I just kind of wanted to  as an 13 overall thing, these provisions as I read through them 14 truly will  in the interest of flexibility, supposed 15 flexibility, to the area, give  will weaken the chance 16 of these areas getting into attainment. 17 The reason why we have got these 8 hour ozone 18 standards, the reason why they were put in place is 19 because people's health was at risk. I feel like by 20 weakening and blurring the lines, as these provisions do, 21 that people's health is going to be at greater risk and 22 our chance of cleanup is getting less and less and time is 23 139 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 running out to clean up these plants. 1 Thank you, and I will submit written comments at 2 a future date. 3 MR. HELMS: Questions? 4 ( No response.) 5 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 6 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Valerie True was 7 concluded.) 8 MR. HELMS: I have a note here, Andy Bauer and 9 Joanna Schnurman. 10 MR. BAUER: Could you please just give us one 11 minute, please? 12 MR. HELMS: All right. Who was the gentleman 13 that asked me to speak? Your name again? 14 MR. STANTON: John Stanton. 15 MR. HELMS: John, come on up right now, while we 16 are waiting. 17 TESTIMONY OF JOHN STANTON 18 MR. STANTON: Good afternoon. Thank you for 19 soliciting public comment. We have heard a lot about the 20 public health impacts. I thought it might be helpful and 21 informative to talk about some of the public welfare 22 environmental impacts. 23 140 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Under the Clean Air Act NAAQS Authority, EPA can 1 set both the primary public health standard and the 2 secondary  3 MR. SILVASI: Excuse me for one second. Would 4 you mind just giving us your affiliation too? 5 MR. STANTON: Sure. My name is John Stanton. I 6 am from the National Environmental Trust. 7 At any rate, under the Clean Air Act NAAQS 8 Authority, EPA can set both the primary public health 9 standard and the secondary public welfare or environment 10 ozone standard. The secondary standard must protect 11 against known and anticipated adverse environmental 12 effects. 13 In 1997, EPA decided not to adopt a stricter 14 secondary 8 hour ozone standard because it believed the 15 primary standard would adequately protect vegetation and 16 other environmental concerns. Because EPA refused to set 17 a more protective secondary environment standard for 18 ozone, it is crucial that the 8 hour primary standard be 19 diligently implemented and enforced. Halfhearted and 20 feeble implementation of the 8 hour ozone primary standard 21 means that adverse environmental ozone impacts will 22 continue far longer than necessary. 23 141 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Feeble implementation of ozone standards also 1 means unnecessary environmental damage, due to excess 2 nitrogen oxide emissions. This is because we largely rely 3 on the ozone standards to reduce NO x emissions that 4 adversely affect the environment. In addition to the 5 ozone standard, there is a NO x standard and we also rely 6 on Title IV, but the primary driver for NO x reductions is 7 the ozone standards. 8 Rigorous implementation of ozone standards is 9 vital to NO x reductions and environmental protection. 10 Some of the NO x loadings include acidifying surface water, 11 reducing biodiversity and killing fish, contributing to 12 coastal nitrification  which is excessive nutrient 13 enrichment which results in fish kills of shellfish and 14 fish  acidifying soil, depleting soil nutrients, and 15 causing damage to forests, contributing to regional haze, 16 contributing to forest damage and crop loss, and speeding 17 the weathering of monuments, buildings and other stone and 18 metal structures. 19 Additional specific harms due to NO x loadings 20 include, according to U. S. EPA, two thirds of U. S. 21 estuaries. Approximately 84 water bodies are moderately 22 to highly eutrophic due to nitrogen deposition. This 23 142 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 deposition causes harmful blooms of algae, both red and 1 brown types; depletion of dissolved oxygen, which is 2 hypoxia, which stresses and kills marine life; loss of 3 important habitat, such as sea grass beds and coral reefs; 4 changes in marine biodiversity and species distribution; 5 and then economic and social impacts due to the loss of 6 fisheries and tourism. 7 Additional adverse NO x impacts include the fact 8 that up to 40 percent of the nitrogen reaching the east 9 and the Gulf Coast estuaries is transported and deposited 10 via the atmosphere. Over 1,000 acid sensitive lakes and 11 streams are still acidified, and some, particularly those 12 along the Appalachian range, are becoming more acidic each 13 year. NO x emissions from fossil fuel combustion for power 14 generation alone contributes about 25 to 30 percent of 15 atmospheric nitrogen deposition in select coastal waters 16 and affected forests. 17 Ozone reduction measures should be strengthened 18 and not weakened. According to EPA trends data, emissions 19 of nitrogen oxides have increased 9 percent from 1982 to 20 2001. EPA projects that 175 million Americans will live 21 in areas and currently live in areas that violate the new 22 8 hour standard. Leading nitrogen experts are calling for 23 143 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 a 60 percent reduction in NO x emissions to reduce adverse 1 environmental impacts, and this is the work of Dr. Gene 2 Likens in a recent article on atmospheric environment of 3 May 2003. EPA's proposed 8 hour implementation scheme 4 cannot be reconciled with the congressional mandate that 5 EPA shall  shall adopt NAAQS that protect against known 6 and anticipated environmental impacts of ozone and 7 nitrogen oxides. 8 And then a final note on the importance of 9 maintaining the 1 hour standard: The most recent best 10 science on vegetation impacts reveals that 1 hour ozone 11 peaks are especially harmful to vegetation. Because EPA 12 refused to set a secondary welfare or environment standard 13 for ozone and we know that 1 hour peak exposures are 14 especially harmful to vegetation, we must keep the 1 hour 15 standard in place. EPA's proposed 1 hour standard 16 phaseout violates the mandate in Section 109 of the Clean 17 Air Act that EPA shall protect against known and 18 anticipated adverse environmental impacts from criteria 19 air pollutants. 20 I just want to close by just noting that  you 21 know, having worked at EPA in 1996, 1997, 1998 on the 22 standard, it is just particularly distressing to me, 23 144 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 having spent years on this, that, you know, on the eve of 1 actually trying to realize greater health and 2 environmental air quality benefits, you know, we are 3 positioned to delay everything by a minimum of five years, 4 but probably more like ten years. Unfortunately, you 5 know, there is a really clear pattern that is developing, 6 and I call it the one two punch. When you take nitrogen 7 oxides, for instance, the NSR proposals weakened 8 safeguards to prevent increases in nitrogen oxides. Now 9 what we see in this proposal is an attempt to delay the 10 day when actual reductions will have to occur in order to 11 meet the ozone standard. 12 So, you know, when you weaken with one proposal 13 and then you delay on another, it paints a pretty grim 14 picture. I would imagine it is disheartening for the 15 professional technical staff at EPA to have the political 16 winds blowing in such a way that, no matter what the 17 science says, you have got to go along with efforts to 18 ease and delay clean air safeguards. So Somerset, you 19 have my sympathies, but I just think it is very 20 distressing and it is unfortunate, and we are moving in 21 just the opposite direction that we should be. 22 Thank you for taking comment. 23 145 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Hold on a second. 1 Comments, questions? 2 ( No response.) 3 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 4 MR. STANTON: Thank you. 5 ( Whereupon, the testimony of John Stanton was 6 concluded.) 7 MR. HELMS: Now let's revisit Andy Bauer and 8 Joanna Schnurman. 9 TESTIMONY OF ANDY BAUER 10 MR. BAUER: I would like to officially  well, 11 my name is Andy Bauer. I am from Portland, Connecticut. 12 My profession is a teacher, so I don't really have any, I 13 guess, connections, although I do volunteer for Clean 14 Water Action in Connecticut. I am really here speaking as 15 a dad, so I would like to take a brief time out to wish my 16 daughter a happy birthday and get that into the official 17 record. 18 I reviewed as best as I can the document the EPA 19 has prepared for implementing the 8 hour standard, and my 20 compliments to the authors for their long hours of 21 preparation. I live in Portland, Connecticut. It is in 22 Upper Middlesex County in Connecticut, and the area 23 146 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 suffers from an air inversion. 1 Can you guys hold up your signs? Hold them up 2 really high. And I have got a sign too. 3 Okay. This is Portland ( indicating). When 4 everybody else is having okay or bad, ours is worse. This 5 is Portland ( indicating). When things  everybody else 6 is having a bad or okay day, ours is worse, and when 7 people are having a pretty good day or not so good, ours 8 is just unhealthy. 9 The area that I live in suffers from an air 10 inversion. If you think of an emission toilet bowl with 11 no drain, that is what it is like. A program calling for 12 compliance to regulatory flexibility, such as 13 Cap and Trade, will most likely seek to balance my 14 county's high emissions with a county that has got low 15 emissions, and it may be a long time before we get relief, 16 if ever. 17 I have a friend, Steve Luppi. He lives up the 18 hill from me. He is a World War II veteran, and he loves 19 to garden. And on hot days, he can't go outside. He has 20 got to stay inside. If I call him on the phone, I have to 21 let the phone ring for a long time, because the phone is 22 one room and the air conditioner is in another room, and 23 147 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 he has got to walk to it. 1 I like command and control. I am in favor of 2 setting the bar high, and whoever can make it will make it 3 in terms of powerplants and the rest will go do something 4 else. And here is why: I am a veteran of the Sooty Six 5 campaign in Connecticut, and while my previous comment may 6 seem a little cold and cruel and heartless, being strict 7 does work. 8 It took us five years to clean up the Sooty Six 9 for sulfur dioxide. Within just a few months after the 10 legislation had passed and the Governor had signed it into 11 law, the owner of two of the plants, Wisvest, threw up 12 their hands and said that's it, we quit, we are done. 13 Within just a couple of months, those two plants were 14 snapped up. And I mean snapped up quickly by PSE& G, the 15 new owners, who knew the strictest standards in the 16 country were in place for sulfur dioxide and didn't even 17 blink about buying the plants. What's even more is that 18 Wisvest sold them at a profit. So there are companies 19 that know the rules and know they can get it done. 20 It gets even better. In Connecticut, we have 21 set a rather aggressive climate  no pun intended  for 22 what we want out of our power providers. So PSE& G then 23 148 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 entered into negotiations through the leaders with the 1 Connecticut Coalition for Clean Air and we talked about 2 mercury. I know this is off the topic of ozone, but 3 without any of the five year struggle, without any public 4 demonstrations, without letters to the editor, without 5 hearings, civil conversation over about five months, we 6 have now 90 percent reduction from a coal fired powerplant 7 in Connecticut. It passed the House unanimously, it 8 passed the Senate unanimously, and Governor Rowland 9 recently signed it. So it can be done if you set the bar 10 high. 11 In summary, stricter is better. My son and 12 daughter, my wife, my community are all positioned 13 geographically in the path of real and documented harm. 14 Ladies and gentlemen of the EPA, you are in a position to 15 help us. Please do so. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 18 Questions? 19 ( No response.) 20 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 21 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Andy Bauer was 22 concluded.) 23 149 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 TESTIMONY OF JOANNA SCHNURMAN 1 MS. SCHNURMAN: My name is Joanna Schnurman. I 2 am from Portland, Connecticut, and I have no official 3 affiliation. I am here as a mom. 4 Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments 5 on the proposed rule to implement the 8 hour ozone 6 standard. I have never offered comments on a document 7 before, and the chance to exercise my democratic voice is 8 both an honor and a humbling experience. I am not an 9 expert; I am a wife and a mom whose family will be 10 affected by the choices you make. It is in this context 11 that I offer my thoughts. 12 While I was reading the proposal, I was struck 13 that most of the options presented fell into one of two 14 categories, those offering clear, unequivocal standards 15 emphasizing control at each source and those offering 16 flexibility to negotiate the designation and consequences 17 received and emphasizing incentives in trade cap programs. 18 I am sure a state bureaucrat would prefer the 19 more flexible options. Without fail, they make it easier 20 for areas to reach attainment on paper or receive a lower 21 designation. And, while I really sympathize with state 22 and local governments struggling to meet rigorous 23 150 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 obligations, I am more sympathetic to my family, friends 1 and fellow citizens who struggle to breathe. 2 As my husband mentioned, we live in Portland, 3 Connecticut, which is in an inversion area. Last year we 4 had 17 days of unhealthy or worse air standards. Only a 5 plan that addresses the local sources is going to benefit 6 us. 7 I had my first asthma attack this past year. It 8 wasn't a fun experience, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, 9 and the thought of what a kid must go through when he has 10 an attack is just beyond my imagination. Both my children 11 have allergies and have already had bouts of wheezing. 12 While I can only wonder if they will remain asthma free, I 13 know they will stand a much better chance breathing 14 cleaner air. My mother in law and my older neighbors plan 15 their summer days based around the projected ozone level. 16 Sometimes they have to decide whether to brave the air for 17 doctors appointments or buying groceries or do without. 18 My good friend Sarah is a single mother whose 19 seven year old daughter, Aeron, has come close to death at 20 least annually from asthma. Aeron's attacks are so severe 21 her school requires Sarah to be accessible by phone at all 22 times, making it nearly impossible for my friend to get a 23 151 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 job. None of us can afford to wait to see if the modeling 1 that predicts most nonattainment 8 hour areas will reach 2 attainment by 2007 is accurate. 3 And what of the people who live in the areas 4 that won't reach attainment? By the estimate in Table 1, 5 that is 143 million people, half the nation's population, 6 in 2007. In 2020, over one third of the nation's people 7 will still breathe polluted air. 8 Given the magnitude of the problem, I think the 9 kinder, more gentle approach offered in the options, such 10 as classifying gap areas under subsection 1, negotiating 11 for lower designations, EAPs revoking the 1 hour standard 12 in full and CADCs is inappropriate. I found no reason 13 other than convenience to the states for these options. 14 The guiding principles for this project list public health 15 first. Flexibility is fifth. While millions of our 16 people suffer from the effects of ozone pollution, 17 flexibility and convenience must wait. 18 One of the books we read to our children to 19 prepare them for this trip  which is our first as a 20 family, I should let you know  offered the following 21 quote by Thomas Jefferson: The care of human life and 22 happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and 23 152 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 only legitimate object of good government. 1 I believe this Agency tries to the best of its 2 ability to follow that credo. But in the maelstrom of 3 competing interests, it can get pushed into the 4 background. I ask that you who must decide these very 5 important matters keep the words of Thomas Jefferson close 6 to your hearts, and know that it is regular people like my 7 family and me who must live with your choices. 8 Thank you very much for your time and 9 consideration. 10 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 11 Questions? 12 ( No response.) 13 MR. HELMS: We appreciate you coming. 14 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Joanna Schnurman 15 was concluded.) 16 MR. HELMS: Zachary Corrigan, come forward. The 17 podium is yours. 18 TESTIMONY OF ZACHARY CORRIGAN 19 MR. CORRIGAN: My name is Zachary Corrigan, and 20 I am a staff attorney for the U. S. Public Interest 21 Research Group, or USPIRG. USPIRG is the national 22 lobbying office of the state PIRGs, a nationwide network 23 153 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 of state based, nonprofit public interest advocacy 1 organizations. I thank the EPA for allowing me to testify 2 today on the Agency's proposal for implementing the 8 hour 3 ozone standard. 4 Today in the Washington and Baltimore area, 5 7.6 million citizens are suffering through the fourth 6 straight day of unhealthy air pollution and the third 7 straight Code Red alert. We are not alone. On Wednesday, 8 more than 33 million Americans were issued Code Red 9 alerts, while others in 115 cities were issued Code Orange 10 alerts. Nearly every state east of the Mississippi 11 experienced unhealthy smog days. On Thursday we got more 12 of the same, as nearly 30 million Americans were warned 13 that going outside could be harmful to their health, even 14 if they were perfectly healthy adults. 15 In that context, the EPA offers a proposal for 16 implementation of the new 8 hour standard that will 17 neither reduce smog nor protect our health. Now, more 18 than ever, Americans deserve some summertime relief. 19 Regrettably, the Agency's proposal reverses course, 20 allowing weaker protections and longer delays. This can 21 only mean that we are bound to see more smoggy summers and 22 more asthma. 23 154 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Despite passage of the Clean Air Act 30 years 1 ago, smog or ground level ozone still remains a problem 2 that affects millions of Americans. According to the 3 American Lung Association, 137 million Americans, close to 4 half our population, live in areas where smog levels are 5 high enough to cause serious health damage. Among other 6 problems, ozone causes increased asthma attacks in 7 children and emergency room hospitalizations. 8 I this past year found out that my nine year old 9 sister, who lives in an ozone alley in Milwaukee, 10 Wisconsin, has asthma, and it is hindering her ability to 11 play soccer. She is one of the best soccer players I have 12 ever seen, and I am not saying that just because I am her 13 brother, but she is an amazing soccer player. To see that 14 athletic ability and that joy that that sport gives her 15 diminished due to the smog levels is just absolutely 16 unacceptable. 17 Six million asthma attacks each year in the 18 eastern United States can be attributed to ozone. 19 Recently, ozone has not only been linked to asthma 20 attacks, but also to the onset of asthma. Asthma rates 21 have continually gone up since 1982. In 2001, more than 22 20 million Americans like my sister were diagnosed as 23 155 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 having asthma. 1 For decades, this country has dismally 2 inadequate ozone protections, both because of delayed 3 implementation and inadequate standards. EPA promulgated 4 ozone standards in 1979, but in 1990, 11 years after the 5 original ozone standards were issued, many areas were not 6 in compliance, and some were a long way from it. 7 Frustrated with the history of missed deadlines and EPA 8 extensions, Congress addressed the failure of states to 9 reach the ozone standards by describing the rigorous 10 enforcement scheme in 1990. The new enforcement scheme 11 required EPA to classify nonattainment areas based on 12 their degree of nonattainment and establish 13 classifications ranging from marginal to extreme, with 14 attainment dates for each class. 15 For each class, areas were required to take 16 control measures to reduce emissions and provide EPA with 17 details on how they were going to implement these 18 standards. It was hoped that this scheme would end the 19 delay in delivering people to the clean air they so 20 needed. While efforts to implement ozone protections that 21 were better enforced or more rigorously implemented, the 22 standard itself was found insufficient to protect public 23 156 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 health. In 1997 after much scientific review, tens of 1 thousands of comments  50,000 comments, according to the 2 EPA  EPA adopted a more stringent ozone standard. 3 Unlike the previous standard, the 8 hour standard, the one 4  the implementation scheme that is supposed to address 5 this 8 hour standard took into account health problems 6 associated with long term exposures to lesser ozone 7 concentrations and increased uniformity across different 8 urban areas. 9 I give you this context because it is in light 10 of these historical delays and inadequate ozone 11 protections. The question of how the EPA now decides to 12 implement these new 8 hour standards is vitally important 13 for the millions of Americans who are continually exposed 14 to ozone concentrations at dangerously high levels. Every 15 year for the past five summers, monitors have recorded 16 between 4,000 and 8,000 exceedences of the standard, 17 exposing people to unhealthy levels of smog for hours at a 18 time. According to the EPA, between 1999 and 2001 there 19 were a total of 291 counties where the ozone levels 20 averaged unsafe 8 hour levels. In 2000, there were 21 22 million people subjected to unsafe high levels of smog, 22 and 155 counties with unsafe 8 hour levels have no 23 157 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 existing control requirements under the old 1 hour 1 standard. 2 Unfortunately, the EPA is now proposing a set of 3 implementation options for the 8 hour standard that would 4 lead to even more delay and ineffective controls for ozone 5 pollutions. Some of the biggest problems with the EPA's 6 proposal are as follows: 7 It would dramatically delay the time areas are 8 required to reduce emissions to meet the ozone health 9 standards. EPA proposes to allow all areas where ozone is 10 at levels meeting the old, less stringent, 1 hour 11 standard, but above the 8 hour ozone standard, to avoid 12 the enforcement scheme Congress mandated in 1990. This 13 will give these areas years to avoid mechanisms designed 14 to bring them into attainment and assure people healthy, 15 smog free air. 16 For example, under this proposal, areas that 17 fail to meet the ozone attainment deadlines are not 18 required to be bumped up to the next higher ozone 19 classification and subsequently implement stringent 20 control requirements as they would under the 1990 21 congressionally mandated scheme. Instead, these areas get 22 an extra ten years of delay. That is twice the life of my 23 158 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 sister. Twenty areas will have to begin to comply. Also, 1 it lets powerplants and other large stationary sources of 2 smog forming pollutants off the hook. Under this 3 approach, the EPA will allow weaker new source review 4 requirements in some of our smoggiest areas. 5 New source review requires the oldest and 6 dirtiest powerplants and other sources to install cleanup 7 technologies when they make changes to increase emissions. 8 By weakening these requirements, the Agency shifts the 9 cost of dirty air away from the polluters and onto 10 individuals who must pay for lost work, lost school days 11 and hospital visits when they experience adverse health 12 consequences of ozone. 13 Third, it discards the existing 1 hour standard, 14 leaving more delay and lesser ozone protection, and this 15 is a point that almost everybody who has come up to 16 testify so far has brought up, so I won't go into much 17 detail with that. But there are two ways that this is 18 problematic. 19 First of all, by revoking the existing 1 hour 20 standard, it means that many areas which, after years, 21 still have ozone levels above the 1 hour standard are 22 given yet another extension of time to clean up under the 23 159 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 new standard. Further, many areas with ozone levels that 1 peak at dangerously high levels, causing them to exceed 2 the 1 hour standard but not exceed the 8 hour standard, 3 will be free from implementing or keeping controls 4 designed to minimize ozone problems. Once the 1 hour 5 standard is revoked, areas will not have to meet the 6 conformity requirements. 7 I think there are at least two other points that 8 are in desperate need of being made, one of which has been 9 made, which is that the EPA is offering vague computer 10 modeling instead of real reductions. That is 11 unacceptable. And one of the most egregious things is the 12 use of the Early Action Compacts. I think that it is 13 ironic that it is the Early Action Compacts, but it allows 14 deferred ozone control requirements until 2007. And then 15 it allows these places to not have to use NSR and 16 conformity controls to clean up their areas. These areas 17 aren't going to come into attainment, and there is no 18 requirement, there is nothing that these areas will have 19 to do outside of the existing Clean Air Act to make sure 20 their air is clean. This simply means more delay for 21 these areas to clean up. 22 I will close now by saying that in sum, EPA 23 160 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 proposes a scheme that will undermine efforts to reduce 1 ozone pollution. The Agency offers to turn back the clock 2 to allow delays and ineffective ozone protections to be a 3 continued norm, allowing more smog and, as a result, more 4 ozone. I ask the EPA to reconsider its approach and 5 implement it using the most stringent and health 6 protective options available. 7 I thank you for allowing me to testify today, 8 and I have my written comments here for you as well. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 11 Questions? 12 ( No response.) 13 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 14 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Zachary Corrigan 15 was concluded.) 16 MR. HELMS: Jennifer Hicks. I understand you 17 need to go as fast as possible. 18 MS. HICKS: Thank you very much. 19 MR. HELMS: The podium is yours. 20 MS. HICKS: Thank you. 21 22 23 161 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER HICKS 1 MS. HICKS: Thank you very much for allowing me 2 to make comments today. I am actually an anomaly today. 3 I am actually a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland. 4 As you well know, I live in a severe nonattainment area of 5 ozone, and we have all experienced together our first week 6 of the summer of severe ozone days. I would say the only 7 benefit is that I actually got a free ride on the bus this 8 week because of ozone alerts. 9 My name is Jennifer Hicks. I am a program 10 coordinator with Chesapeake Climate Action Network. We 11 are a new local organization, a nonprofit based in Takoma 12 Park, Maryland, representing thousands of individuals who 13 live in severe air quality nonattainment in the D. C. and 14 Baltimore region. We are the first organization 15 exclusively committed to addressing the issue of climate 16 change in the state of Maryland, working in collaboration 17 with citizens organizations, businesses and government 18 leaders. We aim to make Maryland a national model for a 19 climate friendly economy, and it is definitely something 20 very possible to do. We are mobilizing thousands of 21 people around this issue, and we take it very seriously. 22 As a resident of an ozone alert area, we are 23 162 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 concerned about the options EPA has published to implement 1 the 1997 8 hour ozone standard. How this proposal is 2 implemented will determine the quality of life of millions 3 of people, both across the country and living in my 4 neighborhood, including myself. The more protective 5 8 hour ozone smog standard was put into place primarily 6 because it was clear that the health of children and the 7 elderly were put at risk by ozone smog, increasing cases 8 of lung damage and illnesses. But it is also clear that 9 the emissions from the tailpipes and smokestacks are the 10 cause of some of the biggest air quality problems here and 11 worldwide. 12 Relaxed clean air rules and increased emissions 13 from fossil fuel combustion jeopardizes our future by 14 allowing business as usual in a time when we have strong 15 evidence that human created greenhouse gases accelerates 16 global warming, arguably one of the largest threats facing 17 humans today. Left unchecked, global warming could, by 18 2100, raise mean global temperatures 3 to 10 degrees 19 Fahrenheit and raise sea levels 1 to 3 feet, ushering in 20 an era of social, agricultural and ecological chaos on 21 earth. 22 The scientific reports now indicate that 23 163 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 trophospheric or low level ozone is a greenhouse gas that 1 contributes to the warming of our plant. And, in 2 addition, because ozone is triggered by heat and as the 3 planet warms, Code Orange and Code Red days will be 4 exponentially increased, exponentially harming the health 5 of both humans and the environment. It is basically a 6 crash course for disaster if we are not directly 7 addressing this issue. 8 Ozone is yet another indicator of many that's 9 showing our country's dependence on dirty energy, and 10 there doesn't seem to be much going in the direction of 11 changing that. It seems as if EPA is unwilling to take a 12 stand to protect and enforce the Clean Air Act, some of 13 the strongest environmental legislation in our country and 14 legislation that ensures quick and effective cleanup of 15 dirty energy. The implementation proposal does not 16 require areas like mine to do enough fast enough to clean 17 up. 18 We don't have time to loosen compliance 19 schedules to meet clean air standards. We can't afford to 20 allow areas like mine to avoid new source review 21 requirements based on an 8 hour standard. We can't afford 22 to let industry delay clean air measures one more time. 23 164 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 We need strong implementation of ozone standards now. 1 And, just on a personal note, my family is 2 originally from Maine and we still have relatives up 3 there. They are experiencing their first ozone alert 4 days, and I have a grandfather that can't leave his home 5 in the summer in Maine because of air pollution. And New 6 England states tend to be the tailpipe of many dirty 7 powerplants. So I am coming at this on a personal level 8 but on a professional level, and appreciate your time 9 today letting me speak. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 12 Questions? 13 ( No response.) 14 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 15 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Jennifer Hicks was 16 concluded.) 17 MR. HELMS: Pamela Irwin. 18 If you are wondering why we are not calling the 19 next person like you had suggested earlier, we are jumping 20 all the way around here as people show up and don't show 21 up. Bear with us. 22 The podium is yours. 23 165 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MS. IRWIN: Thank you. 1 TESTIMONY OF PAMELA IRWIN 2 MS. IRWIN: I will keep this brief, because I 3 know that other people have said some of the things that I 4 have to say. My name is Pamela Irwin, and I am the clean 5 air coordinator for the Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter. I 6 would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with 7 you today. I can only hope that the concerns of everyone 8 who is speaking here today will be taken seriously. 9 The Sierra Club is deeply concerned with a 10 number of aspects of the 8 hour implementation proposal. 11 First, we are disturbed by EPA's proposal to discard the 12 requirements of the 1 hour standard. This will only delay 13 progress toward the 8 hour standard, and it will continue 14 to be detrimental to human health and the environment. It 15 is inappropriate to simply throw away this requirement 16 that still can have the effect of improving air quality, 17 protecting human health and protecting our environment, 18 including vegetation and waterways. 19 Second, we are very disappointed in EPA for 20 allowing big polluters off the hook by weakening NSR 21 requirements under the 8 hour standard. Cars have become 22 less polluting and more efficient over the years, and it 23 166 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 is time for big polluters to do their fair share to 1 improve air quality. 2 Third, EPA's proposal to allow lower 3 classifications and less stringent control requirements 4 based only on highly gainable modeling demonstrations does 5 not fulfill the Agency's obligations to ensure that areas 6 can meet the standard. Furthermore, it is unacceptable 7 that areas which are violating the new standard will be 8 able to avoid congressionally mandated control measures 9 simply because they are not violating the 1 hour standard. 10 The air quality in these areas is still harmful 11 to human health, everyone agrees. That's why we 12 implemented this standard. And, because of that, it needs 13 to be cleaned up now, not 20 years from now. We are also 14 concerned, as many other people have expressed, with the 15 Early Action Compacts that exempt nonattainment areas for 16 measures that can improve their air quality. EPA is 17 trading specific measures for vague voluntary programs 18 that haven't worked in the past and won't work in the 19 future. 20 Finally, we are concerned that EPA will not 21 directly take comments of designations under the 8 hour 22 standard. It is unacceptable that EPA is essentially 23 167 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 refusing to listen to the public on the applicability of 1 this rule. By only allowing the public to comment to 2 state and local agencies, EPA is showing disdain for 3 public opinion and concerns. EPA should listen to the 4 voice of the public on designations, not just to highly 5 politicize state agencies who may have other interests and 6 agendas but have nothing to do with public health. 7 In closing, we do not believe that this proposal 8 will reduce smog or improve air quality in Virginia or 9 anywhere else. EPA should submit a proposal that will 10 fulfill its obligations to protect the public against 11 known and anticipated adverse impacts of air pollution 12 instead of further delaying cleanup. 13 Thank you again for the opportunity to speak 14 with you today, and I will offer more detailed written 15 comments by August 1st. 16 MR. HELMS: Thank you, ma'am. 17 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Pamela Irwin was 18 concluded.) 19 MR. HELMS: Roger Diedrich, the podium is yours. 20 TESTIMONY OF ROGER DIEDRICH 21 MR. DIEDRICH: Thank you. I am Roger Diedrich. 22 I am chairman of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club. 23 168 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 I didn't expect to be following Pamela, but I can start by 1 endorsing her remarks, of course. 2 The 15,000 members of the Virginia chapter of 3 the Sierra Club are deeply disappointed again in the Bush 4 EPA for this proposal for implementing new weakened 5 standards for ozone. Our members in the metro D. C. area 6 have been fighting for progress on clean air for years, 7 and we have been seeing a lot of foot dragging by local 8 officials. The last thing we need is for the federal 9 government to come along and give them a free pass to 10 continue this derelict behavior. 11 The law was put in place in 1997 in response to 12 sound scientific data. And, after several challenges by 13 vested interests, even more substantiating data has been 14 produced. We have been waiting for six years for EPA to 15 implement a common sense regulation change. For the sake 16 of some truckers' profit margin, for the sake of some 17 power companies' market share, for the sake of some SUV 18 drivers' macho desire to dominate the road, you will deny 19 America's children the ability to play outside and the 20 right of the elderly to comfortably live out their lives. 21 What kind of cheapened value system is driving these 22 obscene decisions? We can do better. 23 169 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 EPA should tighten the compliance schedules for 1 nonattainment areas, not loosen them. Our communities 2 need forward progress in meeting the healthier 8 hour 3 standard. At a minimum, you should keep the 1 hour 4 standard in place as a safety net until there is progress 5 toward meeting the new standard. Power companies can do 6 better by shifting more resources to cleaner sources of 7 electricity and to stop pushing to get around the 8 long established rules like new source review. The EPA 9 should not condone it when they try and also do not give 10 in to stated plans of the freight industry, the rollback, 11 the diesel rule. 12 EPA needs to do a better job of eliminating 13 loopholes in the analysis and modeling methods for 14 assigning classifications. Some of this may involve 15 additional spending for research for positive incentive 16 programs or for public transportation infrastructure. We 17 just saw the approval of a new $ 29 billion Department of 18 Homeland Security, largely in response to the loss of 19 about 3,000 innocent lives. What is the proper response 20 to address the tens of thousands of early deaths every 21 year from filthy, toxic air? 22 Thank you. 23 170 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 1 Questions? 2 ( No response.) 3 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 4 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Roger Diedrich was 5 concluded.) 6 MR. HELMS: Jason Babbie, the podium is yours. 7 MR. BABBIE: Thank you. 8 TESTIMONY OF JASON BABBIE 9 MR. BABBIE: Hello. My name is Jason K. Babbie. 10 I am an environmental policy analyst for the New York 11 Public Interest Research Group, NYPIRG, the nation's 12 largest statewide environmental protection consumer rights 13 and government reform advocacy organization. I first 14 would like to thank the EPA for giving me the opportunity 15 to testify on the Agency's options for implementing the 16 1997 8 hour ozone standard. I sincerely hope today's 17 hearing and the other hearings lead the Agency to a 18 standard with compliance mechanisms that are adequate to 19 protect public health. 20 I am here today because New York State has a 21 serious air quality problem, which is another more sterile 22 way of saying people are breathing unhealthy air and 23 171 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 getting sick all across the state. NYPIRG has offices 1 from Buffalo to Long Island and, while Buffalo may not 2 look a lot like Long Island or have a lot in common with 3 Long Island, they do have poor air quality in common, as 4 do many places in between. In fact, according to EPA's 5 website, the capitol district, New York City, which 6 includes Long Island and the northern suburbs, 7 Poughkeepsie and Buffalo all have counties in 8 nonattainment. 9 Just last year alone, counties in the following 10 places topped EPA's 8 hour limit for ozone: 35 times in 11 the New York metro area; 34 times in Buffalo; 16 times in 12 the Adirondacks; 15 times in the capitol district; 13 13 times in Rochester and 8 times in Syracuse. It is 14 counterintuitive for an area such as the Adirondacks to 15 have unhealthy air to breathe, let alone air at one of the 16 highest peaks of the Adirondacks. But numerous times last 17 summer that was the case. because of weak standards and 18 pollution trading. What is worse is that the poor air 19 quality appears to be getting worse in New York and 20 spreading. Unfortunately, many of the options presented 21 in the 1997 8 hour standard will further exacerbate this 22 problem. 23 172 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 New York's pervasive air quality problems have 1 very real consequences. Using EPA approved methodology, 2 over 510,000 asthma attacks and over 12,000 emergency room 3 visits during the summer of 1997 are attributable to ozone 4 smog. The latest research shows that growing up in an 5 area with elevated ozone concentrations may actually cause 6 the disease asthma. This is demonstrated by specific 7 examples in New York City. The South Bronx has one of the 8 nation's highest and worst asthma rates in a recent study 9 reported by The New York Times on findings of a similar 10 trend in central Harlem. How many days and how many 11 places is the EPA going to accept advising asthmatics and 12 children not to play outside while sending people reaching 13 for inhalers or, even worse, heading to the hospital? 14 In addition to the obvious public health 15 problems and emotional toll that goes along with an asthma 16 attack or watching a loved one go through an asthma 17 attack, there are very real economic impacts as well. 18 There are the costs of health care, which affect lower 19 income communities much more than others. Asthma is also 20 the number one reason for chronic school absenteeism in 21 New York, hindering a child's ability and his future. 22 Many times adults also miss work to care for their 23 173 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 asthmatic child or for their own difficulty with asthma, 1 impacting a family's income. 2 The regulatory consequences of not meeting 3 attainment are important, because it is these mechanisms 4 that create the structure to clean up the air. 5 Unfortunately, some of the options the EPA has put forward 6 will exacerbate New York's current problems. One  and I 7 won't go into too much detail, because you have heard a 8 lot of them today, and I will be submitting more specific 9 written comments. But erasing the compliance necessary 10 for the 1 hour standard or to then later meet the 8 hour 11 standard will honestly just mean more asthma attacks and 12 more hospital room visits for New Yorkers. I know it is 13 unacceptable to seniors, children and their parents and 14 asthmatics in New York, and hope that is unacceptable to 15 EPA as well. 16 Letting major stationary polluters such as 17 powerplants off the hook from existing new source review 18 requirements means making New York's residents pay more 19 money. New Yorkers will be paying more in taxes to cover 20 Medicaid and Medicare costs and for more of their own 21 personal income because of their own health care costs. 22 Passing along costs to those that can afford it least is 23 174 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 exactly what the EPA should be avoiding. 1 Third, giving modeling enough credit to lower an 2 area's classification ignores the fact that people will 3 still be breathing unhealthy air. The simple fact is that 4 modeling does not provide respiratory relief. 5 In closing, I would like to reiterate the 6 importance of having breathable air and how that is 7 directly linked to EPA's 8 hour standard and the 8 mechanisms for meeting that standard. In making your 9 final decision, I implore you to keep in mind that which 10 is truly important. I definitely have had people that I 11 supervise that have not been able to come into work 12 because their four year old daughter had to go to the 13 hospital numerous times because of asthma. My roommate, 14 who is fit and in his 20s, has to reach for the asthma 15 inhaler at the top of our fourth floor walkup on hot 16 summer days like this. New York City could turn off all 17 of its pollution sources and would never be in attainment 18 if we don't have a strong national standard, so I implore 19 you to do so. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 22 Questions? 23 175 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 ( No response.) 1 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 2 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Jason Babbie was 3 concluded.) 4 MR. HELMS: In an attempt to accommodate Nat 5 Mund  you have to leave at 1: 00  come forward, and we 6 will move you forward. 7 MR. MUND: Thank you. 8 MR. HELMS: The podium is yours. 9 TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL MUND 10 MR. MUND: My name is Nat Mund. I am a 11 Washington representative with the Sierra Club. The 12 Sierra Club has over 700,000 members across the country. 13 It is one of the oldest conservation organizations here. 14 We are going to be submitting more specific written 15 comments. I am just going to make oral comments at this 16 time. I am not going to go over the ground that a lot of 17 people have already tread. I just want to try to 18 underscore a few things and then add a personal note to 19 this. 20 Something that actually I  and I have been in 21 and out of the hearing  I haven't heard underscored yet 22 is a concern about the process that brought us here today, 23 176 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 the fact that the rule package that was published in the 1 Federal Register is a set of options and is not actually 2  it doesn't contain regulatory language. We are 3 concerned that this absence of regulatory language is 4 going to lead to a less perfect public process. I mean, 5 the more specific the actual language is, the more 6 specific our comments could be to help inform your 7 decision making. 8 I don't want this to be interpreted in any way 9 as a call for delay. We share the Agency's concern that a 10 rule needs to be implemented soon and strongly, but we had 11 hoped that a rule would be  actual rule language would 12 be available and hope that the Agency could provide it 13 before the end of the public comment period so that more 14 specific comments could be made. 15 I also want to just again generally underscore a 16 few items. The move from  or at least the options that 17 indicate a move from the more proscriptive, the more 18 controlling, Subpart 2 into Subpart 1, we think this 19 ignores some of the lessons that we have learned over the 20 last 33 years as we have dealt with clean air issues, that 21 the Clean Air Act, when originally passed in 1970, had a 22 goal of cleaning up the air by 1975. But it was merely  23 177 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 we were unable to achieve that. 1 In fact, until 1990 and the Clean Air Act 2 amendments, we had a lot of difficulty in achieving clean 3 air from smog in many communities around the company. We 4 have made substantial progress since then in several 5 areas. We have a lot more to go, but we believe that 6 moving away from the more proscriptive ideas that actually 7 make those tough political decisions that Congress made, 8 that that's an important thing that we should hold onto, 9 and that we shouldn't leave that and go back to something 10 that we have already had some experience with and 11 understand that it is not as effective. 12 Sort of also related to that is the incentive 13 program which focuses on modeling and allowing communities 14 to model their way out of a nonattainment designation or 15 to a lower level of nonattainment designation. We are 16 concerned that that encourages communities to spend 17 resources on modeling emissions reductions rather than 18 spending resources on achieving emissions reductions. You 19 know, to the extent that  I mean, there are limited 20 resources. We know that we are in a difficult economic 21 time. We need those resources to get protections for air 22 quality. And we have heard today voluminous reports of 23 178 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 the air quality impacts of ozone. 1 Actually, that is what I would like to speak on, 2 if I may speak a portion of my testimony as an individual, 3 as a citizen, rather than as a representative of the 4 Sierra Club. My wife has asthma, and thankfully, it is 5 well controlled now. But that hasn't always been the 6 case. And I assume that for people that don't have access 7 to medical care, that remains the case today. 8 In May of 1997, we were whitewater rafting on 9 the Chatuga River, which is probably best known as the set 10 for Deliverance. It is a wild and scenic river, so it is 11 sort of out in the middle of nowhere, but it is, 12 unfortunately  and we didn't really realize this at the 13 time. It is downwind from Atlanta and also downwind from 14 a series of powerplants owned by Southern Company and the 15 Tennessee Valley Authority. We were on the river for 16 several hours during that day and managed to  we weren't 17 married at the time, but we did get married later, which, 18 for anybody who has actually run a two person raft, I 19 think it is quite an achievement for us. 20 Suzanne was having some difficulty during the 21 trip, and she had her rescue inhaler with her and used it 22 during the day. We were staying with friends at a cabin 23 179 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 outside Franklin, North Carolina, up in the  we were 1 right up at the top of the mountains, which  we didn't 2 know at that time, but in that area of the country, at 3 high altitude, you have severe ozone problems. It had 4 been a very hot day, and Suzanne's difficulty breathing 5 didn't get any better. And by about 11: 00 at night, it 6 became evident that it wasn't going to get any better 7 without significant intervention, and we had to go 8 hurtling through those two lane roads in the gullies about 9 20 minutes to get to a hospital, where she could  where 10 they gave her a medication so that she could breathe. 11 That is one of the most horrifying memories of 12 my life, is sitting there at 11: 00 at night, dark country 13 road, hurtling at unsafe speeds to get her there with her 14 wheezing. And the pain and the fear, that is something 15 that we can do something about, and we should. So that is 16 why I believe that we need to have a very strong rule 17 here. 18 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 19 MR. HELMS: Thank you so much. 20 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Nathaniel Mund was 21 concluded.) 22 MR. HELMS: I have two individuals that want to 23 180 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 be called together, Stephen Smith and Ulla Reeves. 1 MS. REEVES: No. 2 MR. SMITH: We don't need to be called together. 3 MR. HELMS: I stand corrected. We have two 4 individuals that want to speak, but they don't want to be 5 called together. 6 Stephen Smith has the podium. He will be 7 followed by Ulla Reeves. 8 MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. 9 MR. HELMS: The podium is yours. 10 TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN SMITH 11 MR. SMITH: My name is Stephen Smith. I am the 12 executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean 13 Energy, a veterinarian by training. I live in Knoxville  14  and that is spelled K N O X, not just N O X, even though 15 the air quality there is quite severe  and we continue 16 to struggle in East Tennessee with bad air. Our 17 organization does work throughout the Southeast United 18 States. As many of you know, there are a number of areas 19 in the Southeast that continue to struggle with the burden 20 of poor air quality, which is unhealthy both for humans 21 and nonhumans, and is extracting an environmental toll. 22 I live in the shadows of the Great Smoky 23 181 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Mountain National Park, although unfortunately, because of 1 the bad air quality, even though I may only be 30 vertical 2 miles from some of the highest elevations in the eastern 3 United States, I can't see the mountains because of the 4 air pollution, regional haze and other things. So we have 5 got a very serious problem. 6 I am a father. My oldest son has experienced 7 asthma, and as a parent, it is one of the most frightening 8 things that you can experience. I am an employer, and I 9 have a number of people that work for me and have 10 employees that have children that suffer from severe 11 asthma and have employees themselves that sometimes are 12 unable to come to work or come to work compromised because 13 of the poor air quality. 14 So this is not an abstract concept. It is not 15 something that is just sort of pushed around in 16 bureaucratic circles. It has true human health 17 implications, it has true environmental implications, and 18 we need to move forward to implement a very strong rule to 19 get us clean air. The promise of clean air continues to 20 remain elusive. 21 In a very real way, it is like approaching a 22 finishing line in a race and then, all of a sudden, the 23 182 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 judge or the people that are  the regulatory people, 1 sort of, in the race begin to move the finishing line back 2 so that you never actually get the race finished. And I 3 think we are in a race for clean air, and we need EPA to 4 hold firm the line for healthy air and for attainment 5 throughout the country. We need healthy air. 6 To be honest with you, I am a little confused 7 about this whole process, because I guess at this point we 8 don't really have a proposed rule. We have  I think the 9 terminology I will use is we have a framework. It is a 10 little uncertain when this framework is actually going to 11 be given to us in a form that is in the proposed rule. 12 We participated with a number of other groups in 13 the environmental community to try to challenge through 14 legal means to get EPA to hold firm, and we remain 15 frustrated by the fact that it seems like every time we 16 turn around we are dealing with a regulatory agency that 17 is vested with the guy that is to protect human health who 18 seems to be moving the bar. 19 In that context, I want to make just a few 20 comments on the aspects of the proposal that I understand. 21 First of all, we need very strong anti backsliding 22 provisions. It is of great concern that as you move from 23 183 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 a 1 hour standard to the 8 hour standard that we do not 1 want to see progress that is being made or should be being 2 made around the 1 hour standard to somehow or another 3 slip. If I understand correctly, the whole purpose of the 4 8 hour is to give a more protective standard to the 5 country because science has clearly demonstrated that 6 exposure to ozone is dangerous to human health. As a 7 veterinarian, we used to use ozone to purify surgical 8 instruments. Ozone is used to purify water. And we need 9 to get the levels reduced in the atmosphere so that we 10 have healthy air to breathe. 11 Now, it would be sadly ironic that in the 12 process of moving to a more healthy standard and moving 13 from the 1 hour standard to the 8 hour standard that 14 somehow or another, we slipped or allowed to backslide the 15 necessary push within the regulatory community to get 16 local governments and get various industries and others 17 who are contributing, including individuals who drive 18 their automobiles, to all of a sudden see that start to 19 backslide. So I think that it is absolutely imperative 20 that there is no way that in the transition from the 21 1 hour standard to the 8 hour standard that we see any 22 backsliding. 23 184 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 We should also be extremely careful that the 1 term flexibility doesn't become synonymous with delay. 2 While flexibility is conceptually a good thing, if it is 3 being used to manipulate the rules in order to allow delay 4 to become a code word  flexibility to become a code word 5 for delay. So you have all the folks that are being 6 regulated out there saying well, we need greater 7 flexibility, when in reality what they are saying is that 8 we need you to continue to delay the standard because we 9 don't want to be held accountable and we don't want to 10 make the investments, we don't want to generate the 11 political will so that we actually achieve what we are 12 trying to do here, which is healthy air. So I am 13 concerned that you read through this flexibility and some 14 people are saying delay, and I think it is critical that 15 that not happen. We do not need delay. 16 We are active in the process of looking at the 17 Early Action Compacts in our region. We are skeptical. 18 We are not sure that they are going to achieve what they 19 need to do. But we do know one thing, that the threat of 20 nonattainment  it was characterized in an article this 21 past weekend as the scarlet letter for many of these 22 communities  is a powerful hammer, a powerful motivating 23 185 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 tool. And if you continue to sort of pull that back, when 1 we get some of these communities moving towards trying to 2 take the actions to move forward to develop the political 3 will to actually implement measures that are going to 4 reduce air pollution, you don't want to pull that back. 5 A couple of other very quick things. We do not 6 support modeling reclassification. Clearly, we need to be 7 looking at the tons in the air, we need to be looking at 8 the actual what the environment sees, what my lung tissue 9 sees. And it is not what is on a computer screen through 10 modeling, it is actually what I breathe, what I am exposed 11 to in the atmosphere. So using modeling to achieve some 12 measure of weakening the standard or reclassification to 13 lower levels of the designated areas in the rule is 14 unacceptable. You should go by what we are seeing in the 15 atmosphere. 16 So with those things, again, I would just 17 implore upon you, please do not weaken what we are doing. 18 We are close. We are making progress. Let's see it 19 through. Let's not use flexibility as a code word for 20 delay. 21 Thank you very much. 22 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 23 186 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Questions? 1 ( No response.) 2 MR. HELMS: Thank you, Dr. Smith. 3 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Stephen Smith was 4 concluded.) 5 MR. HELMS: The podium is yours by yourself. 6 MS. REEVES: Thank you very much. 7 TESTIMONY OF ULLA REEVES 8 MS. REEVES: Good afternoon. My name is Ulla 9 Reeves. I am also with the Southern Alliance for Clean 10 Energy. I am the regional air director. I am going to 11 say everything that you have already heard before, and I 12 am going to say it again. 13 First of all, I would like to say that the air 14 outside is really gross, and I am having a hard time 15 breathing today. I think Code Red days, I think Code 16 Orange days and especially Code Purple days are 17 unacceptable. We have unacceptable air quality outside. 18 We have the means and the know how to clean up 19 the air. We have the technology available. We know how 20 to do this. So my question to EPA is why are we proposing 21 extensions of time and leniency to those responsible for 22 polluting our air? 23 187 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 In the Southeast where we live, as Steve and 1 Valerie and other people have mentioned, there are 2 approximately 23 million people living in areas with 3 unhealthy levels of ozone. In our 8 states of Alabama, 4 Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 5 South Carolina and Tennessee, there are 9 cities and 6 counties violating our clean air standards. And that is 7 just the counties with the monitors in it; that is not 8 reflective of the counties that don't have the monitors. 9 So, again, why are we proposing increased 10 flexibility to solve these problems? I thought hard for a 11 while for an analogy about this issue of changing 12 designations based on modeling. We don't let our children 13 move up to fifth grade without passing fourth grade, so 14 why would we let Atlanta, with a severe nonattainment 15 classification, move to a lesser classification without 16 actually meeting the requirements to get them there? 17 We are very concerned about this EPA proposal 18 allowing changes in designation based on arbitrary future 19 hopeful projections. In the states across the Southeast, 20 we can't wait for clean air. We can't breathe when we are 21 having Code Red, Code Orange and Code Purple days. 22 Allowing areas lesser classification means more pollution 23 188 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 for more time, and that is simply wrong. 1 Valerie mentioned our concern about the Early 2 Action Compacts, and I would like to reiterate this. The 3 Early Action Compacts would essentially allow for 4 extensive delays in actually achieving clean air. Early 5 Action Compacts are technically illegal and allow areas 6 with serious air quality problems to avoid the tried and 7 true programs of the Clean Air Act. 8 Another concern that I would like to highlight 9 is that EPA is holding these hearings without offering a 10 formal proposal for the public to review and understand 11 before giving comment. It is incredibly difficult for the 12 general public to formulate comments without knowing what 13 EPA is planning on writing in the actual rule. I would 14 like to request that EPA issue the proposed rule before 15 August 1st of 2003 so that we have time to comment on this 16 and actually see what is going to be written. 17 Furthermore, it is critical that we retain the 18 April 15, 2004 deadline for nonattainment designation and 19 not let that slip. EPA does not have to finalize this 20 rule in order to make the nonattainment designations, and 21 we would like to ensure that those designations are made 22 in advance of the rule being finalized. 23 189 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 The bottom line is that both through the process 1 and the details of this preamble, we are facing potential 2 delays for clean air, and that is unacceptable. Let's 3 ensure that as we transition areas from the old standard 4 to the new, that we not lose sight of our goal that is 5 real and attainable, clean air. In this proposal, EPA 6 seems to be favoring greater flexibility, longer timelines 7 and vague rules that are essentially loopholes for 8 nonattainment and will prolong getting us into attainment 9 indefinitely. 10 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 11 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 12 Questions? 13 ( No response.) 14 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 15 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Ulla Reeves was 16 concluded.) 17 MR. HELMS: What I would like to do is exercise 18 the prerogative of the chair here to take a ten minute 19 break. We will convene back at 13 after 1: 00. 20 I have been prompted by our legal assistant 21 here, who would like a 15 minute break. Being one not to 22 argue with our Office of General Counsel, we'll take a 23 190 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 15 minute break. 1 ( Whereupon, a recess was taken from 1: 00 p. m. to 2 1: 15 p. m.) 3 MR. HELMS: Let's reconvene the hearing. 4 TESTIMONY OF RONALD L. BERT, ( via e mail) 5 MR. HELMS: I would like to read into the record 6 an e mail that I got here from Ronald L. Bert of Falls 7 Church, Virginia. He comments: 8 Like many of the concerned public, I cannot 9 attend this hearing as it conflicts with my work schedule, 10 specifically doing my full time job. Therefore, I am 11 voicing my objection through you  me as the hearing 12 officer reading it into the record  about the appalling 13 attempt to roll back the ozone standards. I agree with 14 and would like the reading of the detailed part below at 15 the hearing and/ or submission of this e mail below to the 16 hearing. 17 The detailed part that I will read in his behalf 18 as hearing officer: 19 Right now, 140 million Americans, more than half 20 of our population, live in areas where ozone forming smog 21 levels are high enough to cause serious health problems. 22 Unfortunately, the rule that is being proposed will delay 23 191 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 and loosen clean air requirements in those areas where it 1 is literally unsafe to breathe. This would mean more smog 2 and higher instances of asthma and other respiratory 3 ailments for children and others in that population that 4 exist living in these areas. For more information, please 5 visit  and it gives a website, and I will not read 6 through that. I wouldn't make it through without messing 7 it up, but it will be in the record. 8 Thank you for your time and dedication to help 9 enhance and protect our national parks for present and 10 future generations. The NPCA Grassroots Staff. National 11 ParkLines is a publication of the National Parks 12 Conservation Association's Park Action Network. 13 So I will give this to the court reporter as 14 part of the record. 15 Our next presenter, Brooke Suter. The podium is 16 yours. 17 TESTIMONY OF BROOKE SUTER 18 MS. SUTER: Good afternoon. I would first like 19 to thank you very much for your stamina here at these EPA 20 hearings. I know that they are long days, and I know that 21 everyone works very hard on these issues. It is so 22 important that the public has the opportunity to comment. 23 192 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 I am the Connecticut director for Clean Water 1 Action and the Clean Water Fund. My primary reason for 2 being here today, however, is as the lead coordinator for 3 the Connecticut Coalition for Clean Air. I agree with all 4 the comments that have been said here today. There has 5 been some tremendous compelling testimony. 6 I came here today from Connecticut with Dr. Mark 7 Mitchell, who went over some of the medical information, 8 with Andy Bauer and Joanna and Aiden and Holly, that 9 family from Portland who outlined some other issues, and 10 with Stephanie Sanchez, from the Norwalk area. And those 11 are just a few of the people from a coalition that 12 includes over 130 organizations, over half a million 13 Connecticut residents. 14 What is significant about that is when you think 15 of the fact that the state only has 3.2 million people in 16 it, half a million of them are willing to say specifically 17 that they are concerned about this issue and are willing 18 to take action. I think that says a lot. 19 What I thought I would add to that group effort 20 is to explain a little bit how broad the Coalition is and 21 the broad based support for this. I think often, sort of 22 the usual suspects come forward. You might have some 23 193 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 public health advocates. You might have some 1 environmental groups. But what you should know about the 2 Connecticut Coalition for Clean Air is that those members 3 include health organizations like the American Lung 4 Association of Connecticut and more conservative groups 5 like the Greater Bridgeport Medical Association. These 6 were not  there is a long process that one has to go 7 through to get these kinds of people on board with these 8 sorts of issues. 9 It also includes faith communities, the 10 Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ, the 11 Committee on the Environment, the Episcopal Diocese of 12 Connecticut are a couple. There are 130 groups  I won't 13 read all of them  public interest groups like the 14 Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the Connecticut 15 Public Interest Research Group. So those are some  16 those are more usual suspects. 17 But then you have, for instance, the teachers, 18 the Fairfield Education Association, understanding how 19 significant asthma attacks and high ozone days are for the 20 loss of school days for teachers, loss of workdays, and 21 for the future of our children and their ability to be 22 effective members of society and get an education by being 23 194 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 able to attend school and not be in the emergency room. 1 There are political organizations like the League of Women 2 Voters of Connecticut and then other environmental 3 organizations like Clean Water Action or Toxics Action 4 Center and NCR Club of Connecticut. There are groups that 5 are concerned about these issues. There are not just a 6 few concerned people that are impacted. 7 I am sure you all are incredibly aware after the 8 compelling testimony today of how many people from across 9 the country have very severe and direct impacts from high 10 ozone, and I need to convey to you that these people and 11 this coalition of people don't understand delay. It is 12 simply unacceptable to delay any further. Six years to 13 get the rule moving is one thing, but to delay beyond this 14 point is something that, frankly, as their organizing 15 leader, I wouldn't be able to explain to them. They look 16 at me and say you must be kidding; they have to do 17 something now; my child is in the emergency room today. 18 I guess the underscoring point is that this is 19 all preventable, and I would say we need to prevent it. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much for taking the 22 time to come down. 23 195 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 ( Whereupon the testimony of Brooke Suter was 1 concluded.) 2 MR. HELMS: Amy Beck. Amy, you have been 3 waiting very patiently. The podium is yours. 4 TESTIMONY OF AMY BECK 5 MS. BECK: I am Amy Beck, and I am not with any 6 organization. I am a student at ETSU in Johnson City, 7 Tennessee. And I am like one of the citizens that she was 8 talking about who doesn't understand, doesn't understand 9 why, when we have the technology and the science to 10 protect our environment and to protect our health, why it 11 is getting pushed back and why it is not fixed now. 12 I just last month watched a friend die. His 13 lungs shut down and filled with fluid, and I watched him 14 take his last breath. Nobody should have to go through 15 that. You all have the power to prevent some of that from 16 happening, and I hope that you will do that, because our 17 lives are in your hands, and we are trusting you. 18 I came because I want to just remind you and to 19 let you all know that even if some of us don't know a lot 20 of the science about this  and I don't know a lot about 21 politics  I am trusting you all to make the right 22 decisions and to protect my life and my health and my 23 196 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 family's health. 1 Thank you. 2 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Thank you for coming all 3 the way from Johnson City. 4 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Amy Beck was 5 concluded.) 6 MR. HELMS: Lee Epstein, the podium is yours. 7 TESTIMONY OF LEE EPSTEIN 8 MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Hearing Officer. I 9 didn't come all the way from Tennessee, but I did walk 13 10 long, hot blocks from the Metro. 11 My name is Lee Epstein. I am the director of 12 the lands program at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which 13 is a regional environmental organization here in the 14 Mid Atlantic. We have about 110,000 members, mostly in 15 the states of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania and the 16 District of Columbia, but actually across the country. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to present this brief 18 testimony on EPA's proposed implementation plan. 19 In our view, most of the implications for the 20 Agency's preferred plan of action are substantially 21 negative for human health, the environment and, in our 22 case, the Chesapeake Bay, which is already hugely stressed 23 197 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 by nitrogen pollution. The implementation proposal should 1 largely be rejected, at least with respect to the matters 2 I mention below. 3 Timely attainment of national ambient air 4 quality standards is, first and foremost, an objective in 5 law already past due, but it is also too dear to the 291 6 counties estimated to be in violation to leave to chance 7 or near impossibility in the short term, as these various 8 proposals would do. The new 8 hour standards are intended 9 to obtain significant seasonal reductions in ozone, 10 important for restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay, 11 which actually would be restored even quicker with year 12 round reductions. But the current proposals would unduly 13 delay and actually jeopardize full implementation to reach 14 those goals in a timely manner. 15 There are several problems with the proposals. 16 First, many areas that would otherwise be classified as 17 moderate for nonattainment under the Clean Air Act's 18 public health standards based on the new 8 hour values  19 thus making them subject to local controls on industry and 20 vehicle emissions  could be exempted here from such 21 control because they are, quote, expected, end quote, to 22 attain the standards by 2007 anyway. 23 198 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Additionally, nonattainment areas could be 1 placed in a less demanding designation by using analytic 2 models to show that they will attain their standard within 3 three years and by showing the influence of out of area 4 air pollution sources. This is the case even though such 5 analyses are often notoriously weak, as are many of the 6 incentives and local voluntary programs that are currently 7 in place and that are used reportedly to arrive at air 8 quality attainment. 9 Second, transportation conformity, the major 10 Clean Air Act program that requires regional 11 transportation plans be within the vehicle emission limits 12 established in state implementation plans, would be 13 wrongly transformed. This essential accountability 14 program, strengthened in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments 15 precisely because of the substantial influence of 16 transportation emissions and ozone, would be seriously 17 weakened by this proposal. 18 Along these lines, the proposal would permit 19 regions to ignore or reject adopted emissions budgets and 20 so called reasonable further progress targets that are 21 derived from the 1 hour standard as well as the air 22 quality standard bump up to a higher standard that has 23 199 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 occurred in certain nonattainment areas. 1 Honest conformity and its rigorous tests and 2 analyses would no longer apply, and the transportation 3 plan would no longer need to conform to the pollution 4 limits of the currently accepted and the currently adopted 5 1 hour ozone motor vehicle emissions budget once a new 6 8 hour designation is put in place, even though the 7 8 hour SIPs, the 8 hour state implementation plans, would 8 not be due for at least another two years. 9 Instead, a nonattainment area could use the old 10 and discredited build/ no build conformity test to measure 11 projects until the new standard's emission budgets and 12 plan are formulated a couple of years hence. Thus, 13 traffic growth and pollution increases to continue during 14 this time, though the increased emissions would continue 15 to adversely affect human health and the environment. 16 Indeed, just by virtue of coming under the 17 8 hour standard's protective umbrella, the requirement for 18 an April 2005 adoption of more stringent pollution 19 controls if an area fails to attain more healthful air 20 quality under the 1 hour standard would be abandoned. 21 Finally, for areas that recently failed to meet but now 22 need to maintain their achievement of the standards, 23 200 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 conformity reviews would no longer be required, 1 eliminating necessary ongoing monitoring. 2 For human health, the implications are serious, 3 especially vulnerable populations such as children, the 4 elderly and those with compromised respiratory systems 5 that number in the hundreds of thousands in some 6 nonattainment areas would continue to suffer. For 7 transportation systems and facilities, major projects will 8 proceed that can result in substantial sprawl and further 9 air quality degradation without the kind of analysis 10 necessary to determine the degree of adverse impact and 11 without the strong standards against which such proposal 12 should be measured. 13 For already stressed environmental systems such 14 as the Chesapeake Bay, NO x problems  nitrogen oxide 15 problems  originating within the many nonattainment 16 areas within our watershed will continue to worsen, 17 leading to higher nitrogen loadings instead of lower ones 18 and delayed or ultimately denied necessary improvements. 19 Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. 20 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 21 Questions? 22 ( No response.) 23 201 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. HELMS: Thanks again. 1 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Lee Epstein was 2 concluded.) 3 MR. HELMS: Melissa Bernardin, the podium is 4 yours. 5 TESTIMONY OF MELISSA BERNARDIN 6 MS. BERNARDIN: Melissa Bernardin, Clean Water 7 Action, 163 Court Street, Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801. 8 Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to 9 you today. My name is Melissa Bernardin. I am here on 10 behalf of the 3,000 members of New Hampshire Clean Water 11 Action. 12 We have heard overwhelming public opinion today 13 that current unhealthy air quality in our nation is an 14 unacceptable threat that we must deal with swiftly and 15 without leniency. Coming from the Live Free or Die State, 16 I would add that it is unacceptable for the federal 17 government to allow our air to get so dirty that people 18 must be advised to stay indoors on certain days as 19 prisoners, more or less, in our own homes. 20 Taking it to the regional level, when you live 21 in New England, where warm weather comes around just three 22 to four months per year, being advised to stay indoors for 23 202 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 even one summer day, separate from being worrisome for 1 asthmatic families, is downright disappointing. Surely 2 you can appreciate how enjoyable the sun is after winters 3 such as the last, where the north country of our state was 4 dealt Arctic blasts as chilling as 80 degrees below 5 Fahrenheit with wind chill, not to mention how our summer 6 tourism revenues may suffer from advisories to stay 7 indoors. 8 In New Hampshire in 2002, approximately one day 9 out of every two summer weeks were unhealthy air days, and 10 we have already had at least one unhealthy ozone 11 designated day in New Hampshire this year, 2003. EPA's 12 published set of quote/ unquote options for implementing 13 the 1997 8 hour ozone standard would weaken clean air 14 protections for our country. Failure to reign in nitrogen 15 pollution in the U. S. will allow further harm to New 16 Hampshire's natural environment, as our state is located 17 downwind of the East Coast's most smoggy areas. 18 Now I want to focus for just a couple minutes on 19 the ecosystem impacts that will persist should EPA choose 20 a path forward that allows standards for ozone compliance 21 to be weakened. Much of this testimony draws on the 22 recent nitrogen publication and bioscience paper prepared 23 203 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 by the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation's Science Links 1 project, work that was undertaken to advance a scientific 2 policy and public understanding of nitrogen pollution. 3 Because it is field season, scientists associated with 4 this study were not available to attend this hearing, but 5 they will be submitting written comments. 6 Nitrogen pollution from fossil fuel combustion 7 is linked to several major environmental issues, number 8 one, acid rain. Nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel 9 combustion contribute to the formation of acid rain. 10 Unlike sulfur dioxide, emissions of nitrogen oxides have 11 not declined over the past decade. The well documented 12 impacts of acid rain include acidification of many lakes 13 and streams, such that they are too acidic to support fish 14 life, depletion of essential basic nutrients, such as 15 calcium from soils, reduction in colder stress tolerance 16 in some tree species, including red spruce and sugar 17 maple. 18 Two, ground level ozone. Nitrogen oxides 19 contribute to the formation of trophospheric ozone, which 20 damages plant tissue, thus resulting in reductions in 21 forest growth and crop yield. 22 Three, nitrogen saturation in forests. Nitrogen 23 204 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 deposition can overfertilize forests. Excessive inputs 1 over a long period of time, such as has occurred in the 2 many parts of the eastern U. S., reduce tree vigor and 3 allow nitrogen to leak from soils into surface waters, 4 thus exacerbating acidic conditions. 5 And four, nitrification of coastal waters. The 6 nitrogen that enters rivers flows downstream to coastal 7 waters, where it can cause nitrification or 8 overenrichments. Symptoms include algoblooms, low oxygen 9 events, fish kills, loss of sea grasses and loss of 10 aquatic life. Nitrification of coastal waters is one of 11 the most widespread water quality problems in the U. S. 12 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has 13 identified 42 major estuaries in the nation that have been 14 nitrified as a result of overenrichment related to 15 nitrogen pollution. 16 The last point that I would like to make: In a 17 study published last month in Atmospheric Environment, 18 Dr. Gene Likens  this was mentioned earlier today  and 19 his coauthors offer strong evidence that controls on NO x 20 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are essential to 21 reduce rainfall acidity, ground level ozone, nitrogen 22 deposition and coastal pollution. The article shows that, 23 205 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 unlike sulfur, where there is almost a one to one 1 relationship between emissions and deposition, that the 2 NO x emission deposition ratio requires a deeper NO x 3 emissions reduction. This means a 50 percent reduction in 4 deposition could require a 60 percent reduction in 5 emissions. Given that instead NO x emissions have remained 6 unchanged for over a decade, it is critical now to support 7 actions that result in meaningful cuts. 8 Weakening the clean air protections by extending 9 deadlines and allowing control measures that are unlikely 10 to bring areas into ozone compliance is a step in the 11 wrong direction. Many of our nation's ecosystems will 12 shoulder the burden of such a decision. There is an 13 opportunity to require reductions that will benefit our 14 forests, lakes, stream and coastal waters. Such an 15 opportunity should not be missed. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 18 Questions? 19 ( No response.) 20 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 21 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Melissa Bernardin 22 was concluded.) 23 206 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. HELMS: Now, is anyone here on a very tight 1 time frame? 2 ( No response.) 3 MR. HELMS: Okay. Seeing no hands raised, we 4 will go through the list here. 5 Julie Crenshaw, come forward. The podium is 6 yours. Be sure to give us your name, affiliation and so 7 forth, Ms. Crenshaw. 8 TESTIMONY OF JULIE CRENSHAW 9 MS. CRENSHAW: Good afternoon. I am Julie 10 Crenshaw. I am the chair of the Air Quality Public 11 Advisory Committee at the Council of Governments. I am 12 also a citizen here in Alexandria. Today I am not 13 speaking for the committee, but I think it is important 14 that you understand that I am affiliated with that group. 15 I have been there for ten years. This is my third year as 16 chair. 17 Many of the things that I have seen in the last 18 ten years and the people I have spoken with have been 19 represented here today. Mr. Helms, I am glad you are from 20 North Carolina. The man who owns Grandfather Mountain 21 once said to me in the last decade  he said please, I 22 want my trees to stop dying. And it was because of the 23 207 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 air quality. 1 The North Carolina State University has done 2 some very good research into effects of air quality on 3 tree development, and many of the tests that they have 4 done have shown conclusively that air quality stunted the 5 growth and the normal development of trees that were 6 growing, and one of them was a seedling  were seedlings 7 from Grandfather Mountain. 8 The people who sit on my committee represent a 9 lot of different areas in this particular region, from 10 business to environment to health to general citizens. 11 Many of the concerns that we have as the public do not 12 always carry over to the political will and the political 13 information that is submitted to EPA. Many of the things 14 that the public would like to see happen, the politicians 15 who will send you state implementation plans, they are not 16 as stringent as what the public would like to see, because 17 of the political will, because of the fact that they want 18 to be reelected. 19 And it is not that people don't care. Mirant 20 has a seat on my committee, and the fellow who represents 21 Mirant, which we have one of the powerplants down here on 22 the Potomac River, it is grandfathered, although I have 23 208 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 never understood the term grandfathered, because no 1 grandfather would want something that pollutes for his 2 children, his grandchildren, et cetera. 3 They had had problems with the regulations for 4 EPA specifically under the new source review. There is 5 confusion. There is some things that they would like to 6 do, but they don't have the permission to do some of the 7 things that would clean up their plants. Now, this is not 8 necessarily their grandfathered plants. But there seems 9 to be some confusion about what they can do that would be 10 beneficial in implementing improvements that they say 11 would clean the air. I don't know what needs to happen, 12 but I feel like this gentleman is being very honest with 13 me. 14 As well, the people who live near this Mirant 15 plant down on the water, the coal that they stack up to 16 fuel their plant is not covered. So these people can't 17 open their windows because they get coal dust in the 18 windows. I mean, this is aside from what comes out of the 19 smokestacks. If Alexandria had their way, they would tell 20 them to leave. They don't want the plant here, but they 21 don't have the wherewithal to say we don't want that. 22 There needs to be some local control about what happens in 23 209 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 an area related to air quality, and that isn't here, and 1 we need that. 2 This area has had 50 plus days of rain up until 3 this particular week, Code Green all across the board. 4 All of a sudden, once the Code Green went away and we got 5 90 degree weather, we are Code Red and Code Purple. This 6 tells me that we have a crisis. I don't know whether this 7 air is coming down from Baltimore or whether it is coming 8 from the Ohio Valley. That's the way our airshed is. But 9 if that is not the case, then the problem is here. If we 10 could get the Ohio Valley to clean up their air, we 11 wouldn't have to deal with it in this location. 12 There has to be more localized responsibility, 13 and it can't be voluntary. There are people and there are 14 companies who do everything that they possibly can, but 15 that is not the norm. And until the norm is such that 16 people take responsibility, we have to have the 17 regulation, and people want the regulation. People are 18 asking why are we having to go through this severe 19 situation and why wasn't something done to start with. 20 Sometimes the research that is done at the local 21 level to determine what the situation is, given that we 22 had to go back ten years to look at the data to determine 23 210 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 what was happening for a severe status  which is what we 1 are going to be bumped up to  it is very tedious. A lot 2 of the time they were calling EPA for guidance constantly. 3 I don't know what the give and take was there, 4 but at the last Metropolitan Washington Air Quality 5 Committee, where we were looking at putting out the state 6 implementation plan for public comment, nobody from EPA 7 was there. And it is crucial that at every one of these 8 MWAQC meetings we have someone from EPA there. Sometimes 9 we have questions, sometimes we don't, but that was really 10 critical, because given we were at that point putting out 11 the state implementation plan for public comment, there 12 were some questions that I think would have been asked of 13 EPA before this was done. 14 So we need more localized ability to deal with 15 things, and if every jurisdiction did something at the 16 local level, we wouldn't get the downwind from Ohio or the 17 downwind from Baltimore or they wouldn't get wind that 18 comes from us, which is not usually the norm. We would 19 have better ability to deal with this, and it would 20 straighten out the national problem. 21 Thank you. 22 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Thanks for taking the 23 211 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 time to come in. 1 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Julie Crenshaw was 2 concluded.) 3 MR. HELMS: Robert Dalton, the podium is yours. 4 ( Whereupon, there was a brief discussion off the 5 record.) 6 TESTIMONY OF ROBERT DALTON 7 MR. DALTON: Thank you. It is good to see a lot 8 of southerners here. I know I moved down from New Jersey 9 to South Carolina. The air quality was a lot cleaner and, 10 16 years later, there is a great deterioration in the air 11 quality. My talk will be a little bit  probably 12 different than most of the talks today, but it will focus 13 on, probably, the same issues. 14 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members 15 of the U. S. EPA. My name is Robert Dalton. I am vice 16 president of business development and government affairs 17 for ESTEC Enterprises. I am a member of South Carolina's 18 staff advisory committee for the Early Action Compact for 19 Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson Counties. I am a 20 staunch supporter of a clean and healthy environment 21 through free enterprise. I am an ultraconservative and a 22 free trader that is not aligned with any political party. 23 212 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 ESTEC Enterprises bases its principles on free 1 trade. I have previously participated in the U. S. EPA's 2 public comment, and I have attended meetings concerning 3 innovative initiatives for the print industry and 4 inaugural and subsequent meetings for the U. S. EPA Common 5 Sense Initiative dating back to 1994, and I have attended 6 clean coal events sponsored by the Department of Energy. 7 My public comment will end with an explanation 8 of why Ms. Diane Eldridge walked out of the last staff 9 advisory committee meeting for the Early Action Compact 10 very upset. Ms. Eldridge is the associate director of 11 Upstate Forever, a South Carolina organization concerned 12 about social issues affecting the future of South 13 Carolina. My comment will begin with addressing the 14 8 hour ozone implementation rule, addressing the areas in 15 this proposal that would automatically trigger a federal 16 lawsuit against the U. S. EPA and comments on my position. 17 Further written statements will be sent to the U. S. EPA 18 prior to the deadline for public comment. 19 First, there exists no difference in the 20 capabilities of technology, cost of technology and the 21 ability of the general public to be expeditiously as 22 practical in reducing ozone precursors to meet the 1 hour 23 213 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 and 8 hour standards. Therefore, the extension of time 1 provided by this proposed implementation standard is 2 unwarranted. The capabilities of technologies and the 3 costs of technologies to meet attainment of the 8 hour 4 standard by the time frame of the 1 hour standard is only 5 limited to the desire of the Bush Administration to reduce 6 the deaths, asthma attacks and the associated medical 7 costs and health problems of the general public that is 8 associated with ground level ozone. The ozone standard 9 has changed, but the technology remains the same, is more 10 readily available and cheaper than it was ten years ago. 11 I am willing to testify to Congress on these topics. 12 In the will and efforts to reduce ozone 13 precursors that protect the general health and welfare of 14 the public by the federal government, both the legislative 15 and executive branches over the last 30 years have been 16 negligent in their duties to the general public. This 17 negligence appears to continue with this proposal. While 18 the Supreme Court has remanded the implementation of the 19 8 hour ozone standard to the U. S. EPA for obvious reasons, 20 there exists no evidence that the intent of the 21 expeditiously as practical clause of the Clean Air Act and 22 the Clean Air Act amendment in 1990 for attainment cannot 23 214 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 be met by the year 2010 or within a reasonable extension 1 of time for severe nonattainment regions. 2 When one examines the time frames of the 3 proposed implementation of the 8 hour standard, one finds 4 that the time frame for nonattainment extends by more than 5 one decade. This is an absurd result by any standards, 6 due to the fact and common sense that the 8 hour standard 7 was enacted because of the new health data regarding the 8 adverse effects of ground level ozone on the general 9 public. 10 The proposed implementation plan's options for 11 the new 8 hour standard exposes the general public to ten 12 more years of unhealthy air quality, while the intentions 13 of the 8 hour standard was to protect the health of the 14 general public due to new science that supports the fact 15 that ground level ozone is worse for the health of the 16 general public than previously understood. These proposed 17 implementations place the Bush Administration and the U. S. 18 EPA in a position of neglect with regard to the health of 19 the general public regarding ozone. 20 Nonattainment deadlines for the standards that 21 are later than 2012 would trigger a lawsuit. Therefore, I 22 now present the U. S. EPA with Freedom of Information Act 23 215 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 requests. The requests are as follows: 1 The first Freedom of Information Act request: 2 What is the probability of a ground level ozone event that 3 would trigger a violation of the 8 hour standard based 4 upon concentration of ozone precursors in all suspected 5 counties for nonattainment of the 8 hour standards based 6