1 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE 4 REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE 5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards For Ozone 6 7 8 9 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the 10 above-mentioned open hearing held in the Governor's 11 Suite, Westin Hotel, 909 North Michigan Avenue, 12 Chicago, Illinois, on the 5th day of September, 13 A.D. 2007, beginning at 9:03 a.m. 14 15 16 PANEL MEMBERS: 17 MS. ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ, Chairman; 18 MR. HARVEY RICHMOND; 19 MR. STEVE MARQUARDT. 20 21 22 23 24 REPORTED BY: ELLEN DUSZA, CSR No. 84-3386. 2 1 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. We're going to 2 start this public hearing. 3 This is the public hearing on the EPA's 4 proposed rules regarding the revisions of the 5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 6 Thank you for attending this public hearing on 7 the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone 8 standards. I recognize that many of you have 9 traveled quite a distance to be here and I 10 appreciate your efforts. 11 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, I'm the 12 associate director of the Health and Environmental 13 Impacts Division of the Office of Air Quality 14 Planning and Standards in the office of AR and EPA. 15 I will be chairing today's hearing, and my 16 colleagues here, Harvey Richmond and Mary Pat 17 Tyson, will be co-chairing with me. 18 We are here today to listen to your 19 comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the 20 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 21 As a reminder, this is a hearing, an opportunity 22 for the public to comment on EPA's proposed rule. 23 The panel members may answer questions that seek to 24 clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose of 3 1 the hearing is to listen to your comments, not to 2 discuss or debate the proposals. We won't have 3 much time for that. 4 Before we begin the comment period, I 5 would like to briefly describe the proposed rule 6 that is the subject of today's hearing. The 7 proposed rule was published in the Federal Register 8 on July 11, 2007. 9 Ground-level ozone is the primary 10 component of smog. It is formed through the 11 reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic 12 compounds in the presence of sunlight. Exposure to 13 ozone is associated with an array of respiratory 14 problems, including aggravated asthma, increased 15 susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased 16 doctors' visits, increased emergency department 17 visits and hospital admissions and premature death. 18 In addition, ground-level ozone can have 19 harmful effects on sensitive plant species, 20 including trees and crops and on the ecosystems 21 that they inhabit. It has been shown that both the 22 level of ozone to which plants are exposed and the 23 duration of the exposure are important factors in 24 determining plant response. The most significant 4 1 effects, including biomass loss and yield 2 reductions, and they result from the accumulation 3 of ozone exposures throughout the growing season 4 with higher concentrations of ozone producing 5 greater impacts. 6 Based on critical review of the large 7 body of scientific evidence now available regarding 8 the health and welfare effects associated with 9 exposure to ozone, the administrator of the EPA has 10 concluded that the current ozone standards are not 11 adequate to protect public health and welfare. A 12 number of new health studies have been conducted 13 indicating that adverse effects occur following 14 exposure to ozone at levels below the current 15 standard. Furthermore, these studies indicate that 16 people with a respiratory illness, such as asthma, 17 are particularly sensitive to these adverse 18 impacts. In addition, new scientific studies 19 confirm that exposure to ozone adversely affects 20 the growth of sensitive plant species and may 21 increase the susceptibility to disease and pests. 22 After careful consideration of this 23 scientific evidence, advice from EPA's Clean Air 24 Scientific Advisory Committee, and public comments, 5 1 the administrator has proposed to revise both the 2 primary ozone standard designed to protect human 3 health and the secondary ozone standard, designed 4 to protect welfare such as vegetation and crops. 5 Currently, the primary and secondary 6 ozone standards are identical, an eight-hour 7 standard .08 parts per million, which is 8 effectively .084 parts per million with the current 9 rounding convention that we use. Under EPA's 10 proposal, each of these standards would be revised 11 and the form of the secondary standard might change 12 so that it is no longer identical to the primary 13 standard. EPA has requested comments on all 14 aspects of its proposal and on alternatives to the 15 proposed revisions. Specifically: 16 With respect to the primary standard to 17 protect public health, the proposal included: 18 No. 1, Revising the level of the standard to within 19 the range of .070 to .075 parts per million. The 20 Agency has also requested comments on alternative 21 levels down to the .060 parts per million and up to 22 and including retention of the current standard 23 which is .084 parts per million. 24 No. 2, we've also proposed specifying 6 1 the level of the primary standard to the third 2 decimal place, because today's monitors can detect 3 ozone that accurately. 4 With respect to the secondary standard 5 to protect public welfare, EPA proposed two 6 alternatives: No. 1, one option would be to 7 establish a new form of the standard called the 8 W126, that is designed specifically to cumulate 9 ozone exposures and give more weight to higher 10 concentrations. This form of the standard would 11 add together weighted hourly ozone concentrations, 12 measured during the 12-hour daylight window from 13 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. across the consecutive 14 three-month period with the highest ozone levels. 15 EPA is proposing to set the level of this 16 cumulative standard within the range of 7 to 21 17 parts per million hours. Another option would be 18 to revise the secondary standard so that it is 19 identical to the proposed primary eight-hour 20 standard. 21 Additional information on the proposed 22 rule can be found in the fact sheet available in 23 the registration area today. Publication of the 24 rule on July 11, 2007 marked the beginning of the 7 1 90-day public comment period, which closes on 2 October 9, 2007. We have a handout available in 3 the registration area with detailed information for 4 submitting your written comments. 5 In addition, we have prepared a list of 6 all the topics in the proposed rule that the agency 7 is seeking comments on. This handout is also 8 available on the registration table. EPA will 9 issue a final rule by March 12, 2008. 10 Now, let me turn to the logistics of the 11 comment portion of today's hearing. This hearing 12 is one of five public hearings we are holding 13 across the country. Last Thursday, August 30 of 14 2007, hearings were held in Los Angeles, California 15 and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Today, hearings 16 are being held in Atlanta, Georgia, Houston, Texas 17 and here in Chicago. We will be preparing a 18 written transcript of each hearing. The 19 transcripts will be available as part of the 20 official record for each rule. 21 Today's hearing will work as follows: I 22 will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone 23 and to that table in pairs. Please state your name 24 and affiliation. It will help our court reporter 8 1 if you will spell your name, please. In order to 2 be fair to everyone, we are asking that you limit 3 your testimony to five minutes each and to remain 4 at the microphone at the table until both speakers 5 have finished speaking. 6 After you finished your testimony, a 7 panel member may ask clarifying questions. As I 8 mentioned, we are recording today's hearing and 9 each speaker's oral testimony will become part of 10 the official record. Please be sure to give a copy 11 of any written comments to our staff at the 12 registration table. We will put the full text of 13 your written comments in the docket for you. 14 We have a timekeeping system consisting 15 of green, yellow and red lights. When you begin 16 speaking, the green light will come on. You'll 17 have five minutes to speak. The yellow light will 18 signal that you have two minutes left to speak. We 19 will ask that you stop when the red light comes up. 20 We will try to ensure that everyone has an 21 opportunity to comment. If necessary, we will stay 22 through the evening. 23 If you would like to testify but have 24 not yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 9 1 registration table. We have a pretty full schedule 2 this morning, but we might have a couple openings 3 if you're interested in registering and speaking 4 today. For those who have already registered, we 5 have tried to accommodate your request for specific 6 time slots. We ask for your patience as we proceed 7 through the list. 8 Again, Harvey Richmond to my right, he 9 is part of the staff responsible for writing the 10 rule from the Health and Environmental Impacts 11 Division of the Office of Air Quality and Planning. 12 Mary Pat Tyson, again, she is acting deputy 13 director of the Air and Radiation Office here in 14 the EPA office. 15 I would like to thank you again for 16 participating. Let's get started and let me call 17 the first two speakers. Dr. David Cugell and Paul 18 Greenberger. 19 I'm sorry for mispronouncing, that's 20 David Cugell and Dr. Paul Greenberger. Please 21 spell your names and correct my pronunciation. 22 Please spell your names for the court reporter. 23 STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CUGELL, MD. 24 DR. CUGELL: Good morning, I am a David W. 10 1 Cugell, C U G E L L. My medical specialty is lung 2 disease. My appearance here today has been 3 arranged by the Respiratory Health Association 4 Metropolitan Chicago. I speak on behalf of a large 5 but little heard constituency, those among us with 6 one or another type of chronic lung disease such as 7 asthma, emphysema, bronchitis and others. 8 If blessed with healthy, normally 9 functioning lungs, one takes little note of the 10 ozone concentrations in the air we breathe, even 11 when those concentrations rise to actionable 12 levels. On the other hand, people with lung 13 disease or those with sensitive airways may be 14 incapacitated by airborne contaminants that others 15 hardly notice. How can this be? Let me try 16 explain. 17 Ozone is an exceedingly corrosive -- it 18 is a powerful irritant that inside active tissue it 19 signals certain responses, primarily an outpouring 20 of fluid. Our lungs contain a branching network of 21 air waves, with inspiration, fresh air to those 22 regions of the lungs where oxygen enters the 23 bloodstream and carbon dioxide is removed. 24 The tissue lining in much of these air 11 1 channels contains mucous-secreting glands, the same 2 type of glands and secretions with which we become 3 all too familiar whenever we have a cold. When 4 secretions accumulate in the airway, as they do 5 with ozone or with any irritant, they limit air 6 movement to some degree. Those secretions are 7 reabsorbed by tissues within the lung or cleared by 8 coughing if clearance mechanisms are intact. 9 If those protected mechanisms are 10 faulty, as they are in patients with lung diseases, 11 secretions accumulate, the patient has to work 12 harder and harder to breathe. Consider the simple 13 physical principles of the flow of gas in tubes, 14 bronchial tubes in this case. Throughout most of 15 our airways, airflow is turbulent, meaning that a 16 decrease in the radius of an airway by more than 17 one-half will reduce air movement four-fold or 18 more. To maintain airflow, the patient must 19 increase airway pressure and must work harder and 20 harder to do so. 21 Those of us with normal lungs barely 22 notice the effort required to breathe other than we 23 notice it when we're doing vigorous exercise. On 24 the other hand, the patient with emphysema, for 12 1 example, may feel like he has just completed a 2 hundred yard dash all the time. When the airflow 3 cannot be maintained, then respiratory failure 4 occurs. 5 In the 1950s when Los Angeles County 6 smog was at its worst, patients with lung diseases 7 were studied prior to and after entering an air 8 chamber, and in a controlled environment, most lung 9 function and exercise capacity improved. Countless 10 studies and populations, both urban and rural, have 11 demonstrated a consistent pattern of increased 12 morbidity and mortality when air pollution levels 13 are elevated. Population surveys primarily of lung 14 function show a decline on days when ozone 15 concentrations are increased, and in some surveys, 16 the adverse effect on breathing capacity as found 17 at ozone levels well below 60 parts per billion. 18 The plethora of scientific studies now 19 available fully justify why we should tighten the 20 existing ozone standard. We take for granted that 21 our water supply is not contaminated and safe for 22 all, are we not entitled to similar assurances 23 about the air we breathe. 24 Numerous scientific bodies and 13 1 professional organizations support a new ozone 2 standard, the EPA should follow the recommendation 3 and issue a new ozone standard that is no greater 4 than 60 parts per billion. 5 Thank you. 6 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you Dr. Cugell. 7 Any questions from the panel? 8 MR. RICHMOND: No. 9 MS. TYSON: No. 10 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Greenberger. 11 STATEMENT OF PAUL GREENBERGER, MD 12 MR. GREENBERGER: Thank you. My specialty is 13 allergy immunology. 14 Thank you to the panel members for 15 conducting this hearing in Chicago. I urge the 16 panel to compel EPA to set a final standard for 17 ozone of 60 parts per billion for an eight-hour 18 time. I'm also here under the auspices of the 19 Respiratory Health Association of Chicago. This 20 level is consistent with prominent expert 21 scientific panels including the EPA's Children's 22 Health Protection Advisory Committee and the Clean 23 Air Scientific Advisory Committee. 24 I am an asthma specialists. For over 30 14 1 years I've conducted studies in the various aspects 2 of asthma, which is now recognized as one of the 3 most complex disorders a physician is called upon 4 to treat. I diagnose and treat patients five 5 minutes from here at Northwestern University 6 Medical School, teach residents, students and train 7 future specialists in allege immunology. I speak 8 today on behalf of approximately 500,000 people 9 with asthma who live in the Chicago metropolitan 10 area. This is based conservatively on 7 percent 11 incidence of 7 million people. 12 Ozone has been shown to damage the cells 13 in the surface lining of the bronchial tubes. The 14 cells are not able to provide the necessary 15 defenses called anti-oxidants. To translate this 16 into football language, this is equivalent to 17 having a poor defensive line that cannot stop the 18 fullback or running back. Patients with asthma 19 have defective anti-oxidant defenses, which makes 20 them vulnerable to ozone. 21 Ozone even in the currently accepted 22 concentration ranges has harmful effects. First, 23 the harmful effects of ozone were recorded in a 24 study of children ages four through nine with 15 1 asthma who were studied in inner cities, including 2 Chicago, St. Louis, Washington, DC, Cleveland 3 Detroit, Baltimore, the Bronx and East Harlem. 4 There is a big surprise in this study in 5 that children with the history of being born 6 prematurely, meaning earlier than three weeks 7 early, or being low in birth rate, meaning under 8 5.5 pounds, were especially harmed by increases in 9 ozone when the children were now between ages four 10 and nine years of age. There were greater declines 11 in the peak expiratory flow rate, which is a marker 12 of lung function, and greater symptoms of asthma 13 for increases from the mean and the study of 48 14 parts per billion for every increment of 15 parts 15 per billion, so that was up to 63 parts per 16 billion. So although the ozone concentrations 17 averaged over eight hours were in the acceptable 18 range, there were clearcut harmful effects on lung 19 function and asthma symptoms. 20 Another finding was that children who 21 were allergic to cats had cats living in the home, 22 which in my experience is very common. They 23 experienced more symptoms of asthma and drops in 24 their peaks expiratory flow rates on the days with 16 1 the levels of ozone above 63 parts per billion. In 2 other words, even the standard hours won't be 3 without harmful effects but the 60 parts per 4 billion will be an important improvement for 5 children with asthma. 6 There are a number of studies in adults 7 as well demonstrating the deleterious effects of 8 ozone such as in amateur bikers who exercise and 9 studied the various concentrations of ozone and in 10 mail carriers who were exposed to maximum 11 concentrations 65 parts per billion. For every ten 12 parts per billion increment in the eight-hour ozone 13 concentration, there were declines in the nighttime 14 peak expiratory flow rates. 15 I urge the EPA to set the final standard 16 of 60 parts per billion. The time is now. It is 17 imperative to protect the health of the public. As 18 a physician and investigator, the scientific data 19 are very clear. We must take action to prevent 20 harmful effects of ozone on children and adults, 21 especially in patients with asthma. 22 Thanks. 23 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. Greenberger. 24 Both of you gentlemen, would you leave copies of 17 1 your testimony. That would be great. 2 Any questions of the panel? 3 Thank you. 4 The next two speakers will be Walter 5 Perez and Joe Wishnoff. We were happy to 6 accommodate Mr. Perez because he has another 7 conflict. 8 MR. PEREZ: Thank you. 9 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Joe Wishnoff. 10 As we said, we're calling the speakers 11 in pairs. Mr. Perez, you can go first. 12 STATEMENT OF WALTER B. PEREZ 13 MR. PEREZ: Thank you very much. Walter B. 14 Perez and I'm a pediatrician working in the 15 community of Little Village and I came here to give 16 some testimony I think that will be reflective of 17 situations that the community lives currently. I 18 don't have expertise, but I do have experience, 19 great experience of treating patients. 20 I've worked in the Chicago area since 21 2000, it's not too long, but I notice a change 22 because when I was working in 2000 to 2006 and the 23 in the community of Pilsen, I didn't have as many 24 asthmatic patients compared to what I was expecting 18 1 based on the reports of increased asthma in the 2 city. It was kinda puzzling to me, but I didn't 3 give it much of a thought. 4 But in 2006 I moved my practice to an 5 area that's Little Village, the heart of Little 6 Village, that's Pulaski and 26th Street. 7 Immediately I realized there was a big difference 8 in the number of patients I was seeing who had 9 asthma. I was pretty much seeing everyday new 10 asthmatic patients that came to my practice. So 11 that was very appalling to me and I realized 12 immediately that it was related to environmental 13 conditions, which was in the many, many reports and 14 investigation. 15 To this point I think I have 200 16 patients out of a total of 1500 patients, between 17 13 and 15 percent, who have some form of asthma, 18 which I think is really, really high. I think that 19 the environmental conditions in the area are a 20 resultant conclusion of the conditions. 21 I think the type of problem that this is 22 bringing also has some ripple effect because 23 children get sick when they are outside, and this 24 is a large population, and they will keep their 19 1 kids indoors because of that and that in turn has a 2 rippling effect on another major problem we're 3 seeing, obesity, which I think has other 4 implications as well as you can understand. 5 I'm convinced that the environment 6 though the conditions we're living now in the 7 Chicago area are a result of that situation, and I 8 think the patients will benefit if this condition 9 started improving and we'll have other situations 10 like I mentioned before. I think it's a very 11 striking experience I have moving in an area that 12 has different environmental conditions in the 13 number of patients that I'm treating right now. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 16 Mr. Wishnoff. 17 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WISHNOFF. 18 MR. WISHNOFF: I want to thank you guys for 19 listening to me. I'm a private citizen in this 20 country and I can tell my story. 21 Imagine if four days from now you were 22 lying in a hospital bed and you were told that you 23 have a rare lung disease called idiopathic 24 pulmonary fibrosis, IBF, and it has no cure other 20 1 than a double-lung transplant, which is my story. 2 I'm 28 years old, I've served as 3 managing director of two Internet companies. I've 4 owned three start-up businesses which have been 5 sold, I go to school at DePaul University. I'm a 6 Chicago born-and-bread person, my family has lived 7 here my whole life. Imagine that story and that's 8 every day that I wake up. 9 This unit on my face is a portable 10 oxygen tank. Through technology, we've been able 11 to narrow the boundaries of, you know, people 12 able -- people with the ability to travel with 13 oxygen, which is great. I think technology we can 14 change and set standards to give people the best 15 help possible via ozone or any other way so we can 16 have our citizens of this country, this great 17 country, live as long as they can. 18 A couple years ago I would say that I 19 didn't even think about my health. I was 20 25-years-old, skydiving and having a good time. 21 Health was not an issue. And something painful had 22 to happen which said you're not going to live past 23 38, you may not even live past 33. Actually, the 24 chances of me living past another year without a 21 1 double-lung transplant are less than 50 percent. 2 It's a sad story and I know this but it 3 hasn't stopped me. I still go to school full-time, 4 I'm going to grad school. I still also work two 5 jobs and it's important to me to continue pushing 6 forward regardless of obstacles. 7 When I was coming here today, I asked 8 myself this one question, big business or politics 9 or lobbyists, do they breathe a different air than 10 we do? Is there something we don't know. Can we 11 buy it? Because I'd like to buy the better air if 12 they're breathing different air. To me, it makes 13 no sense how we can't set the best ozone level for 14 all of our citizens, because at the end of the day, 15 the CEO of a billion dollar company breathes the 16 same air. 17 What I've learned through this painful 18 event in my life is that without health, we have 19 nothing. If you're not alive to contribute or do 20 something about it, then there's nothing you can 21 do, you're gone. Your impact is irrelevant if 22 you're not here. So I speak to you guys today to 23 try to go ahead and make an impact, to try to give 24 back to do something so that between now and 22 1 whatever my time is gone, I can go ahead and say he 2 helped change the world. He helped do something. 3 He helped make it so people are living a healthier 4 life, and that's really my goal between now and 5 when I'm gone. 6 You know, there's your immediate family 7 and we all love our brothers and sisters and 8 parents and then there's the bigger family. 9 There's America and America should take care of its 10 own. And by taking care of its own, we should set 11 the best standards possible so that our citizens of 12 this great country could live the best possible 13 lives they can. I think we forget about this. I 14 think we neglect the fact that money and politics 15 and self-interest get in the way of people's 16 health. At the end of the day, as I've said 17 before, health is everything. 18 I most likely will not have a family, I 19 most likely will not raise kids, unless they happen 20 very quickly, which my girlfriend probably won't be 21 too excited about right now, but I know at the end 22 of the day that for her and everyone else in my 23 family that people should be thinking about health 24 first and self-interest last, and I don't think 23 1 that's how it is right now. I hope that you guys 2 and the rest of the people can change it so that we 3 do what's best for our people. That is all I have 4 to say. Thank you. 5 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much, Dr. Perez 6 and Mr. Wishnoff. 7 Let me ask the audience to turn cell 8 phones off as a courtesy to the speakers. Thank 9 you. 10 The next two speakers are Anita Gewurz 11 and Becki Stanfield. 12 Again, I apologize for mispronouncing 13 your names. Please make sure you say your name and 14 spell it for the reporter. 15 STATEMENT OF ANITA GEWURZ, MD 16 MS. GEWURZ: Good morning. My name is Anita 17 Gewurz, G E W U R Z. I was going to try to use 18 power point slides as well, they probably won't 19 work, but I think there are two photographs that I 20 think will be helpful to see. 21 I'm a professor of 22 immunological/microbiology and a specialist in 23 asthma and allergic diseases at Rush University 24 Medical Center and in the Departments of Pediatrics 24 1 at Rush and Stroger Hospital in Cook County. I am 2 a diplomate of the American Board of Pediatrics and 3 I'm speaking today for the American Academy of 4 Pediatrics. I also served on the American Board of 5 Allergy and Immunology, which I chaired in 2004. 6 For the past 35 years, however, I have practiced in 7 Chicago's west side, which has some of the highest 8 concentrations of air pollution and pediatric 9 asthma. I hope to persuade you that this 10 association is not coincidental but can be avoided. 11 According to EPA data, more than 12 one-third of Americans live where ground-level 13 ozone exceeds the current eight-hour standard of 14 0.08 to 0.84 parts per million, which is 15 approximately equivalent to 157 micrograms of ozone 16 per cubic meter. 17 As reported in the Chicago Tribune 18 August 7 of this year, ozone levels in Cook County 19 and surrounding counties violated the National 20 Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone on eight 21 days between May 22 and August 7. In other words, 22 here in the Chicago area where one child in ten 23 below age 18 has asthma, approximately 215,000 24 asthmatic children were exposed to excess ozone 25 1 levels one day per week during last June and July. 2 Should we be upset about this? Very. 3 Why? Because not all lungs are created 4 equal. Ozone exceedants are particularly harmful 5 to children with asthma and other diseases that 6 affect the small airways. Yet, it is children who 7 bear the brunt of ozone exposure. 8 The first photograph from the Tribune 9 articles shows five boys playing soccer next to a 10 coal-fired power plant in Pilsen. Pilsen is a 11 mostly Mexican working class industrial Chicago 12 neighborhood. Unlike adults who work indoors 13 during months where ozone is highest, that is April 14 through October in Illinois, children are more 15 likely to be outdoors and exposed to ozone. 16 Because children have higher respiratory rates, 17 minute ventilation, when exposed to ozone, whether 18 at rest or exercising, they naturally breathe and 19 absorb more ozone than adults engaged in comparable 20 activity. 21 Unfortunately, communities with higher 22 population density are the same areas where 23 non-attainment of the ozone standard is more 24 frequent. Also shown in the second picture, and 26 1 I'm sorry these aren't projecting, this means that 2 the people at highest risk are also exposed to the 3 most potential harm. 4 The Inflammatory effects of ozone on 5 immature lungs are only now becoming apparent. 6 Lung development continues from birth through 7 adolescence, and developing airways are 8 particularly susceptible to delayed and long-term 9 damage from ambient ozone. Asthmatic children are 10 at increased risk. Fetal lung damage can begin in 11 utero from maternal exposure to ozone as well. The 12 inference is obvious. Even at 60 parts per 13 billion, ozone causes airway damage and children 14 with asthma are especially vulnerable. 15 The EPA's June '07 proposal to review 16 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 17 ground-level ozone states the standards set within 18 the range of 0.70 to 0.075 parts per million, which 19 would provide appropriate protection against the 20 variety of health effects associated with ozone 21 exposure. The Agency proposes that a standard 22 level below this is unnecessary because the 23 evidence linking ozone exposure to specific health 24 effects becomes increasingly uncertain at lower 27 1 levels of exposure. 2 However, recent data such as those we 3 have just reviewed refute this claim. EPA's 4 Children Health Protection Advisory also 5 recommended setting the ozone standard at 0.06 6 parts per million, the lowest value of the range 7 offered by the EPA, a level which is supported by 8 the scientific literature, and this was March 26 of 9 this year. I emphatically agree. Thank you. 10 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. Gewurz. I'm 11 sorry we couldn't see the pictures. If you have 12 hard copies, we'll take them and put them into our 13 record. 14 MS. GEWURZ: Thank you. 15 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Any questions? 16 MR. RICHMOND: No. 17 MS. TYSON: No. 18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Stanfield, please. 19 STATEMENT OF BECKY STANFIELD 20 MS. STANFIELD: Good morning and thank you for 21 coming to Chicago to give us an opportunity to 22 weigh in on your proposal to revise the National 23 Ambient Air Quality Standard. 24 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Let me interrupt you so he 28 1 could set the clock here. 2 MS. STANFIELD: My name is Rebecca Stanfield 3 and I'm the state director of Environment Illinois. 4 We are a statewide citizen-based environmental 5 advocacy organization. Ensuring that Illinois has 6 clean air is core to our mission. 7 The Clean Air Act Commission is very 8 clear, every American should be able to breathe the 9 air outdoors and not get sick. Congress 10 anticipated that the medical science would progress 11 and to our understanding of how much pollution 12 triggers health problems to us all. They charge 13 your agency with a great responsibility of updating 14 the standards as warranted by scientific discovery 15 and entrusted you with the job of realizing the 16 promise of clean air for all Americans, even the 17 most vulnerable among us. 18 We think it's unfortunate, then, that 19 you've proposed setting a standard that we already 20 know is inadequate based on health studies that you 21 have before you today. You're a clean air 22 scientific advisory committee and especially your 23 children's health advisory committee have both 24 recommended more protective standards. They have 29 1 warned that your proposal even when fully met will 2 leave the most vulnerable among us, our children, 3 breathing levels of smog that we know will cause 4 serious health impacts for many of them. 5 Ozone, as others have said, is a 6 powerful pollutant that can burn our lungs and 7 airways causing health effects ranging from 8 coughing and wheezing to asthma attacks to even 9 premature death. Children, teenagers, senior 10 citizens and people with lung disease are 11 particularly vulnerable to the health effects of 12 the ozone. There doesn't seem to be fairly broad 13 agreements that the current standard of .08 parts 14 per million is inadequate even to protect perfectly 15 healthy adults. 16 Now, political studies show that the 17 health impacts of breathing ozone at levels lower 18 than the current ambient air quality standards and 19 in fact, clinical studies of otherwise healthy 20 adults have found decreasing lung function, 21 increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation and 22 increased susceptibility or respiratory infection 23 at or below the current standards. 24 The clean air scientific advisory 30 1 committee reviewed a 2,000 page summary of 2 scientific research of health and safety and 3 unanimously concluded that the current standard is 4 not adequate. They recommended setting new ozone 5 standards in the range of .060 to .070 parts per 6 million. The children's health protection advisory 7 committee in their letter dated March 23, made a 8 compelling case that only a standard in the low end 9 of that range, .060 parts per million will be 10 protective of children's health. 11 EPA's proposal to strengthen the 12 standards to a reasonable .070 parts per million to 13 .075 is therefore weaker than what the Agency's 14 scientific advisors say is necessary to protect 15 public health. Well, as stronger than the current 16 standards, the proposal fails to protect health 17 within an adequate margin of safety. In effect, 18 EPA's proposed standards is to protect millions of 19 Americans but will continue to leave millions more, 20 particularly those with lung disease or who were 21 otherwise sensitive to airflow exposed to harmful 22 effects of dirty air. 23 Alarmingly, your proposal also leaves 24 the door open to retaining the current ozone 31 1 standard. We are aware that in the weeks leading 2 up to the release of your proposal, representatives 3 from the electric industry, chemical industry, oil 4 companies and auto makers organized high level 5 meetings with the Bush Administration to discuss 6 the new ozone standards. 7 This obviously for us raises concerns 8 that you are entertaining a course of action that 9 will be unwise and illegal under the Clean Air Act 10 at the behest of these industries. We urge you to 11 reject that pressure and to adopt standards that 12 are consistent with what the children's health 13 protection advisory committee recommended, .060 14 parts per million. We thank you for this 15 opportunity to address you. 16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Stanfield, and 17 I'll remind both of you to please leave a copy of 18 your testimony at our registration table. Thank 19 you very much. 20 Any questions? 21 Our next two speakers, Dean Schraufnagel 22 and Giedrius Ambrozaitis. You'll both definitely 23 have to spell those names. I think we have the 24 Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, also. We have three 32 1 gentlemen here. 2 Dean Schraufnagel, you're the first. Go 3 ahead. 4 STATEMENT OF DEAN SCHRAUFNAGEL, MD 5 MR. SCHRAUFNAGEL: Thanks for the opportunity 6 to speak and thank you for coming and for 7 listening. 8 My name is Dr. Dean Schraufnagel, 9 S C H R A U F N A G E L. I represent the 10 American Thoracic Society. The American Thoracic 11 Society is a scientific and professional 12 organization, that is all physicians and 13 scientists, and as such, it represents thousands of 14 pulmonologists, pulmonologists being lung doctors, 15 and each of these pulmonologist in turn represents 16 millions -- well, not each, but in total millions 17 of patients with lung disease. 18 The patients with lung disease -- I'm 19 also at the University of Illinois, a practicing 20 pulmonologist -- they invariably will tell you 21 there's good days and bad days. The bad days are 22 sometimes very alarming to them. They will call 23 me, "I can't breathe, what do I do?" And there's 24 not too many things that we can do for patients 33 1 with emphysema, stay indoors, sometimes increase 2 medicines but the medicines aren't all that 3 effective. 4 These bad days, as you know, have been 5 associated with levels of ozone and particulate 6 matter. The American Thoracic Society strongly 7 recommends that the EPA adopt the level -- the 8 primary standard should be established at 0.060 9 parts per million. We further strongly recommend 10 that the degree of precision from the standard 11 should be expressed in the thousandths part per 12 million. The 0.06 parts per million is needed to 13 protect the nation from the effects of the ozone. 14 There have been several studies and the 15 primary national scale of immunologic study has 16 shown that premature mortality and ozone exposures 17 below the current level are highly correlated. 18 Control human exposure studies of healthy adults 19 have demonstrated reduced lung function, increased 20 expiratory systems, changes in airway 21 responsiveness and increased airway inhalation for 22 six hours, 6.6 hours of the .08 parts per million. 23 Recent studies, this is Schwartzman and 24 Devlin, are the two authors there, recent studies 34 1 have also demonstrated that people, some of these 2 people tested have adverse effects at the 0.6 level 3 and -- which raises our -- which is why we're 4 recommending that level. 5 In short, this is -- as other speakers 6 have said, this is a step where we can do something 7 for all Americans and we strongly encourage that 8 you do so. Thank you. 9 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 10 Mr. Giedrius Ambrozaitis. 11 STATEMENT OF GIEDRIUS AMBROZAITIS. 12 MR. AMBROZAITIS: Thank you very much. I 13 would just like to make a slight correction. 14 Unfortunately, this is not the Lieutenant Governor 15 of Illinois sitting to my left, this is my 16 colleague John Heuss of Air Improvement Resource. 17 Good morning. My name is Giedrius 18 Ambrozaitis and I'm here today representing the 19 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Alliance. 20 The Alliance is a trade association of nine car and 21 light truck manufacturers, including BMW Group, 22 Chrylser LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, 23 Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. 24 One of out of ten jobs in the United States is 35 1 dependent on the automotive industry. 2 The Alliance members share the concerns 3 of our customers and the American public about this 4 nation's air quality and recognize the importance 5 of assuring clean air that protects public health. 6 Our air is cleaner today than it was a generation 7 ago and air quality is continuing to improve. 8 Meanwhile, gross domestic product, vehicle miles 9 traveled and energy consumptions have all 10 increased. Yet, notably, today's vehicles are 99 11 percent cleaner than vehicles of the 1970s. 12 Further, significant additional emissions 13 reductions will occur over the next 20 years as a 14 result of already promulgated regulations for 15 mobile sources. 16 According to EPA's own statistics, 17 emissions from cars and trucks are expected to be 18 reduced by an additional 70 percent by 2030. These 19 reductions will help to reduce ozone concentrations 20 across the country and will improve the air quality 21 as a result of these reductions, will occur 22 regardless of whether the existing ozone standards 23 is revised. 24 The Alliance cannot support changing the 36 1 current ozone NAAQS due to continued uncertainties 2 in the science and the likelihood that many of the 3 additional health benefits cited by EPA will not 4 occur. The Alliance continues to believe that the 5 current form and level of the primary and secondary 6 ozone standards at .08 ppm is protective of public 7 health and welfare. 8 Similar to 1997, the science today does 9 not support lowering the ozone NAAQS below .08 ppm 10 and continues to show much scientific uncertainty. 11 There have been limited, if any, new developments 12 in scientific data, such as clinical data, 13 epidemiology or toxicology that would support a 14 division of the ozone standards. 15 The available data supports retaining 16 the current standard. EPA cites one clinical study 17 that supports lowering the existing standards, the 18 Adams 2006 study. Whether the small changes 19 reported in this study are statistically 20 significant or not is a matter of contention 21 between EPA and Adams, and more importantly, the 22 small changes are not medically significant using 23 the EPA's own guidelines. 24 Further, EPA's criteria document 37 1 acknowledges that the toxicological effects are 2 transient, of a reflexive nature, and reversible. 3 Clearly, the evidence does not support lowering the 4 standard. 5 The Alliance believes that federal and 6 state resources would be better served by focusing 7 on meeting the current standard. States are now 8 just finalizing plans to meet the current standard 9 and should have the opportunity to implement these 10 plans. 11 Despite having spent billions of dollars 12 on reducing air pollution, several metropolitan 13 areas have concluded that they will not be able to 14 meet the current standard even if they close every 15 major stationary course in their cities. The EPA 16 should focus on helping these communities meet the 17 existing standard before imposing new standards 18 that are not scientifically justified, not 19 achievable and, more important, not likely to 20 provide the benefits that EPA asserts. 21 Thank you very much. 22 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, gentlemen. 23 Questions from the panel? 24 MR. RICHMOND: No. 38 1 MS. TYSON: No. 2 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much and please 3 put the written testimony on the table. 4 We do have the Lieutenant Governor now, 5 Pat Quinn. 6 STATEMENT OF PATRICK QUINN 7 MR. QUINN: I appreciate the opportunity to be 8 here. My name is Pat Quinn. I'm the Lieutenant 9 Governor of Illinois. I was elected in 2002 and 10 reelected last year and my office is charged with a 11 number of responsibilities in Illinois, a number of 12 them relate to the environmental issues, and I want 13 to commend the United States EPA for coming here to 14 Chicago to have this hearing, to listen to everyday 15 people on an important issue. 16 I am testifying in favor of 17 strengthening the standards with respect to ozone 18 in our state and in our country. I think the 19 proposed standard is insufficient to protect public 20 health and with respect to the Clean Air Act, I 21 think the standard should be much stronger. 22 From my point of view, our office has 23 worked a great deal with citizens who suffer from 24 asthma in the State of Illinois. We have an asthma 39 1 epidemic, almost 1 million people in Illinois 2 suffer from asthma. In our city here in Chicago we 3 have lost more people to losing their lives to 4 asthma than any other place in the United States 5 and it's exceptionally important that our area and 6 our country have standards to protect people who 7 suffer from this very serious chronic disease. 8 Respiratory disease is something that we should all 9 pay attention to and I don't think there's any 10 question that it is a very severe hardship on 11 people with respiratory ailments, chest pain and 12 asthma and so on. 13 We have ozone alert days so it's 14 important I think that all of us in our state 15 families, individuals, businesses, governments, 16 make a strong effort to reduce the level of ozone 17 in our area as well as in our country. I think 18 that's exactly what the Clean Air Act seeks to do. 19 It looks at scientific studies and I think the 20 science in this case shows that a stronger standard 21 lowering the amount of ozone allowed is necessary. 22 By having such a strong standard, I realize that 23 there may need to be adjustments made by businesses 24 as well as governments to adjust to those levels. 40 1 Right now we have a great debate in our 2 state concerning public transit and how to finance 3 public transit, and clearly that is a relationship 4 to reducing the level of ozone in our particular 5 area where we're a nonpayment area. So I think 6 that all of us have to band together to do our very 7 best to reduce the level of ozone, but I think it's 8 important that the EPA through the provisions of 9 the Clean Air Act adopt a standard, a strong 10 standard that we must aspire to. 11 I think the Supreme Court of our country 12 has made it crystal clear when we talk about the 13 Clean Air Act and public health issues that we 14 don't just take the everyday person and apply that 15 standard only to the person who may be in good 16 health, but we do have to take into account that 17 many of our fellow citizens may suffer from 18 particular ailments or they may be of a certain age 19 or very young or very old or they're particularly 20 susceptible to respiratory disease. 21 So I think in looking at these standards 22 that the EPA should pronounce and promulgate. The 23 current proposal is insufficient with respect to 24 protecting the public health, especially those who 41 1 are most vulnerable. 2 In Illinois, our state, we want to be a 3 leader with respect to standards of our power 4 plants regarding mercury. We have a much stronger 5 standard than the federal standard, we've had 6 voluntary compliance and agreements with the major 7 utilities in Illinois on that issue and we were 8 proud to announce that last year. We want to 9 continue that strong path toward an environmental 10 future that's good for everyone for clean air, and 11 I think it would be most beneficial for the United 12 States Environmental Protection Agency to take 13 today's hearing and the testimony you hear from the 14 advocates of having a lower standard of ozone to be 15 permitted than what is currently being proposed. 16 Thank you very much. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Quinn. 18 Harvey, do you have a question? 19 MR. RICHMOND: I just wanted to clarify, is 20 there a specific range that you were advocating or 21 supporting? 22 MR. QUINN: The range that I support is 0.060, 23 and I think that should be the final standard 24 adopted by the EPA in concert with scientific 42 1 recommendations. 2 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 3 Mary Pat, any questions? 4 MS. TYSON: No. 5 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thanks. Our next two speakers 6 are Tim Montague and Becki Clayborn. 7 Again, let me remind you to please spell 8 your names for our reporter. 9 STATEMENT OF TIM MONTAGUE 10 MR. MONTAGUE: Thank you very much for the 11 opportunity to testify about the US Environmental 12 Protection Agency's proposed revisions to the 13 nation's ambient air quality standard for 14 ground-level ozone. 15 My name is Tim Montague, 16 M O N T A G U E. I am the Associate Director of 17 Environmental Research Foundation, a national 18 non-profit science-based environmental 19 organization. We specialize in translating 20 scientific and medical information into terms 21 that ordinary people can understand and use to 22 further protect their local environment and public 23 health. 24 When Congress established the Clean Air 43 1 Act in 1970, it commanded that the National Ambient 2 Air Quality Standards be based upon public health 3 considerations alone. The economic implications of 4 meeting those health-based standards were 5 secondary. This two-step process has proven 6 extremely effective both in terms of improving air 7 quality and fostering economic growth. 8 Some examples of the success of the 9 Clean Air Act: Nitrogen oxides, which are 10 implicated in the formation of ground-level ozone, 11 and particulate pollution have been lowered nearly 12 one quarter since 1970. Volatile organic 13 compounds, which form ground-level ozone and are 14 often comprised of toxic contaminants, have been 15 reduced by over 50 percent since 1970. And sulfur 16 dioxide, which forms particulate pollution, has 17 also been cut in half since 1970. Many other air 18 contaminants have been significantly reduced all 19 because of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 20 During the period that these remarkable 21 emissions reductions have been achieved, the 22 nation's economy has grown dramatically. Our 23 gross domestic product has increased 174 percent in 24 the 37 years that the Clean Air Act has been in 44 1 effect. 2 Each year, the Clean Air Act prevents 3 well over 200,000 premature deaths, more than 4 650,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, over 200,000, 5 hospital admissions, more than 200 million 6 respiratory ailments and over 22 million lost 7 workdays. According to research by the EPA, the 8 monetary benefits to society have outweighed the 9 costs by a factor of more than 40 to one. 10 The EPA's proposed ozone decision: The 11 EPA Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, 12 hereafter CASAC, unanimously and unambiguously 13 advised EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, quote, 14 "There is no scientific justification for retaining 15 the current primary eight-hour NAAQS of 0.08 parts 16 per million; and, 2, the primary eight-hour NAAQS 17 needs to be substantially reduced to protect human 18 health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations." 19 The committee also unanimously agreed upon a 20 recommended range, quote, "Therefore, the CASAC 21 unanimously recommends a range of 0.06 to .070 ppm 22 for the primary ozone of NAAQS." These 23 recommendations leave no room for 24 misinterpretation. 45 1 The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 2 Committee stated, quote, "There is no longer 3 significant scientific certainty regarding the 4 CASAC's conclusion that the current eight-hour 5 primary NAAQS must be lowered. A large body of 6 data clearly demonstrates adverse human health 7 effects at the current level of the eight-hour 8 primary ozone standard." Retaining this standard 9 would continue to put large numbers of individuals 10 at risk for respiratory effects and/or significant 11 impact on quality of life, including asthma 12 exacerbations, emergency room visits, hospital 13 admissions and mortally. 14 In sum, CASAC unequivocally found there 15 is no basis in public health considerations for EPA 16 to retain the current standard. Ozone pollution is 17 a serious threat in public health. It burns our 18 lungs and airways causing inflammation and 19 increases asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. The 20 scientific consensus is clear. Retaining the 21 current standard would ignore a decade of 22 scientific evidence and recklessly subject millions 23 of Americans to unsafe levels of ozone pollution. 24 We encourage the EPA to finalize an ozone standard 46 1 of 0.06 parts per million, which is consistent with 2 the range recommended by the EPA's Clean Air 3 Scientific Advisory Board. 4 Thank you very much. 5 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Questions? 6 MR. RICHMOND: No. 7 MS. TYSON: No. 8 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Montague. 9 Ms. Clayborn. 10 STATEMENT OF BECKI CLAYBORN. 11 MS. CLAYBORN: My name is Becki Clayborn, and 12 I'm a regional representative with the Sierra 13 Club's clean energy campaign. The Sierra Club is 14 the oldest and largest national environmental group 15 in the United States. We work to protect land, 16 water and air for our approximately 800,000 members 17 in the U.S. 18 For the past five years, Sierra Club has 19 had a focus on cleaning up old coal-fire power 20 plants, specifically here in the midwest, Illinois 21 and Chicago. We do this through the permitting 22 process and we push for what's called best 23 available control technologies. Those control 24 technologies are based on not only what's available 47 1 as technology but also has to do with what 2 scientists have agreed in terms of public health 3 and what protection is needed for public health. 4 Up to this point, many of these power 5 plants for the past 40 to 100 years have been 6 grandfathered in and have basically been operating 7 without pollution controls or with very minimal 8 pollution controls. These pollutants are one of 9 the largest sources of ozone, what we're here to 10 talk about today. 11 The technologies do exist to clean out 12 these plants and strong standards from the EPA 13 would increase the use of such technologies. And 14 without the strong standards, the power plants will 15 continue to us our air as not the proper solution 16 that leads to ozone pollution and therefore health 17 problems for everyone. 18 I have a little story. I moved to 19 Chicago two-and-a-half years ago. I never had 20 respiratory problems, I've never had to take any 21 medication until I moved to the Chicagoland area. 22 The air pollution in Chicago I have noticed 23 personally has had an effect on my respiratory 24 ability. I think it's insane that if you live in a 48 1 city, you have worse air quality than anywhere 2 else. It's basically because we're not demanding 3 stronger standards from our industry, our power 4 plants, our car industries. I think that we need 5 to push for those things. 6 The Sierra Club encourages the EPA to 7 adopt the standard that was recommended by science 8 advisors, the .060 parts per million in order to 9 protect our public health. 10 I thank you. 11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Clayborn, and 12 again, put copies of your testimony in the 13 registration if you haven't already provided them. 14 Thank you very much. 15 Our next presenter is David Sykuta and 16 Charles Pierce, Dr. Charles Pierce. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Sykuta, you'll go first. 18 I apologize for the mispronunciation, as I'm 19 certain I did. 20 STATEMENT OF DAVID SYKUTA 21 MR. SYKUTA: Actually, you did a good job. 22 Just about right on the money. 23 Good morning, my name is David Sykuta, 24 S Y K U T A, and I'm executive director of the 49 1 Illinois Petroleum Council. The Petroleum 2 Council represents Illinois' large integrated oil 3 industry. Illinois is the fourth largest refining 4 state in the nation, and we're also a major oil 5 producer in the transportation hub of the nation 6 for energy. 7 Nearly 50,000 Illinois citizens earn 8 their living working for the oil industry. We've 9 worked closely with the United States EPA on both 10 the existing standard and debate on this new 11 standard. Looking forward, we continue to engage 12 the USEPA and our belief is that great gains will 13 come from staying with the standard as it is now. 14 I believe there's three points that need 15 to be made. First, the fuel we use to make the oil 16 and gas industry is helping to make the air 17 cleaner; secondly, there's at least a fair amount 18 of debate as to the methodology behind the proposed 19 changes of the United States EPA is suggesting, and 20 third, the proposed changes will have significant 21 both economic and lifestyle impact on normal 22 citizens, so we need to think very closely about 23 what we're doing. 24 Before we do that, let me just hold up 50 1 this chart. It's in the testimony, but as we move 2 forward talking about where we should go, I think 3 we should look closely at where we've been. The 4 interesting thing here, some of the previous 5 speakers have spoken about this, in the past 6 20-some years, while the population has gone up, 7 vehicle miles have gone way up, the economy has 8 gone up, the population has gone up almost 50 9 percent, despite all those going up. The amount 10 of pollution, at least the six major ones measured 11 with EPA's data, has gone down 54 percent. The 12 point here being that we're making great progress 13 with the program in place, and in fact, much of the 14 progress that we'll make in the future is with 15 programs that are already in place that have not 16 been completely implemented, particularly the low 17 sulfur diesel program that one of the other 18 speakers spoke of and continuing improvements in 19 gasoline, so we're making improvements as we speak 20 under the existing standards. 21 I come at these with kind of two hats, 22 because as well as being the spokesman for the 23 Illinois oil industry for the past 32 years, I'm 24 also an asthma sufferer. So I watch all of this 51 1 with both a personal hat and a professional hat. 2 And I think one of the points that needs to be 3 made, as an asthma sufferer myself, everybody 4 wants things to be better, but I think we have to 5 look at the whole range of factors that affect 6 asthma. 7 For example, everyone agrees that the 8 air is much cleaner now than it was 20 years ago, 9 much cleaner than it was ten years ago, 10 specifically here in Chicago. Yet while the air is 11 getting cleaner, the incidence of asthma continues 12 to go up, so clearly there are other factors in 13 play besides just the ozone standards as far as the 14 effect of asthma and the changes that we're about 15 to make. 16 As far as our questions with the 17 methodology, you know, there's always disagreement 18 on statistics and computer programs. I think it's 19 fair to say that at least part of the basis for the 20 USEPA suggesting lowering the standard or making 21 the standard more strict was using that that was 22 not peer-reviewed and I think there's always a 23 question with that. 24 The third comment, as you know, inside 52 1 the Chicago metropolitan area and the four counties 2 of metro East St. Louis are already non-attainment. 3 With this standard going into place a number of 4 other counties in the state would most likely also 5 become non-attainment areas. There are real life 6 consequences for that. I'm not saying we shouldn't 7 do it, I'm just saying that the best sound science 8 should be applied before we raise everybody's 9 gasoline prices in these area, before we reduce 10 economic activity and before we have the economic 11 impacts that could affect everyone. At the same 12 time, we need to continue to move forward making 13 all of our citizens more healthy. 14 I look forward to participating in this 15 continuing dialogue and I'll be happy to answer any 16 questions. Thank you very much. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Questions to Mr. Sykuta? 18 MR. RICHMOND: No. 19 MS. TYSON: No. 20 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 21 Dr. Pierce. 22 STATEMENT OF CHARLES PIERCE, MD 23 DR. PIERCE: Good morning. My name is Charles 24 Pierce P I E R C E, as in arrow. I'm a medical 53 1 doctor and I've worked over 30 hours -- I've earned 2 my gray hair -- educating both students and 3 physicians. Asthma is my area of medical 4 expertise. I'm also a member of the Board of 5 Directors of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based 6 Public Policy. I'm hear today representing that 7 organization. We're a 501(c)(3) non-profit 8 organization that promotes and supports 9 peer-reviewed science in public policy 10 decision-making. 11 In my submitted written testimony, 12 you'll find a copy of the Center's newest 13 publication peer-reviewed, the Science and Health 14 Effects of Ground Level Ozone. This report was 15 peer-reviewed by high qualified scientists, 16 physicians and reviewed by the entire board of 17 directors of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based 18 Public Policy. Due to the time constraints, I'll 19 quickly review the following major summary points 20 from the report. 21 Since the U.S. Environmental Protection 22 Agency last reviewed the national ozone air quality 23 standards in '97, there have been limited, if any, 24 developments in epidemiology, toxicology or the 54 1 background science that would support a revision of 2 ozone standards. Emotion, yes; science, no. 3 The recommendations regarding primary 4 and secondary standards in the EPA's final ozone 5 Staff Paper and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 6 Committee's October 24th, 2006 letter to the 7 administrator are premised on estimates of health 8 risk from exposures to concentrations of ambient 9 ozone. However, the estimates considered were 10 based on an incomplete assessment of the 11 uncontrollable background levels of ozone. EPA 12 assumes that there will be zero, zero emissions 13 from human activities in North America. This 14 results in a gross overstatement of health risks. 15 EPA and CASAC continue to overestimate 16 the magnitude and consistency of and -- 17 underestimate the uncertainty in -- the results of 18 acute epidemiological studies especially for 19 emergency room hospital admissions from asthma and 20 other respiratory disorders, school absences and 21 mortally among them. In addition, the EPA 22 overstates the likelihood of causality, 23 particularly for the more serious endpoints and at 24 lower ozone concentrations. 55 1 With respect to the primary or health 2 standard, our peer-reviewed report found that, 3 yes, ozone is the respiratory irritant but the risk 4 of respiratory effects is now lower than that in 5 1997. 6 Second, the EPA and its science advisors 7 have recommended a tightening of the standard 8 relying on an inappropriate computer model to 9 establish the uncontrollable background of ozone. 10 Third, the EPA has misinterpreted the 11 report of 2006 by Adams and Group, that clinical 12 study, the only controlled study that allegedly 13 supports making the existing primary standard more 14 stringent. These studies are inconsistent, provide 15 a biological and implausible range of results and 16 do not establish a cause and effect. 17 With respect to the secondary or welfare 18 standard, the report found that the staff 19 recommendation to lower the addition of unique 20 seasonal standard to protect vegetation does not 21 sufficiently address the uncertainties and 22 limitations of such a standard. 23 Since no new data has been presented 24 since the 1997 review to reduce the uncertainties 56 1 and limitations of the cumulative seasonal 2 standard, there is no compelling reason to change 3 the current secondary standard. 4 In conclusion, I ask you to not only 5 review the science in this report but truly 6 consider its findings when making your decision. A 7 hasty decision to impose more stringent ozone 8 standards based upon a very flawed review will 9 serve no one and will have unforeseen implications 10 and a staggering cost. 11 I thank you for your time and I stress 12 again, please let science, not emotion be our 13 guiding light in this thought process. 14 Are there any questions? 15 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Questions, Harvey? 16 MR. RICHMOND: No. 17 MS. TYSON: No. 18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. Pierce. 19 Thank you Mr. Sykuta. 20 Our next speakers are Mr. Joseph 21 Suchecki and Angela Tin. 22 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SUCHECKI. 23 MR. SUCHECKI: Okay. I'm Joseph Suchecki, 24 S U C H E C K I, Director of Public Affairs for the 57 1 Engine Manufacturers Association, EMA. EMA is the 2 international trade association representing the 3 major manufacturers of internal combustion engines. 4 EMA's 29 member companies manufacture diesel, 5 gasoline and alternative fueled engines that power 6 much of the transportation and distributed 7 generation infrastructure in the US. 8 First, it's important to recognize that 9 the efforts to reduce ozone levels across the 10 country are working, and ambient ozone 11 concentrations have decreased by about 21 percent 12 over the past 16 years while economic and 13 manufacturing output has increased significantly. 14 The ambient ozone levels are likely to improve 15 further as industry implements existing regulations 16 to reduce ozone precursors, so a more stringent 17 ozone NAAQS is not really needed in order to 18 achieve better air quality. 19 For our part, engine manufacturers have 20 significantly reduced emissions of NOx and 21 hydrocarbons since the 1980s. Today's on-highway 22 diesel trucks and buses emit PM and hydrocarbon at 23 essentially near-zero levels, and NOx emissions 24 have reduced by about 90 percent. Concurrently 58 1 we're working on introducing new technologies to 2 further reduce NOx emissions by another 80 percent 3 by 2010. 4 Requirements for similar reductions are 5 already on the books for non-road equipment and 6 stationary engines and will soon be finalized for 7 small non-road locomotive and marine engines; none 8 of these improvements depends on revising the 9 current standards, because our friends at EPA 10 regulate us on the best available technology and 11 putting that technology into use, so it really 12 doesn't matter what the standards are, we make the 13 best and the most improvement we can. 14 From our viewpoint, the relevant 15 question is whether there is sound scientific 16 evidence that reducing the code of standards from 17 the range of 0.06 to 0.07 will improve public 18 health. 19 On that question, there's a great deal 20 of scientific uncertainty regarding the health 21 effects at ozone at levels below the current 22 standard of 0.08. EPA's rationale for proposing to 23 lower the current standard is based on both human 24 exposure studies and epidemiology studies. The 59 1 epidemiology studies of ozone provide very mixed 2 signals with wide variations and often negative 3 results. In the case of long-term effects, there 4 appears to be no relationship between ozone and 5 mortality. 6 What epidemiology evidence there is 7 comes from short-term or daily time-series studies. 8 However, there are many unresolved problems with 9 such studies related to model selection, what lag 10 times that we choose to create the greatest effects 11 and compounding with other pollutants and 12 non-air pollution factors. Results from 13 time-series studying epidemiology studies are 14 really are not adequate to establish a NAAQS 15 standard. The most relevant studies are the human 16 exposure studies where volunteers are exposed to 17 various ozone concentrations in experimental 18 chambers, and it was these studies that we were 19 used to establish the current ozone standard. Do 20 these studies show negative health effects from 21 ozone below the .08 ppm level? The answer is no. 22 The only way that any physiological 23 effects from exposure to low levels are observed is 24 if the researchers force the subjects to vigorously 60 1 exercise several hours in the ozone chamber. And 2 then, the results are minor, temporary and 3 reversible change in selecting lung function 4 indices. There is a small immeasurable effect but 5 but there are no other symptoms, and it's 6 questionable whether the changes are adverse health 7 effects. 8 Certainly, the special and extreme 9 conditions required to elicit an ozone effect at 10 concentrations at or below today's NAAQS cannot be 11 generalized to apply to the general population. 12 Such chamber tests also show that the elderly and 13 children are actually less sensitive to ozone. 14 As summarized by the EPA staff report, 15 quote, "There is some limited indication that lung 16 function and respiratory system effects, as well as 17 mortality effects, may be occurring in areas that 18 likely would have met the current standards." Such 19 a weak and qualified statement on the science of 20 ozone health effects is not sufficient to conclude 21 that the current standards are not adequate to 22 protect public health. 23 Since we have been successful in 24 reducing ozone levels in many areas of the country, 61 1 another important issue is that atmospheric 2 chemistry of ozone formation has changed. Our 3 previous assumptions about what was needed to 4 further lower ozone concentrations may be no longer 5 valid. For example, the ambient ozone levels are 6 stabilized or are decreasing more slowly in areas 7 where states have achieved significant reductions 8 in NOx. In reviewing the ozone NAAQS, EPA has not 9 adequately addressed the issue of ozone formation 10 nor considered how the changing control strategies 11 affect the attainment of the proposed ozone 12 standard. EMA believes it is important to do so in 13 order to understand what ambient levels of ozone 14 are achievable and what the best path is to assure 15 further reductions in ozone concentrations. We 16 would certainly recommend a comprehensive review of 17 this topic be undertaken by the EPA and the 18 National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with 19 any action on the ozone. 20 Thank you. 21 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. I do have a 22 clarifying question. Did you say that the elderly 23 and children are less susceptible to ozone and what 24 was the basis that you quoted? 62 1 DR. PIERCE: The chamber studies that were 2 done, particularly some in the late '80s and early 3 '90s where they first were working on these higher 4 levels of ozone actually found that there was less 5 of a response from the children and the elderly in 6 the chamber studies. And there's references 7 available that would apply or I'm sure Harvey knows 8 of those studies. 9 MR. RICHMOND: You're talking about one-hour 10 studies, not six-hour studies. 11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Any other questions? 12 MR. RICHMOND: No. 13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 14 Ms. Tin. 15 STATEMENT OF ANGELA TIN 16 MS. TIN: Good morning, my name is Angela Tin, 17 T I N, and I'm director of environmental programs 18 for the American Lung Association of the metro 19 Chicago area and of the upper midwest. 20 The United States EPA proposed 21 provisions for the ozone standards are our first 22 step towards cleaner air. Currently in Illinois 23 there are two areas designated non-attainment for 24 ozone, Chicago and metro east. These two 63 1 non-attainment areas consist of nine counties and 2 several additional townships. 3 In 2005 Illinois EPA monitored ozone at 4 36 stations throughout Illinois. Ten sites had 5 ozone readings that exceeded the current standard, 6 the highest level was 90 parts per billion in 7 Mt. Zion and 94 parts per billion in East St. 8 Louis. 9 Between May and August of 2007, we in 10 Illinois experienced 15 days for the ambient air 11 monitoring networks recorded ozone concentrations 12 at or above the current eight-hour ozone standard. 13 As other speakers have mentioned, ozone has 14 significant adverse health impact on children and 15 seniors who suffer from emphysema and chronic 16 bronchitis due to ozone exposure. Clinical studies 17 show that even healthy adults develop increased 18 lung function and increased respiratory problems. 19 The scientific advisory committee has 20 emphasized the need for stronger standards. There 21 is no scientific justification for keeping the 22 tighter level. The Clean Air Act requires that the 23 air quality standards be set to protect human 24 health, including the health of sensitive 64 1 populations with an adequate margin of safety. We 2 understand that economic impacts are not to be 3 considered in the standard setting process, 4 however, we feel that economic benefits will occur 5 if health impacts are reduced. 6 The American Lung Association recommends 7 that EPA takes the next step towards cleaner air 8 by following the recommendations of its own 9 scientific advisors and tighten the eight-hour 10 ozone standard. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Any questions from the panel? 13 Thank you, Ms. Tin and Mr. Suchecki. 14 The next two speakers are Dr. Willard 15 Fry and Ms. Helen Costello. 16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Fry. 17 STATEMENT OF WILLARD FRY, MD 18 DR. FRY: Thank you. Good morning. I'm 19 Dr. Willard Fry and I'm a board member of the 20 Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan 21 Chicago. I'm a professor emeritus of clinical 22 surgery at Northwestern University School of 23 Medicine and for many years I was head of the 24 section of general thoracic surgery at Evanston 65 1 Hospital and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare. 2 Ozone is the irritant to the lining of 3 airway, our lungs. There is not an effective 4 anecdote to ozone exposure, so it is to be avoided. 5 People with underlying airway disease, such as 6 asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema are 7 particularly affected. 8 Chicago has already documented in top 9 level scientific publications to have an excessive 10 amount of particular matter in the ambient air. 11 Not the subject of today's hearings, but it is a 12 fact that our air here in Chicago is not good. 13 What many people don't know is that Chicago has an 14 abnormally high incidence of asthma and the highest 15 infant mortally rate for asthma in African-American 16 children in America. 17 This is a bad marker on our city. We 18 must mobilize all appropriate means to reduce the 19 concentration of ozone in the air we breathe in 20 Chicago. We need the EPA to come to our aid and to 21 strengthen the ozone standard to protect the public 22 health. The EPA's own clean air scientific 23 advisory committee has even included that the 24 current ozone standard is not adequate. The EPA 66 1 needs to hope to heed its own independent 2 scientific advisory committee's advice. Even the 3 United States Supreme Court has ruled that the 4 EPA's sole responsibility in setting the ozone 5 standard is to protect the public's health. By 6 setting the recommended ozone standard at 0.060 7 parts per million, the EPA would be doing all of us 8 a great service. 9 The Clean Air Act is for the benefit of 10 all of us. Its recommendations should be followed. 11 The EPA has already had voluminous scientific 12 presentations to support this new ozone standard. 13 You are here today for comments from American 14 citizens. The National Ambient Air Quality 15 Standards for ozone, the NAAQS, needs to be 16 tightened, and I would submit with my presentation 17 today an editorial that I'm sure you have already 18 seen, but I submit it to you again for emphasis 19 from the American Journal of Respiratory and 20 Critical Care Medicine, the leading chest disease 21 journal in the world. 22 Thank you very much. 23 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. Fry. 24 Questions from the panel? 67 1 MR. RICHMOND: No. 2 MS. TYSON: No. 3 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, and we'll take your 4 written testimony with the attached editorial. 5 Next is Helen Costello and a young 6 guest. 7 STATEMENT OF HELEN COSTELLO. 8 MS. COSTELLO: My name is Helen Costello. I'm 9 a private citizen and full-time mom. This is my 10 daughter Mia, and I would just like to assure you 11 that I'm going to leave after I read my comments. 12 I feel that in our society a lot of 13 decisions are made for the sake of business and the 14 economy, which is important, but sometimes it's to 15 the exclusion of other major concerns. And the 16 consequences of these choices can be very serious, 17 and I believe that accepting pollution for the sake 18 of avoiding heavy expenses calls for this type of 19 decision. 20 Our health is just as important as the 21 economy. The environment should be even more 22 important to all of us because we're not going to 23 have health or business if our environment and 24 circumstances fail. This is the principle that 68 1 guides my questions on pollution. 2 In my life there hasn't been a time when 3 pollution wasn't going on all around so that it 4 seemed like a given that ozone and smog are just a 5 fact of life, but ozone studies say we need to 6 reduce it. I read that any ozone at ground level 7 is bad for us. Breathing it injuries lung cells. 8 I haven't had an asthma attack, bronchitis or 9 emphysema, so I can't feel the effects but that 10 makes it no less important to me. I don't want 11 ozone silently damaging my lung cells, my 12 daughter's or anyone's, for that matter. My father 13 had asthma and my husband is an emergency room 14 doctor. I'm aware of the suffering that is a 15 result of ozone in our air. 16 I've also learned that ozone is one of 17 the most toxic air pollutants to plant life 18 damaging plant cells and interfering with growth. 19 Also related to this problem, a July 25 article in 20 a journal called Nature. It reported that rising 21 levels of ozone pollution erode the ability of 22 plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere 23 which contributes to global warming. 24 We have the opportunity here to correct 69 1 past mistakes about ozone levels and help save our 2 environment and to better protect ourselves from 3 exposure to a toxin that will affect some of us. 4 The American Thoracic Society is recommending a 5 level of 60 parts per billion, the Chicago 6 Respiratory Health Association also recommends 60, 7 and the EPA is considering 70 to 75, although the 8 advisory committee is recommending 60 to 70. 9 While I personally wish that we were 10 here to discuss how to achieve 50 parts per 11 million, I'd like to point out that none of these 12 medical, environmental and government agencies are 13 supporting the current standard of 85 anymore. 14 That standard is outdated and that definitely needs 15 to be lowered. These agencies exist to protect and 16 promote our health. I respect the work of industry 17 representatives, but I ask EPA to listen to the 18 health environment and government experts and lower 19 us from this clearly harmful level. That is what 20 your role is. And we're all good, smart people, 21 we'll find a way to continue life at the lower 22 standard of ozone, but we need you to set that 23 lower standard. 24 That's my position. Thank you. 70 1 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mrs. Costello and 2 Mia and Dr. Fry. 3 It's 10:30. We'll take a short break 4 and we'll be back around 10:45. Thanks. 5 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had from 6 10:32 a.m. until 10:48 a.m.) 7 MS. RODRIGUEZ: We're at a public hearing on 8 EPA's proposed rule regarding the revisions to the 9 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, 10 and my co-chair panel members are Harvey Richmond 11 from the Office of the Air Quality Planning and 12 Standards and Mary Pat Tyson from the Region 5 EPA. 13 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez from the Office of 14 Air Quality Planning and Standards, also the EPA. 15 We will resume and I will start calling 16 the presenters in pairs to the table across from 17 us. I will again remind you and request that you 18 spell your names and I apologize for mispronouncing 19 any names here. 20 I'll quickly go through the logistics 21 here. We had a timekeeping system consistent of 22 green, yellow and red lights. When we begin 23 speaking, the green light will come on, you'll have 24 five minutes to speak, the yellow light will signal 71 1 that you have two minutes left to speak. We'll ask 2 that you stop speaking when the red light comes on. 3 We'll try to assure that everyone has an 4 opportunity to comment, if necessary we'll stay 5 into the evening tonight. If you would like to 6 testify but have not registered yet, please sign up 7 at the registration table outside. We will take a 8 lunch break at 12:30 and be back here by about 9 2:00. I believe we have an hour and a half for 10 lunch. 11 Okay, I'd like to call the next two 12 speakers, Karen Stacey and Bryan Brendle to the 13 table, please. 14 Ms. Stacey, we'll start with you. 15 STATEMENT OF KAREN STACEY. 16 MS. STACEY: Good morning. My name is Karen 17 Stacey, K A R E N, S T A C E Y. 18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: You may want to adjust your 19 microphone. 20 MS. STACEY: Is that better? 21 I'm here as a private citizen 22 representing myself, my own interests as far as the 23 EPA's draft on ozone pollution standards. Thank 24 you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. 72 1 I'm here because of the ozone alerts. 2 As you know today we have a yellow one. And when 3 the weather is hot and sticky, the National Weather 4 Service advises "that those with breathing 5 disabilities stay indoors." Well, I couldn't stay 6 indoors, I had to come here. 7 I have to pay attention to these alerts 8 and I'm not one of the groups who usually have to 9 pay heed. I'm not elderly, a child, I don't work 10 outdoors or exercise outdoors, for that matter, and 11 most certainly I do not have a preexisting 12 breathing problem. I am what's termed as a 13 responder, one who is otherwise healthy but has a 14 sensitivity to ozone. When an alert happens, I 15 have to make sure that I have my inhaler with me, I 16 have to watch how long I'm outside. I can't 17 breathe, it feels like I have an elephant sitting 18 on my chest. My chest burns when I try to take a 19 deep breathe. 20 The first time this happened I went to 21 my doctor because I thought I walked through a fog 22 of bug spray and he said, "No, it's the ozone," so 23 I got an inhaler. Now I find myself with an 24 opportunity to address the EPA about the ozone that 73 1 is nearest the earth. With this opportunity, I 2 started reading about ozone pollution harms your 3 health from the American Lung Association. I 4 didn't realize how big an issue ozone is. I found 5 it quite alarming to find that ozone could be 6 deadly as well. 7 The EPA is aware of the effect ozone 8 has. In 2005, EPA commissioned researchers to redo 9 all the research regarding death associated with 10 short-term, high levels of ozone. The researchers 11 used their own means of confirming the data and all 12 came to the same conclusion, a small but robust 13 association between daily ozone levels and 14 increased death. Writing a commentary on these 15 reviews, David Bates, MD, explained how these 16 premature deaths could occur. He said, "Ozone is 17 capable of causing inflammation of the lung at 18 lower concentrations than any other gas. Such an 19 effect would be a hazard to anyone with health 20 failure and pulmonary congestion and would worsen 21 with the function of anyone with advanced lung 22 disease." 23 Of course, one has to be a part of the 24 five groups who are vulnerable to the effects of 74 1 breathing ozone, children, elderly, people who work 2 or exercise outside, people who already have 3 breathing difficulties and responders. 4 Since discovering I'm a responder, I was 5 happy to learn that the EPA is taking action to 6 strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality 7 Standards for ozone. I was happy to learn that the 8 EPA had its own scientific advisors recommending a 9 level of .06 parts per million to .07 parts per 10 million. Finally, I thought the EPA was going to 11 enforce the Clean Air Act, which states that the 12 Environmental Protection Agency must set National 13 Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone that 14 protect public health, including a health of 15 sensitive populations, with an adequate margin of 16 safety. And then I read a little further and found 17 that the EPA is proposing a range of .07 to .075. 18 Why hire the scientists if the information is 19 ignored anyway. Even though the Clean Air 20 Scientific Advisory Committee, the EPA's 21 independent science advisors, completed an 22 extensive review of the research published over the 23 last ten years and unanimously concluded that there 24 is no scientific justification for retaining the 75 1 current primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 part per 2 million. EPA staff scientists also stated that the 3 overall body of evidence clearly calls into 4 question the adequacy of the current standard. Air 5 quality standards must be strong enough to protect 6 sensitive groups, not just average healthy 7 individuals. Significant public health benefits 8 can be achieved by setting stronger standards. 9 This would not be a first time that the 10 EPA has failed to use available science research in 11 regulatory decisions. In 2005 the Agency -- 12 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Stacey, we will 13 take your written testimony and make sure it gets 14 submitted in its entirety into the record. Thank 15 you very much. 16 MS. STACEY: Thank you. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Brendle. 18 STATEMENT OF BRYAN BRENDLE 19 MR. BRENDLE: Hell, my name is Bryan Brendle 20 and I'm with the National Association of 21 Manufacturers. Thank you very much for an 22 opportunity to come here to Chicago today to talk 23 about the ozone standards. 24 The NAM is the nation's largest 76 1 industrial trade association in the United States 2 representing a sector that employs more than 14 3 million American workers. In Illinois, that number 4 exceeds 675,000 with an average salary for the 5 average worker 50,000 per year. This annual 6 compensation is almost 20 percent higher than the 7 average wage of $43,000 in the state. 8 After analyzing EPA's latest proposal, 9 the NAM has concluded that any recommendation to 10 revise the current ozone standard will provide 11 uncertain benefits will burdening the nation's 12 economy. We therefore support preservation of 13 existing ozone standard. 14 The current standard establishes limits 15 of .08 parts per million, is reducing emissions and 16 has not been fully implemented. Many states have 17 until June 2013 to attain the current standard and 18 therefore improve their regional air quality. 19 According to the EPA's own studies, 20 average ozone concentrations dropped by more than 21 21 percent of 1980 and 2006, and since the Clean 22 Air Act was passed by Congress in the early 1970s, 23 emissions from the six key air pollutants criteria 24 dropped by more than 54 percent, so the nation's 77 1 air quality was actually improving under current 2 programs. According to the EPA's Clean Air Trends 3 Report, current regulations will significantly 4 reduce ground level ozone causing emissions to drop 5 over the next two decades. Power plant emissions 6 will drop by more than 50 percent by 2015 and 7 mobile source emissions will drop by more than 70 8 percent 2030. 9 There are unfortunately many questions 10 remaining regarding the state of science and 11 especially whether there have been any significant 12 developments during the past decade that would 13 warrant a stricter standard. In developing the 14 proposed revision to the current standard, EPA 15 changed the way it calculated naturally occurring 16 and other existing ground level ozone to inflate 17 the standard by as much as 90 percent. So in other 18 words, it's a great deal that industry or any 19 manmade activity cannot do to further reduce the 20 emissions of the ozone. If you actually look at 21 certain maps that project new areas of 22 non-attainment that EPA will designate, many of 23 those areas are actually rural, there's no 24 industrial activity whatsoever, but there are other 78 1 sources of ozone that industry cannot reduce 2 A 2006 study conducted by the NAM shows 3 that US pays the equivalent of 5.2 percent tax or 4 structural cost in order to comply with pollution 5 abatement regulations. This cost differential 6 undermines competitiveness and has contributed to 7 the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs 8 in the United States between 2000 and 2004, 9 according to the Congressional Budget Office. 10 Studies showed that even though most people lose 11 manufacturing jobs, are actually employed by six 12 months of being laid off, they often earn about 72 13 percent of their former wage. These new jobs they 14 take often don't even have health benefits, so we 15 believe that again poses a significant health risk 16 to the American public. 17 Furthermore, the EPA estimates that 18 current Clear Air Act regulations will cost about 19 $27 billion annually in 2010 and $180 billion 20 overall. The additional 10 to $20 billion annual 21 cost the proposed standard will further increase 22 costs to businesses which consumers will likely see 23 reflected in the cost of everyday items. 24 If employers don't pass on the added 79 1 expense to consumers, they'll likely shift 2 operations to lower cost areas of production. In 3 Illinois, for example, more than 180,000 high 4 paying manufacturing jobs disappear between 2000 5 and 2006. 6 There is no sound policy justification 7 for changing the current standard. EPA's current 8 ozone standard continues to improve -- thank you 9 very much for the opportunity to come out. 10 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Brendle. We'll 11 also take your testimony and submit it to the 12 written record. 13 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: May I ask a question? 14 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. 15 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Where do you get your 16 statistics that the ozone is Illinois is going 17 down? According to the American Lung Association, 18 it's only in the eastern states that ozone has gone 19 down, in the western states it has gone up. 20 MR. BRENDLE: We use actual EPA data so the 21 concentrations nationwide have dropped 22 significantly for ozone. 23 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 24 Our next two speakers are Terry Josie 80 1 and Meleah Geertsma. Again, I remind you to please 2 spell your names for the reporter. Thank you. 3 STATEMENT OF TERRY YOSIE 4 MR. YOSIE: Good morning, my name is Terry 5 Yosie, Y O S I E. I served as the first Executive 6 Director of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 7 Committee and I'm the former director of EPA's 8 Science Advisory Board. Today I'm appearing on 9 behalf of the International Truck and Engine 10 corporation. 11 My role as a public official and as a 12 representative of the private sector has provided a 13 bird's eye view on the process of developing 14 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 15 and their implementation. Ozone standard-setting 16 is one of the most scientifically challenging and 17 administratively difficult problems that EPA has to 18 address. 19 My testimony this morning will present a 20 proposal to minimize such controversy and will 21 enable ozone standard-setting to proceed without 22 delay. Over the past 30 years, EPA has made great 23 strides in improving scientific basis and integrity 24 of its process for establishing ambient air quality 81 1 standards. Too little effort and too few resources 2 have been placed on developing better 3 implementation tools and for ensuring that the 4 scientific information and analysis for 5 implementing standards are more robust. 6 Approximately 16 years ago, the National 7 Research Council published a report entitled 8 Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional 9 Air Pollution. The report represented a 10 comprehensive evaluation of some of the most 11 important issues related to ozone standards 12 development, implementation and attainment. 13 The 1991 NAS report represented not only 14 an important benchmark in the nation's 15 understanding of the dimension of the ozone 16 problem, but it helped create a road map for future 17 ozone research and decision-making. 18 As EPA proceeds to promulgate revised 19 ozone standards in 2008, there are a number of 20 large challenges confronting the Agency's ability 21 to effectively implement its decisions on ozone. 22 These include improving the State Implementation 23 Planning process, assessing the effects of 24 co-pollutant exposures and evaluating the impacts 82 1 upon ozone formation for continuous changes in the 2 mix of fuels and vehicles. 3 These and other major challenges, and 4 EPA's ability to successfully address them will be 5 shaped by the changing scientific understanding in 6 the role of nitrogen oxides in ozone formation. 7 The conclusion that NOx should be reduced in the 8 VOC/NOx ratio exceeded 15 to 1 was one of the 9 principle scientific judgments of the 1991 NAS 10 report. Since that time, due to the implementation 11 of controls, that ratio was much lower across air 12 quality and regions. 13 More recent scientific reports in the 14 peer-reviewed and professional literature recommend 15 that the time has arrived to reassess the role of 16 nitrogen oxides in creating ground level ozone. 17 Several examples support this conclusion: The 18 staff of the California Air Resources board 19 evaluated and acknowledged what's called the 20 weekend effect, the phenomenon in which ozone 21 levels on Saturdays and Sundays are higher on 22 average than those recorded during the week. CARB 23 officials have written that and I quote, "The focus 24 of ozone control policies must now begin shifting 83 1 from the traditional analysis and modeling of 2 weekday to weekend," unquote. 3 Second, Researchers at the National 4 Renewable Energy Laboratory and other research 5 institutions have examined the hypothesis that 6 lower ozone of NOx on weekend mornings resulting 7 largely from fewer trucks on the road at that time 8 is the single largest contributor to elevated ozone 9 levels. Other peer-reviewed research findings 10 document that this is not a phenomenon limited to 11 the South Coast Air Quality basin but in fact 12 becoming nationwide across the midwest and the 13 northeast corridor. 14 Finally, last year the National Research 15 Counsel issued a major report that's included, and 16 I quote, "Because NOx can result in both ozone 17 formation and removal as well as secondary PM 18 formation, there is some debate as to the 19 effectiveness of NOx emissions reduction for ozone 20 and PM control. 21 I believe the EPA should ask the 22 National Academy of Sciences to conduct a new study 23 focusing on the role of nitrogen oxides and the 24 relationship of VOCs in ozone formation. At a 84 1 minimum, such a study should address the following 2 issues: Review the accuracy of air quality data, 3 emission inventories and modeling tools related to 4 ozone formation, assess the weekend effect 5 phenomenon and evaluate the role of NOx control 6 strategies and mobile source emission control 7 technologies in meeting mandated air quality goals 8 for ozone and particulate matter. 9 Like the 1991 study, the new NAS effort 10 to deliver timely, valuable and relevant 11 information to guide future decision-making. I 12 recommend the EPA adopt this proposal. Thank you. 13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Questions from the panel? 14 MS. TYSON: No. 15 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 16 Ms. Geertsma? 17 STATEMENT OF MELEAH GEERTSMA. 18 MS. GEERTSMA: Good morning. Thank you for 19 this opportunity to address the Agency regarding 20 the need to pass a new more protective ozone 21 standard. 22 My name is M E L E A H, G E E R T S M A, 23 and I'm a staff attorney and public health 24 specialist for the Environmental Law and Policy 85 1 Center here in Chicago. ELPC is the Midwest's 2 leading public interest in environmental advocacy 3 organization working here to improve the region's 4 air quality through various smart policies as 5 initiatives. My comments today come from dual 6 background in law and public health and I provide 7 my comments on behalf of myself and my colleagues 8 at ELPC. 9 Rarely and unlikely in the complicated 10 Clean Air Acts are there clear directives as to 11 what the agencies must do. Even more rarely it 12 seems does the Supreme Court make unanimous 13 decisions. The basis for setting the National 14 Ambient Air Quality Standards thus presents a point 15 of clarity and unanimity. The standards must be 16 based on public health considerations alone. 17 As those involved in Clean Air Act would 18 know, opportunities and often mandates abound at 19 the state and federal levels for considering costs 20 and achieving the standards. Costs should not and 21 indeed cannot be allowed to dilute the NOx in the 22 first instance. The legal aspects of air work are 23 not the only areas where clarity and consensus are 24 rare. Those of us who have acted on the public 86 1 health side have read plenty of studies to report 2 calling for more research before action is taken. 3 Here, again, the ozone NOx presents a unique 4 opportunity. The Clean Air Act advisory committee 5 has unanimously and unambiguously advised the 6 USEPA to substantially reduce the AR ozone NOx to 7 protect humans in the range of 60 to 70 parts per 8 billion. 9 My father is an inner city pediatrician 10 who has been in practice for over 30 years. In his 11 current position, he serves a largely minority 12 population. Asthma affects close to 40 percent of 13 the children served and uncontrolled asthma 14 contributes to a major proportion of pediatric 15 hospital admissions and emergency room visits. 16 Despite successive treatment and 17 improved preventative management, Asthma 18 complications, hospitals, lost school time and 19 increasing treatment, costs continue to rise in the 20 city as elsewhere. Ozone, even at levels below the 21 current NOx, is a major contributor to these social 22 and economic costs. 23 I chose to go into environmental law and 24 policies to help address the system and problems 87 1 which so frustrate my father's profession of 2 medicine. NOx are not simply numbers on a page. 3 In my own work, I've seen firsthand how the NOx 4 direct policy as well as individual project 5 decisions of construction of highways to clean car 6 legislation to the degree of air pollution control 7 required a -- a strong air quality standard is 8 critical to protecting the health of my clients, 9 individuals and local environmental groups 10 throughout the Midwest. For these people as well 11 as segments in the general population, high ozone 12 levels are not assessed by a reading on a monitor 13 but determinant of their daily and long-term 14 well-being. 15 As my clients, they put their trust in 16 me to hold companies and individual polluters, the 17 standards that will protect their health. This 18 trust is diluted where the standards themselves are 19 watered down and inadequate. I in turn rely on the 20 USEPA to promulgate the strong, scientifically 21 based standards that I combat in my work and that 22 act as a gauge for assessing progress towards clean 23 air. 24 The USEPA has the tools and information 88 1 and indeed the obligation to provide with my 2 father, myself and the advocacy community with a 3 benchmark of both here in the Midwest and in the 4 rest of the country. For these reasons the agency 5 should promulgate a standard of 60 parts per 6 billion. I also urge the Agency to properly issue 7 guidance to implement the updated standards as the 8 standards themselves are little lacking in these 9 implementation plans. 10 Thank you again for this opportunity. 11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you both. 12 Our next speaker is Raymond Brytan and 13 Gregor Sosnowski. Again, I apologize for the 14 pronunciation. Please spell your names for the 15 reporter. 16 Mr. Brytan. 17 STATEMENT OF RAYMOND BRYTAN 18 MR. BRYTAN: Raymond Brytan, B R Y T A N. I'm 19 a private citizen. I have no remarks prepared 20 other than to express my support for the .06 parts 21 per million standard which the majority of the 22 testimony here has also expressed. If I may, I 23 would like to respond to some of the things I've 24 been listening to this morning so far. 89 1 First of all, I thought that loss of 2 manufacturing jobs had a lot more to do with 3 cheaper overseas labor than air quality standards. 4 I think we have to remind ourselves this, it has 5 been implied here previously that there is a cross 6 in the treatment of respiratory uses in terms of 7 public health system and into the individual and 8 that's all I have to say. Thank you. 9 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 10 Gregor Sosnowski. 11 STATEMENT OF GREGOR SOSNOWSKI 12 MR. SOSNOWSKI: Good morning. It's 13 G R E G O R, my last name S O S N O W S K I. 14 I'm also a private citizen and by no 15 means an expert. I would like to testify here 16 today. I'm also in favor of more stringent air 17 pollution restrictions. 18 I want to say I really love living in 19 the city. Today I biked downtown to be here along 20 our beautiful lakefront. This past Labor Day we 21 swam in Lake Michigan. We try to stay as active as 22 we possibly can, but I worry about our six-year-old 23 daughter growing up in a place where the air 24 quality is so poor. I developed asthma as a child 90 1 and as a result, I was hospitalized on more 2 occasions than I care to remember. Only recently 3 have I come to understand that asthma is a 4 condition that's exacerbated by air pollution. 5 My mom was always a nervous wreck when I 6 had my asthma attacks, I would cough and wheeze and 7 as you know you could hardly breathe. When I was 8 really bad, she took me to ER and I was often 9 admitted and hooked up to IVs and asked to breathe 10 through a tube which had some sort of vaporized 11 medicines in it. I try not to think about it -- as 12 a kid, I stayed active and played outdoors. I try 13 not to think about it now. In fact, clean air and 14 clean water is not something we should have to 15 think about. Yet all of us are here to testify in 16 front of you, the Environmental Protection Agency, 17 and advocate for more stringent standards than the 18 ones that have been proposed. 19 When I was a child my mother instilled 20 in me a great faith in America and its ideals. She 21 had sincere trust that governmental agencies were 22 in a place to protect us from harm, that is what 23 she taught me, that is what made America great. 24 The federal institutions like the EPA were above 91 1 political influence regardless of the various 2 cultural shifts, religious beliefs, financial, or 3 social status. We as Americans are all due the 4 same protection under mandate of law and this is 5 what I want to believe, this is what I want my 6 daughter to believe. 7 It is your agency's duty to protect the 8 health of individual citizens over the interest of 9 industry, and as I understand, the EPA is legally 10 bound to do, so please finalize an ozone standard 11 of 0.06 parts per million. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Thank you, 14 gentlemen. 15 MR. BRYTAN: Excuse me, since we both have cut 16 ourselves short, could I add one other thing to my 17 testimony? 18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. 19 MR. BRYTAN: I didn't mean to say that -- 20 there has been a lot of contradictory testimony 21 here this morning in terms of lab studies and so 22 forth, and I think that what we will really need to 23 keep in mind is the incidence of respiratory 24 incidences in places like L.A. and Chicago. Those 92 1 have laboratory results from the smog and 2 particulate concentrations. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 5 Our next two speakers are Ellen 6 Rendulich and Carol Starks. Ms. Rendulich, go 7 first. 8 STATEMENT OF ELLEN RENDULICH 9 MS. RENDULICH: Ellen Rendulich, 10 R E N D U L I C H. 11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Could you get a little closer 12 to the mic or the mic closer to you? 13 MS. RENDULICH: I'm a founder and director of 14 a Grass Roots organization, Citizens Against 15 Ruining the Environment, CARE. We're located in 16 Will County, Illinois. We banned together in 1995, 17 local citizens and we formed our group to protect 18 the community's health and environment. At the 19 time there weren't any other environmental groups 20 and there are many more today. 21 Will County is one of the fastest 22 growing counties in the nation, and new polluting 23 industries are approaching our neighborhoods daily. 24 We are also experiencing heavy population growth 93 1 which of course brings pollution from other 2 sources, including diesel and gasoline fuels. 3 Millions of us that live in the small mid sized 4 communities are home to extremely healthy polluting 5 industries including three coal fired power plants. 6 We have numerous polluting industries including 7 chemical and refinery plants such as Citgo, BP and 8 Exelon, that according to the EPA, spew 9 neurotoxins, PMs, coarse particles and other 10 hazardous chemicals into our air. 11 The death rate from asthma, lung 12 diseases, heart attacks and stroke will only 13 continue to worsen as the population and pollution 14 increases in our areas. American Lung gave Will 15 County an "F" for ozone. The score card has ranked 16 Will County in the 90 to 100 percent range of the 17 dirtiest counties in the United States. 18 Why would the EPA consider lowering the 19 standards with the ever-growing population of the 20 United States. Why would the EPA not consider the 21 fact that the population of baby boomers is growing 22 daily in historic proportions. According to 23 American Lung's research report dated July '05 24 which was based on 2003 reports, over 10 percent of 94 1 the population in Will County was suffering from 2 various forms of lung diseases. To hear that the 3 administration proposes to maintain the status quo 4 and reject the more protective standards in our 5 communities is ludicrous. When taxpayers pay for 6 scientific studies by the EPA, when independent 7 scientists confirm that the health impacts of ozone 8 and its standard are not adequate to protect human 9 health, the standards must be substantially 10 strengthened, not weakened, and not kept status 11 quo. Doesn't the law require you, the EPA, to base 12 your decision solely on the need to protect public 13 health? 14 I think I'll let Carol finish reading 15 the rest of this. 16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Stark. 17 STATEMENT OF CAROL STARK 18 MS. STARKS: Industry should not dictate nor 19 should you allow them to influence decisions as to 20 lowering the standards. The Clean Air Scientific 21 Advisory Committee has recommended to protect our 22 health, the EPA should set the ozone standards at 23 0.060 parts per million. This is who the EPA 24 should listen to, not industry, as this committee 95 1 was formed to protect citizens' health and 2 well-being. 3 Nine out of ten CARE members have a 4 family member that is affected by respiratory 5 disease. Nine out of ten of our neighbors, their 6 children or friends are suffering from some type of 7 respiratory or lung disease. Thousands are using 8 inhalers for asthma and respiratory problems 9 because of the pollution caused by industry. My 10 own family, my daughter has been affected by asthma 11 and she was on a nebulizer for three years. 12 Ellen's family, her sister-in-law died leaving two 13 babies due to lung disease. Her husband and 14 herself, they're both on inhalers. We expect 15 immediate protection. 16 Future generations will one day ask "Why 17 didn't they do something?" They will be talking 18 about us. Now is the time to control pollution. 19 We have to be responsible. This is not going to be 20 easy, doing the right thing rarely is. 21 Why do private citizens have to 22 continuously defend our right for clean air and 23 water? CARE has attended public hearings, written 24 letters and networked without pay for more than 12 96 1 years. The government is being paid to protect us 2 and we expect nothing less. Thank you. 3 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. Let me 4 remind you to please leave a copy of the written 5 testimony. 6 Our next two speakers are Kathy Chan and 7 Caroline Herzenberg. 8 Ms. Khan. 9 STATEMENT OF KATHY CHAN. 10 MS. CHAN: Good morning and thank you for the 11 opportunity to testify. 12 My name is Kathy Khan and I'm the policy 13 director for the Illinois Maternal and Child Health 14 Coalition, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to 15 promoting and improving the health of women, 16 children and families through advocacy, education, 17 community empowerment and policy development. 18 I am here today because we're concerned 19 that the USEPA's proposed revisions to the ozone 20 standards do not go far enough to protect public 21 health, especially the health of some of society's 22 most vulnerable populations, children and pregnant 23 women. 24 It has been proven that ozone poses a 97 1 serious threat to respiratory health, especially 2 for those who already have a compromised breathing 3 condition, the most common of which is asthma. 4 More than 3.2 million children breathe 5 the air here in Illinois. Data from the Centers 6 of Disease Control and Prevention's National 7 Survey of Children's Health shows that one in ten 8 Illinois children suffers from asthma. The 9 prevalence of asthma is even higher for 10 African-Americans where one in five children were 11 reported having asthma. 12 In comparison to adults, children tend 13 to spend more time outdoors but have narrower 14 airways and inhale more pollutants relative to 15 their body weight. Childhood exposure to ozone can 16 also be detrimental to normal development of 17 healthy lungs. 18 Additionally, pregnant woman who are 19 exposed to levels of ozone at an even lower rate 20 than the 0.07 parts per million to .075 parts per 21 million range proposed to be adopted by the EPA are 22 at a higher risk of giving birth to low birth 23 weight babies and subject to intrauterine birth 24 retardation. 98 1 The data is clear, exposure to ozone at 2 levels even below current standards results in 3 adverse health outcomes, not only for those 4 suffering from asthma for other respiratory 5 conditions, but even for healthy individuals. The 6 children's Health Protection Advisory Committee 7 proposes that the standard be set at .060 ppm in 8 order to afford the greatest protection to 9 children. 10 We agree with the consensus of the 11 scientific medical communities that the EPA should 12 strengthen the ozone standards to maintain the 13 adequate margin of safety for public health as 14 required by law. Everyone deserves the right to 15 clean air. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 18 Ms. Herzenberg. 19 STATEMENT OF CAROLINE HERZENBERG, 20 MS. HERZENBERG: Thank you. 21 Good day. My name is Caroline 22 Herzenberg, C A R O L I N E, H E R S E N B E R G. 23 I'm a scientist, a physicist retired from Argonne 24 National Laboratory. I want to thank you for 99 1 providing me with this opportunity to speak to you. 2 I find it gratifying that the EPA is 3 considering taking a step toward cleaner air by 4 proposing to strengthen the National Ambient Air 5 Quality Standard for ozone. However, it is 6 disappointing that EPA's proposal falls short of 7 the ozone standard that its own scientific advisors 8 indicated is necessary to protect public health, 9 and it is even more unfortunate that the current 10 EPA proposal leaves open the possibility of not 11 strengthening the ozone standards at all, even 12 though the current standard has been shown to be 13 unsafe. I recommend that EPA adopt a new standard 14 to keep ozone levels below .06 parts per million, 15 which is at the lower and safer end of the range 16 recommended by EPA's scientific advisory committee. 17 The current EPA standard of .08 parts 18 per million is not acceptable because it was not 19 set low enough to protect the public from 20 respiratory damage from ozone. Recent 21 epidemiological and clinical studies have shown 22 that there are adverse health impacts from 23 breathing ozone at levels below the current ambient 24 air quality standards. In fact, it has been 100 1 reported that clinical studies of otherwise healthy 2 adults have found decreased lung function, 3 increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation 4 and increased susceptibility to respiratory 5 infection at or below the current standard of 6 .08 parts per million, which was set in 1997. 7 it's clear the ozone standard should be 8 substantially strengthened by lowering the level 9 significantly below its present value in order to 10 protect public health. 11 I know that you all have access to the 12 air quality statistics that show that the pervasive 13 extent of air pollution in the greater metropolitan 14 area here, and you are undoubtedly aware that 15 Chicago is one of the ten smoggiest cities in the 16 United States, and you may also know that Cook 17 County has some of the worst ozone pollution in 18 the state as well as problematic particulate 19 pollution. 20 As a Chicagoan, I can personally tell 21 you that air pollution has been and continues to be 22 a serious problem in the Chicago area. I live in a 23 high-rise condominium building, and we can look out 24 over the city and see the characteristic 101 1 yellowish-brown haze hanging over the Chicago 2 skyline and extending out over Lake Michigan. I 3 have cardiovascular disease and my younger daughter 4 has asthma, and we are affected by pollution in the 5 ambient air. I personally am even more seriously 6 affected, I've noticed, when winds from the 7 southeast blow pollution in from southeast Chicago 8 and northwest Indiana. I not only experience acute 9 pain in the mucous membranes of my nose and throat 10 and eyes from the polluted air, but I also am 11 systemically affected, and find it difficult or 12 impossible to engage in intellectual activity or 13 even much physical activity during days with high 14 air pollution levels. And there are many other 15 people here who suffer as we do. These detrimental 16 impacts on physical activities and mental 17 activities are taking a disabling toll on the 18 wellness and well-being and physical performance 19 and creativity of people throughout the Chicago 20 metropolitan area. 21 I have somewhat of a longer statement 22 that appears to be impossible to present in the 23 time that appears to remain. If you would like, I 24 will continue, or if you prefer, I will terminate 102 1 and wrap it up rapidly and hand it in as a written 2 statement. 3 MS. RODRIGUEZ: We'll take your written 4 statement. I cannot see how many minutes you have 5 left, but it's up to you to continue until the 6 clock runs out. 7 MS. HERZENBERG: Briefly, I think I'm -- I 8 think I conveyed my ideas. I also believe that the 9 EPA should eliminate this rounding loophole, which 10 I won't go into, but I think you're well aware of 11 what it is. 12 To wrap it up, I do think that everyone 13 in the Chicago area and everyone in the United 14 States deserves to breathe clean air and the EPA's 15 responsible for this. We rely on the EPA to 16 maintain -- to set the standards for maintaining 17 the air. I believe as do my friends and family 18 that the EPA should reject industry pressure to 19 simply retain the inadequate current ozone standard 20 and instead that the EPA should adopt a new safer 21 ozone standard of .06 parts per million consistent 22 with the recommendations of the scientific advisors 23 and many other organizations. 24 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 103 1 MS. HERZENBERG: You're very welcome. 2 Remember, EPA has a duty to protect public health, 3 so let's do it. 4 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Questions from the panel? 5 Thank you very much. We'll take your 6 written testimony. 7 Our next speakers are Samuel Dorevitch 8 and Ruth Johnson. 9 DR. DOREVITCH: Good morning. My name is 10 Samuel Dorevitch, D O R E V I T C H, and I'm a 11 physician and environmental health researcher at 12 the University of Illinois at the Chicago School of 13 Public Health. Thank you for the opportunity to 14 provide input into the process of reviewing and 15 hopefully establishing a more protective National 16 Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. 17 I fully support the CASAC's unanimous 18 statements that the primary ozone standard should 19 be lowered. In reviewing the arguments that have 20 been put forth against improving the ozone 21 standard, it makes me think that Yogi Berra had in 22 mind the NAAQS review process when he said, "It's 23 like deja vu all over again." 24 Arguments like the science contains 104 1 uncertainties, the air is getting cleaner anyway so 2 why complicate things with a new standard, we've 3 heard these before, almost word for word, in the 4 statements made in the 1996 hearings on the 5 proposed ozone standard. As it has turned out, 6 science has become more certain over time. We have 7 a larger body of scientific evidence demonstrating 8 negative effects of ozone in concentrations below 9 0.8 parts per million, and it isn't coincidence 10 that the air quality happens to be improving. 11 The reason the air quality is improving 12 is because of progressive improvements in air 13 quality standards. In fact, the same standards 14 that special interest groups say we ought to stick 15 with now are the very standards they opposed in 16 public comments in 1996 and subsequently in legal 17 battles going all the way to the United States 18 Supreme Court. 19 I'd like to address one argument against 20 protecting the health of the public by improving 21 the current primary ozone standard, and that is the 22 argument that the ozone standard recommended by the 23 panel of independent scientists, which shift to 24 many parts of the country from ozone standard 105 1 attainment to non-attainment. This argument says 2 it's better to not raise the bar of air quality 3 because too many parts of too many states will be 4 in violation of the new standards. 5 This approach says it's not better -- 6 I'm sorry, this approach says it's better not to 7 establish air quality goals that provide better 8 protection for children and those with underlying 9 lung disease. I'd like to provide an alternative 10 approach from another area of public health. 11 40 years ago we knew that very high 12 levels of blood pressure led to heart disease and 13 stroke. Over the last 40 years it's become clear 14 that even levels that were once considered 15 acceptable, the risk of heart disease and stroke is 16 elevated. For that reason, doctors now try to 17 treat blood pressure of people who in a previous 18 era would have gone untreated. 19 There has been no outcry that by 20 revising downward the range of normal blood 21 pressure you would create a problem by identifying 22 too many people as having blood pressure that 23 worked in the non-attainment range. Instead, the 24 new scientific evidence that showed significant 106 1 health risk to blood pressures once thought to be 2 normal was seen as an opportunity to prevent heart 3 disease and stroke and in fact rates of heart 4 disease and stroke have went down nationwide as 5 treatment for blood pressure has become more 6 widespread. 7 Yes, a standard of 0.60 ppm would bring 8 parts of the country into non-attainment initially, 9 but state implementation plans would be developed 10 and by acting responsibly to protect public health, 11 ambient ozone concentrations would be brought down, 12 asthma attacks would be prevented. Such action to 13 protect the health of the vulnerable population is 14 the intent of Section 109 in the Clean Air Act. I 15 commend Administrator Johnson on his interest in 16 improving the ozone standard and I endorse the 17 primary standard of 0.60 parts per million. 18 Thank you. 19 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. Dorevitch. 20 Ms. Johnson. 21 STATEMENT OF RUTH JOHNSON. 22 MS. JOHNSON: My name is Ruth Johnson and I'm 23 a private citizen. I'm a small business owner and 24 Realtor and also an asthmatic and under the care of 107 1 Dr. Chris McGrath at Northwestern Hospital. 2 I was born and raised in Chicago in the 3 late '40s but have lived in Houston, Southern 4 California, New Jersey, New York City and Tucson, 5 Arizona during my time in corporate America from 6 the 1970s to 1998. In returning to Chicago for 7 family reasons in late 1998, I found it necessary 8 to rely on daily asthmatic medication in order to 9 perform daily activities. If I did not use these, 10 I would die. 11 In Chicago, we have high levels of 12 ozone, fine particles which result from 13 coal-burning power plants and refineries. Also, 14 diesel fuel levels used by trucks, buses, trains 15 and some private vehicles contribute to these high 16 pollution levels unhealthy for all people. 17 I ask that the EPA follow the mandate to 18 protect the citizens of the United States and to 19 set the ozone rate at .060 level parts per million 20 for all air in the United States. I believe that 21 by this action, the EPA will increase the levels of 22 health in America and over time provide economic 23 benefits to the health and insurance industries and 24 I thank you for this opportunity. 108 1 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 2 Our next two speakers, Andrew Fisher and 3 Ari Weitzman. 4 Mr. Fisher, you go first. 5 MR. FISHER: I'm Andrew Fisher, F I S H E R. 6 I am the chair of the Environmental Task Force for 7 the Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice. I 8 over half of my adult life have suffered with 9 asthma and am familiar with the negative effects on 10 the physical activity. I've learned a couple 11 things from the American Lung Association rating 12 Cook County -- giving it a grade of F. It was very 13 high ozone of 5.7 on orange days and red days of 7. 14 And as far as people affected, I'll cite about 15 three here, young people, pediatric asthmatics, 16 it's 122,000, and for adult asthmatics it's over 17 272,000 for cardiovascular disease it's over 18 1,204,000. 19 We all know asthmatic rates in children 20 are growing at exponential rates at our current 21 ozone level which should be reduced. We found one 22 definite backup to this, the CBS news Asthma 23 Sufferers Pay Price For Ozone, about young 24 children. In a 55 major urban communities study an 109 1 increase in daily ozone levels was associated with 2 more than 3,700 associated deaths each year from 3 cardiovascular and respiratory illness. Many 4 things besides the asthma are causing the ill 5 effects of this air pollution from studies done 6 both at Yale and at Johns Hopkins. I'm turning 7 them both in as evidence later. 8 Another piece of written evidence I'd 9 like to present is from the environmental health 10 prospectus which basically says that ozone and 11 second-hand smoke outweigh the genetic influences 12 on causing asthma. I submit that entire statement 13 to you. Basically I'm -- I urge EPA to lower the 14 NAAQS below .06 parts per million or even lower to 15 greatly increase our health and the EPA's main 16 responsibility is for the public health of this 17 country and not for the profits of the oil 18 companies and the utilities. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Weiztman. 21 STATEMENT OF ARI WEITZMAN. 22 MR. WEITZMAN: Thank you for the opportunity 23 to speak. My name is Ari Weitzman, A R I, 24 W E I T Z M A N. 110 1 I'd like to start off with a story. 2 It's a very good story. 3 The EPA has set the National Ambient Air 4 Quality Standards for six major -- 5 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Excuse me, sir, can you get a 6 little closer to the mic? 7 MR. WEITZMAN: Previously the standards for 8 ozone was set to .08 parts per million. To review 9 the safety of this, the EPA set up the Clean Air 10 Advisory Committee, composed of 22 scientists 11 responsible for reviewing this standard. The 12 unanimous vote was the standard should be lower 13 than .06 ppm or no more than .07 ppm. On June 20th 14 the EPA decided to lower the standards to .075 ppm. 15 The Clean Air Act states that the air must 16 breathable for every one. The standard must be no 17 more than .07 parts per million and should be .06 18 parts per million. 19 We, as concerned citizens, are here to 20 convince you that the ramifications -- these are 21 ramifications that most notably are major helpers, 22 a general threat to all people and a specific 23 threat to those at risk. I am not one of those 24 specific at-risk citizens, but being somebody who 111 1 exercises a lot outside, I could appreciate that. 2 You also are trying to weigh the positive 3 ramifications, and I'm in no position to accurately 4 stipulate upon what those might be, but you will 5 remember the prior testimony in that regard. I 6 will comment, though, that even if Chicago doesn't 7 reach the non-attainment, a stronger standard will 8 prevail much more convincingly than if no action is 9 taken. To ensure the health of those at risk the 10 Clean Air Act requires that they do this. If you 11 could look in the reports before you and aren't 12 worried about making incorrect decisions, please 13 note that certainly no one can fault you for 14 abiding by the CASAC numbers. 15 As far as personal testimony goes, I 16 have very little to say about the negative 17 ramifications of your actions, they won't affect me 18 personally as much as they will other testifiers 19 here. I don't have asthma, I don't suffer from 20 lung disease, I'm like most of you, I can 21 appreciate the general ramifications of these and 22 also I'm probably the youngest testifier here, I 23 can say that it is important that you set the 24 standard for the future. If you set a poor 112 1 standard here, you're only helping to complete a 2 bleaker overall picture that I and your children 3 are going to have to deal with. I hope that 4 sufficient strides are taken to improve the air 5 quality. 6 I thank you for the opportunity to speak 7 with you. 8 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Weitzman, we have a 9 question. Can you tell us whether you are 10 supporting the 0.70 or the .075. 11 MR. WEITZMAN: I'm supporting .070. 12 MR. RICHMOND: One quick clarification, the 13 June -- the July 11th proposal cited a range of 14 .070 to .075 not just .75. 15 MR. WEITZMAN: Yes. 16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, gentlemen, and 17 we'll take copies of your written testimony and 18 supporting documentation also. 19 Before I announce the next two speakers, 20 I would like to say does anyone in the audience 21 like to speak that has not registered? We have a 22 few spaces open, so if you're interested, please 23 register at the registration table outside and 24 we'll give you a chance to speak. 113 1 Our next speakers are Wende Fox-Lawson 2 and Caroline Baier-Anderson. 3 Ms. Fox-Lawson, you're first. 4 STATEMENT OF WENDE FOX-LAWSON 5 MS. FOX-LAWSON: Hi, my name is Wende 6 Fox-Lawson and first I wanted to say I appreciate 7 very much this opportunity to speak. 8 I live in Chicago with my husband and 9 our two children ages 9 and 11, and I'd be 10 interested in sharing our -- the experience of our 11 nine-year-old who would have come except for it's 12 his first day of school. He has severe asthma 13 which is exacerbated by the poor air quality, and I 14 wanted to share with you just one example of many 15 young children who are affected by asthma and by 16 whom asthma management is becoming more difficult, 17 we believe because of air quality concerns. 18 James, who is now nine, has been 19 hospitalized twice for asthma, he has had numerous 20 emergency room visits. He was diagnosed at six 21 months. He's been seen at Children's Memorial here 22 and he's been fortunate enough to be seen by the 23 head of -- first Dr. Richard Evans, who 24 unfortunately passed away six years ago, and now 114 1 Dr. Jack Lynch. He's been on the most aggressive 2 medication that we believe is available including 3 daily inhalant steroids since age eight months and 4 also he has -- albuteral is needed and occasionally 5 when he gets a fever, he takes an oral prednisone, 6 so his management of asthma is considered to be 7 best that's available. 8 Despite this, he does have some problems 9 when he gets a fever, probably twice a year. The 10 other times he has problems, however, are during 11 outdoor activities, primarily during the school 12 recess and when he plays soccer outdoors. I think 13 this is significant for children because I point 14 out that he participants in some very vigorous 15 indoor sports activities. He's an avid ice hockey 16 player, which amazingly is a common pursuit for 17 children with asthma because it's a way of 18 strengthening their lungs in a controlled air 19 environment. He's never needed his albuteral 20 during hockey, and he's both a player, they call it 21 a skater, and a goalie. Amazing for a 55 pound 22 nine-year-old. And swimming, he's had no problems 23 at all. But when he's outdoors, the nurse 24 frequently has to bring him in from recess, give 115 1 him a dose of albuteral. This occurs -- we tried 2 to count it out -- approximately 20 days during the 3 school year last year and that's aside from the 4 times that he had a fever, which would, of course, 5 explain an asthma condition. 6 We also take significant precautions at 7 home. We have HEPA filters. We use the air 8 conditioner regularly, we try to keep the indoor 9 air quality very high. I'm concerned that there 10 are a lot of children who aren't able to take 11 precautions that we're able to take with James, who 12 don't have access to the excellent medical care 13 that he has. 14 In fact, Dr. Evans, who I mentioned 15 earlier, was very interested in the plight of 16 children in Chicago who were in public housing and 17 commented to me -- this was six years ago, I know 18 there's been a lot of research on it and I'm not 19 familiar with all of it, but at that time he was 20 very concerned these children didn't have care in 21 place that James does, so I can't imagine how 22 they're doing with poor air quality. 23 I encourage you to lower the standard. 24 I'll be happy to provide any additional 116 1 information. 2 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 3 Dr. Baier-Anderson. 4 STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BAIER-ANDERSON, MD. 5 MS. BAIER-ANDERSON: My name is Caroline 6 Baier-Anderson, C A R O L I N E, B A I E R hyphen 7 Anderson, and I'm a health scientist at 8 Environmental Defense, a national non-partisan 9 science-based environmental organization. Thank 10 you for the opportunity to testify about the EPA's 11 proposed revisions to the nation's health-based 12 ambient air quality standard for ground-level 13 ozone. 14 Next March, administrator Johnson will 15 be making his final decision on the ozone NAAQS. 16 According to the law, these standards must protect 17 the public health with an adequate margin of 18 safety. We are concerned that EPA's final decision 19 will not be adequate to meet the statutory mandate, 20 so we are requesting that the EPA set the NAAQS at 21 60 parts per billion. This is the protective end 22 of the range unanimously recommended by the CASAC, 23 an EPA-appointed panel of the nation's leading air 24 quality experts. 117 1 Retaining the current health standard is 2 not supported by science and will continue to put 3 large numbers of individuals at risk. 4 The CASAC unanimously and unambiguously 5 advised the EPA administrator, 1, there's no 6 scientific justification for retaining the current 7 primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 parts per million 8 and; 2, the NAAQS must be substantially reduced to 9 protect human health, particularly in sensitive 10 subpopulations. The Committee also clearly and 11 unanimously agreed upon a recommended range of 60 12 to 70 parts per billion. 13 Now, in the technical support document 14 prepared by the EPA staff, it also demonstrates the 15 inadequacy of the current ozone standard. Quoting 16 from Page 6-38 of the EPA Staff Paper, quote, 17 "Based on the strength of the currently available 18 evidence of adverse health effects, especially 19 indicators of respiratory morbidity, and on the 20 extent to which the evidence indicates that such 21 effects likely result from exposures to ambient 22 ozone concentrations well below the level of the 23 current standard, we conclude that the available 24 evidence clearly calls into question the adequacy 118 1 of the current standard and provides strong support 2 for giving consideration to advising the standard 3 to provide increased protection, especially for 4 sensitive groups, against a broad array of adverse 5 health effects. 6 But EPA has inexplicably included 7 retaining the current standard ozone as an option. 8 The CASAC addressed this matter and found there's 9 no longer significant scientific uncertainty 10 regarding CASAC's conclusion that the current 11 eight-hour primary NAAQS must be lowered. An ozone 12 standard above 70 parts per billion will result in 13 unacceptable residual health risks. 14 The EPA risk assessment demonstrates 15 that there is no evidence that a threshold exists 16 below which there are no adverse health effects. 17 In fact, EPA has concluded, quote, "If a threshold 18 exists, it is well below the current standard, 19 probably within the range of ambient exposures, end 20 quote. 21 Moreover, there's abundant evidence that 22 children, people with asthma, outdoor workers and 23 elderly are more severely affected by ozone, due to 24 increased sensitivity, greater exposures or both. 119 1 A health protective ozone standard 2 within CASAC's recommended range of 60 to 70 ppb 3 will significantly reduce premature mortality. 4 The EPA Staff Paper concludes that the 5 evidence for the association between ozone and 6 premature mortality as robust and credible. 7 I'm going to skip ahead a little bit to 8 get this all in. 9 Lowering ozones also lowers particulate 10 matter, a critical co-benefit. So the lowering of 11 ozone requires the lowering of chemical precursors 12 such as NOx and VOCs; NOx also contribute to the 13 formation of PM 2.5. The EPA's calculated the 14 value of the co-benefits. For example, an ozone 15 standard is 65 parts per billion translates to a 16 combined morbidity plus mortality benefit of 17 $4.7 billion. So when you add in the co-benefits 18 of decreasing PM 2.5 and call it decreasing ozone, 19 and add it to the total, the co-benefits skyrocket 20 to 14 to $27 billion. So I think this is a really 21 important point that merits emphasis. 22 A standard at the more protective end of 23 the CASAC recommendation is needed to protect 24 public health. Given the preponderance of evidence 120 1 of ozone health effects at ambient concentrations, 2 it is unfortunate that EPA has chosen to ignore its 3 own staff and the recommendations of the CASAC to 4 focus on standards that will adequately protect 5 public health. 6 Environmental Defense supports an ozone 7 standard of 60 parts per billion as offering the 8 best protection for vulnerable populations against 9 an array of ozone-related adverse health effects 10 and premature mortality. 11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. Baier-Anderson. 12 Any questions from the panel? 13 Thank you both and we will submit your 14 written statements in the record. Thanks. 15 The next speaker is Anne McKibbin and 16 Glenn Frederick. 17 Please state your name and spell it for 18 the court reporter. 19 STATEMENT OF ANNE McKIBBIN 20 MS. McKIBBIN: Anne McKibbin, A N N E, 21 M C K I B B I N. 22 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Please get closer to the mic. 23 MS. McKIBBIN: I'm the chair of the Air and 24 Energy Committee of the Sierra Club's Chicago 121 1 Group. Our group has approximately 8,600 members 2 in Cook County and we strongly encourage the EPA to 3 do as its own scientific advisors have recommended 4 and go to the eight-hour primary ozone standard. 5 We urge you to set the final standard at the low 6 end of the recommended range, 60 parts per million, 7 which is supported by a number of studies of the 8 effects of ozone on human health. I also urge you 9 to eliminate the rounding loophole that allows 10 states to round ozone concentrations down to 11 artificially meet the standard. 12 The law requires EPA to base its 13 standard on the levels needed to preserve our 14 health. 15 Ozone pollution, as you heard, is a 16 serious health threat. We know that breathing 17 ozone can shorten our lives, even at the current 18 standard levels, and we know that it aggravates 19 chronic diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and 20 emphysema. 21 And ozone adversely affects the health 22 of vulnerable populations, which include elderly, 23 children and teens, and even people who exercise 24 outdoors and just want to take a nice morning jog. 122 1 All Americans deserve to breathe clean 2 air. EPA can assure cleaner air in our 3 communities. Retaining the current standard levels 4 would ignore overwhelming scientific evidence that 5 a standard of 60 parts per billion is needed to 6 preserve human health, so we strongly encourage you 7 to lower the standard. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 10 Mr. Frederick. 11 STATEMENT OF GLENN FREDERICK. 12 MR. FREDERICK: My name is Glenn Frederick. 13 I'm a private citizen. I believe that Ari Weitzman 14 spoke probably earlier today. I'm just a member of 15 the organization, I don't have a bunch of numbers 16 or anything. I just wanted to come down and show 17 my support and just to say a couple of common 18 sense, I guess, statements or facts. 19 I'm a small businessman and entrepreneur 20 and most of these things probably affect, you know, 21 when the policy changes are going to affect the 22 outcome of -- new policies usually affect me harder 23 and quicker than it does -- because I don't have 24 the money coming in. But if something is important 123 1 to make whatever changes are required of me, which 2 is like for us to do the correct thing in this 3 situation. I would say that me, myself, I look at 4 it as a form of risk management as a business 5 person dealing with my day-to-day things, it's a 6 form of risk management, what's the reward versus 7 what's the risk. And when I look at maintaining or 8 staying at the level that we are at, currently at, 9 we've already been told by your advisors that the 10 reward of us just staying there -- there's really 11 no reward other than saying we're going to be able 12 to stay the same, we're not going to be forced to 13 make a change. We're going to be just going on 14 with the day-to-day as we do. But the risk is so 15 great, the fact that we don't know what the outcome 16 is, we still don't know and will not know for who 17 knows how many years what effect we're having on 18 our environment, and there's not going to be a 19 second chance for us to go back and say we made the 20 wrong decision back in 2007. So me, myself, as a 21 constituent, as a businessman, I urge you to drop 22 the levels to what has been suggested by your own 23 people to the .60 part per million. 24 And I would like to say one other thing. 124 1 When reading the information that I get in e-mails 2 just with being a member of the organization, it's 3 almost probably to the taxpayer also it's almost 4 irritating to always see the independent advisors, 5 the independent scientific board always paid for 6 to get their suggestions, our tax dollars paid for 7 to get their suggestions, So I ask that you 8 reconsider. 9 MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have the last of the 10 registered speakers for the morning, Dr. Helen 11 Binns and Ms. Liane Casten. 12 Dr. Binns, you go first, please. 13 STATEMENT OF HELEN BINNS, MD 14 MS. BINNS: Thank you. My name is Helen 15 Binns, B I N N S. I was the chairperson at the 16 American Academy of Pediatrics. I speak on 17 behalf of that organization of 60,000 pediatric 18 members. 19 I'm a professor of pediatrics at 20 Northwestern University, an attending physician at 21 the Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Thank 22 you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of 23 children. 24 Since the passage of the Clean Air Act, 125 1 the air quality has improved in many parts of our 2 nation. However, many regions in the United States 3 still experience serious air pollution. Further, 4 numerous scientific studies continue to identify 5 adverse health effects at ozone levels below the 6 current air qualities. This special vulnerability 7 of infants, children and adolescents to ambient air 8 pollution compel our nation to craft standards that 9 will safeguard ourselves against this threat. The 10 science is unambiguous. 11 Ozone air pollution harms children. We 12 have the ability to reduce this threat. The 13 American Academy of Pediatrics calls upon the 14 Environmental Protection Agency to propose ozone 15 standards at or below an eight-hour exposure 70 16 parts per billion. The AAP support rounding down 17 to meet this standard. 18 Children are especially susceptible to 19 the adverse effects of the ambient air pollution 20 due to their extensive lung growth and development 21 after birth. 80 percent of the alveoli, which is 22 the smallest portion of the lungs where gas 23 exchange occurs, are formed after a child is born. 24 The lungs continue to develop through adolescence. 126 1 During the early post-neonatal period, the 2 developing lung is highly susceptible to damage 3 from the exposure to environmental toxicants. 4 Compared to adults, children have 5 increased exposure to many air pollutants because 6 of their relatively higher amounts of air breathed 7 per minute in relationship to their size and due to 8 higher levels of physical activity. Children also 9 have high exposures to outdoor air pollution than 10 adults, because they spend more time outdoors. 11 Ozone is a powerful oxidant gas and 12 respiratory tract irritant. Exposure to ozone at 13 lower concentrations than other ambient gaseous 14 pollutants can cause shortness of breath, chest 15 pains when inhaling deeply, wheezing, coughing and 16 inflammation in the lungs. Studies of children at 17 summer camp and epidemiological studies and other 18 settings found that on days with the high levels of 19 ambient ozone children have decreases in lung 20 function, increased respiratory tract symptoms and 21 asthmatic exacerbations, increased respiratory 22 room -- emergency room visits and increased school 23 absences. Hospitalizations and premature mortality 24 have also been linked to increases in ozone. 127 1 Additionally, long-term exposure to 2 ozone may have lifelong consequences for children. 3 A prospective study in southern California found 4 that children involved in high levels of team 5 sports who grew up in communities with high ozone 6 levels were at increased risk for developing 7 asthma. Another study from the chronic long-term 8 exposure to ambient ozone was associated with 9 decreased levels of small airway function in 10 college students. 11 Controlled human exposure studies in 12 young, healthy adults have found reduced lung 13 function, increased respiratory symptoms, increased 14 airway hyper-reactivity, and increased airway 15 inflammation after ozone exposure. Exposures to 16 ozone concentrations as low as 80 parts per billion 17 for 6.6 to eight hours in young, healthy exercising 18 adults caused decreased lung function, airway 19 hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation. 20 These studies conducted in laboratory settings did 21 not include young children or individuals with 22 moderate to severe asthma or other respiratory 23 diseases, which are two groups more likely to 24 experience acute adverse effects than healthy 128 1 invidious. 2 The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific 3 Advisory Committee recently recommended 4 consideration of an eight-hour average standard in 5 the range of 55 to 60 parts per billion at the 6 lower end to 70 parts per billion. To protect 7 children, the American Academy of Pediatrics 8 strongly recommends a tighter eight-hour standard 9 for ozone and supports adoption of the revised 10 ozone eight-hour exposure standard at or below 70 11 parts per billion. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 14 Ms. Liane Casten. 15 STATEMENT OF LIANE CASTEN. 16 MS. CASTEN: My name is Liane Casten and I've 17 lived in Evanston, Illinois for 33 years. I am an 18 environmental journalist, have researched and 19 published the book, Breast Cancer: Poisons, Profits 20 and Prevention. I've watched with total dismay and 21 disgust how our regulatory agencies have operated 22 for a very long time now. The operative word is 23 "Politics." 24 So my talk will not be about science. 129 1 In fact, I'm certain most of those in the room are 2 fully aware of the science and the desperate need 3 to establish high standards now, with enforcement 4 capabilities that will improve air quality and the 5 health of all of our citizens. 6 I'm here to discuss public policy and 7 the politicization of our regulatory agencies. I'm 8 here because over the years I watched EPA knuckle 9 under to the pressures of industry profit to the 10 point where there are epidemics of cancer, asthma, 11 bronchitis, childhood leukemia and limited brain 12 development, ailments that are absolutely 13 preventable for the most part. 14 When Richard Nixon signed on to the 15 establishment of the EPA in 1971, U.S. citizens 16 were thrilled. At last, there was an agency that 17 protects us from wanton corporate/industrial 18 toxicity. Well, that mandate has changed. 19 I cite three examples. When the 20 International Joint Commission came forward in the 21 early 1990s, after massive independent research and 22 review, to recommend the phase-out of chlorine in 23 industrial processes, EPA buckled under to the 24 pressure of the chlorine industry, it sat on its 130 1 collective hands and did nothing. As a 2 consequence, massive amount of POPS, persistent 3 organic poisons, have been released into the 4 waters, the air and into the food chain, with 5 serious consequences to humans. 6 Another example, when EPA did not one 7 but two definitive studies on the properties of 8 dioxin, the contaminant in Agent Orange, not only 9 has the second and final re-assessment been totally 10 suppressed, a green light has been given to 11 industry to keep it up, to allow this very 12 dangerous known carcinogen to be allowed into our 13 air, water and food during various manufacturing 14 processes. Again, the regulatory agency mandated 15 to protect public health rather has been perverted 16 to protect industry profits. 17 As for the Toxic Release Inventory, that 18 went out with Bush pretty fast, during his first 19 administration, under EPA leadership. It used to 20 be an effective tool to curb industry's flagrant 21 indifference to anything but its own profits. Now 22 we just don't know what the industry is spewing out 23 where and how much of it's poison. 24 Perhaps the EPA will go after some poor 131 1 individual with a little clout whose business sits 2 on a toxic dumpsite or whose home has radon in his 3 basement. But, will the Agency raise the standards 4 on air pollution when those with big money and 5 clout pressure and bribe the politicians? The 6 administration has already shown its contempt for 7 public health, on all levels, when profits are 8 involved. The fact has been verified many times. 9 So I write this with the remainder for 10 all of you working at EPA now. If it's your job 11 you're protecting, I can't say much, you do have a 12 family to feed; but if you're going along because 13 everyone else is, I urge you all to find your 14 conscious and independence and work to protect 15 those who not only pay your salaries but who do not 16 deserve to be assaulted by chemicals alone or in 17 synergistic combination with each other can create 18 the kind of public health crisis we now see across 19 the country. Americans deserve better. 20 Thank you, Miss Casten. Questions from 21 the panel? 22 MR. RICHMOND: No. 23 MS. TYSON: No. 24 MS. RODRIGUEZ: We'll take the written 132 1 testimony if you could please put it on the table. 2 We do have two more speakers, Ellen 3 O'Rourke and Brian Urbaszewski. 4 Ms. O'Rourke, you go first. 5 STATEMENT OF ELLEN O'ROURKE. 6 MS. O'ROURKE: My name is Ellen O'Rourke and 7 I'm one more citizen from the City of Chicago here 8 to encourage you to support the encouraged 9 standards of .06 parts per million. 10 I am very recently under a doctor's care 11 for an undiagnosed lung ailment. I have masses in 12 my lungs that are being monitored ever six months 13 with CT scans. I'm an otherwise healthy, 14 non-worker runner. I'm here to ask you to set the 15 standard to protect our environment. Change can be 16 difficult, especially for businesses that feel an 17 initial impact with their profitability. We need 18 the EPA to set the standards recommended by its own 19 scientists. I believe that this is the only way to 20 improve the condition of our environment. I also 21 feel that there's nothing more important in life 22 than good health. Thank you for allowing me to 23 speak today. 24 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 133 1 Mr. Urbaszeweski. 2 STATEMENT OF BRIAN URBASZEWSKI. 3 MR. URBASZEWSKI: My name is Brian, B R I A N, 4 Urbaszewski, U R B A S Z E W S K I. I'm the 5 Director of Environmental Health Programs, 6 Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan 7 Chicago. 8 Thank you for the opportunity to testify 9 on the Agency's proposal for revising the ozone 10 NAAQS. 11 Respiratory Health Association of 12 Metropolitan Chicago has been a leading lung health 13 advocate since 1906. In addition to providing 14 educational services within Illinois communities on 15 the topic of lung health and supporting needed 16 medical research, we also advocate for cleaner air 17 in order to preserve lung health and improve the 18 lives of people who live with lung disease every 19 day. Likewise, we serve as host to the Chicago 20 Thoracic Society, the local presence of the 21 American Thoracic Society in metropolitan Chicago. 22 While air quality has improved, Chicago 23 still faces challenges in meeting the current 24 1997 ozone standard. Chicago-area monitors in 134 1 Illinois alone have already counted exceedences of 2 the ozone NAAQS on eight days this year. But as 3 the record and the proposal under consideration 4 today show, the 10 million people in metropolitan 5 Chicago are not being served by the current ozone 6 standard. 7 In the last ten years, research has 8 convincingly demonstrated that there are 9 significant negative health outcomes when people 10 are exposed to ozone levels that are below the 11 level of the current federal standard. Those with 12 lung disease often fare worst when exposed to 13 ozone. Over the past decade, published research 14 has found that children with asthma, newborns, the 15 elderly and workers breathing ozone at levels well 16 below the current federal health standards still 17 suffer adverse health effects. We have also 18 learned that ozone is associated with significant 19 numbers of premature deaths, no matter how many 20 times the numbers are reanalyzed. In short, ozone 21 is more dangerous than previously thought, and at 22 lower concentrations. 23 The current ozone standard is not 24 protecting people and it most certainly is not 135 1 protecting people with asthma and other reactive 2 airway diseases. Thankfully, the administrator 3 agrees with this contention as he made this point 4 when testifying on the new ozone standard proposal 5 before Congress. 6 Today, there are 400,000 people in Cook 7 County alone with asthma. Approximately one-third 8 of these people is children; asthma is the most 9 chronic disease among children. In fact, like 10 New York, Chicago has one of the highest rates of 11 asthma in the country. Some population subgroups 12 in our area such as residents of Puerto Rican 13 ancestry, have asthma rates that are amazingly 14 high, as much as a third of all school aged 15 children in certain Chicago neighborhoods. While 16 it is documented that ozone increases asthma 17 attacks as well as respiratory hospital admissions 18 and emergency room visits, some research suggests 19 that ozone may also increase children's risk of 20 developing asthma in the first place. Others 21 testifying will recount specific studies EPA has 22 considered as well as present new information that 23 reenforces what the Clean Air Act Advisory 24 Committee has twice told the Agency. Specifically, 136 1 retaining the current standard is not supported by 2 the science, and the standard must be lowered in 3 order to protect sensitive groups. 4 We urge the EPA to listen to its own 5 advisors such as CASAC and the children's Health 6 Protection Advisory Committee as well as 7 independent experts who recommend a tighter ozone 8 health standard than the Agency has proposed. 9 Public health professionals and organizations such 10 as the American Thoracic Society, the American 11 Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health 12 Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 13 America and Respiratory Health Association of 14 Metropolitan Chicago all endorse a standard of .06 15 parts per million. 16 People also have a right to know when 17 the air they are breathing can put their health at 18 risk and EPA should not be hiding this information 19 from them. People with asthma and parents of 20 children with asthma are very interested in the 21 concept of air pollution action days and the 22 services provided by EPA's AIRNOW system, as it 23 gives some people some realtime knowledge as to the 24 risks of high ozone levels that can be used in a 137 1 judgment to modify or avoid outdoor activities that 2 might trigger an attack. It also allows parents of 3 children with asthma to be extra vigilant about 4 children carrying rescue medication. 5 While these tools are somewhat useful 6 today, this is a sad situation that should simply 7 not exist since the problem is largely preventable. 8 The EPA staff discusses how children with asthma 9 may have greater responses to ozone and greater 10 reductions in lung functions but that such children 11 may also be spending more time indoors in more 12 sedentary pursuits and that may counterbalance the 13 effect of them being more at risk from ozone 14 pollution. How sad to assume that. It does a 15 disservice to those children and their long-term 16 health and well-being and sets up a 17 blame-the-victim scenario whereby children who 18 experience health problems should simply have known 19 not to be active when ozone levels are high. It is 20 a tired argument used by industry to abdicate 21 responsibility for setting an appropriate health 22 standard or move toward meeting such a standard. 23 Air quality standards should be set at a 24 level that will protect everyone's health, period. 138 1 Regarding the language covering the reasonable 2 margin of safety demanded by the Clean Air Act, we 3 agree with others making comments who contend that 4 if there is any uncertainty in where the standard 5 should be set, people at risk deserve the benefit 6 of the doubt, not polluters. 7 I have two or three more sentences. 8 Because the reasonable margin of safety 9 was explicitly put in statutory language, we 10 believe this was the original congressional intent 11 as well. Since the Staff Paper states, "The 12 selection of any particular approach to providing 13 an adequate margin of safety is a policy choice 14 left specifically to the Administrator's judgment, 15 we sincerely hope Mr. Johnson takes these comments 16 to heart when he makes his final decision and 17 imagines how he would be treated if he were a very 18 young child living with severe asthma in one of the 19 largest cities of America. 20 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you both. Please 21 leave copies of your written documents for the 22 record. 23 The next speaker is Jennifer James. 24 STATEMENT OF JENNIFER JAMES 139 1 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Good morning. My name 2 is Jennifer James. I'm a stay-at-home parent in 3 Chicago. My husband is a pediatrician who has 4 practiced in the urban Chicago neighborhoods for 5 over the last five years. I'd like to urge the 6 EPA to substantially threaten their ozone standard 7 to maintain the standards that is recommended by 8 all of your advisory groups at all times at this 9 point. 10 As a mother of two small children in 11 Chicago who attend a small urban public school, I 12 can attest to the fact that more than half of the 13 Hispanic students at my son's largely Hispanic 14 school have asthma and they suffer greatly on days 15 like today, which is an ozone action day. Several 16 of those children won't attend recess today and 17 they will not be let outside. 18 The day-to-day impact of weekend ozone 19 standards on the public health and children in 20 Chicago could be extremely detrimental to many, 21 many children in many, many communities in our 22 large urban city. 23 That's all I have to say. 24 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you so much, Ms. James. 140 1 It's 12:18, we don't have anymore 2 registered speakers. We will remain here until 3 12:30, our scheduled lunch break, 12:30 until 2:00, 4 at which time we'll resume again. Again, I 5 encourage any of you who may wish to speak to 6 register at the registration table outside. 7 I'd like to thank our other EPA 8 colleagues behind the scenes that have helped so 9 much running this public hearing smoothly and the 10 ECR Corporation and our audio person and reporter, 11 thank you for their help. 12 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had from 13 12:20 p.m. until 12:27 p.m.) 14 MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have one more speaker 15 before we break for lunch and her name is Elaine 16 Lemieux. I would ask that you restate your name 17 and spell it for the court reporter. 18 STATEMENT OF ELAINE LEMIEUX 19 MS. LEMIEUX: Okay. My name is Elaine 20 Lemieux, L E M I U E X. 21 Almost every day I walk with my daughter 22 to her elementary school. Personally I'm grateful 23 to take this time and walk with her. 24 Unfortunately, on our way to school we see on the 141 1 streets all kind of cars and trucks idling, for 2 example, vehicles owned by the City of Chicago. By 3 leaving their engines running, the city workers 4 pollute the air as well as waste fuel and money. 5 The following was written by Rebecca Stanfield, the 6 Environment Illinois State Director. 7 "There is no question that reducing 8 pollution from cars, now the source of about 9 one-third of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions, 10 will have to be a large part of the plan to protect 11 the planet and our future from the threat of global 12 warning." It is clear that this also applies to 13 cars, SUVs, trucks, buses and other motor vehicles. 14 After much thought when I see all these 15 cars and these trucks idling, I decided to do 16 something. I now talk directly to the city workers 17 and every person I encounter on the street whose 18 vehicles are idling. One by one I ask them to turn 19 off their engines. To be more convincing, I 20 designed the Pure Air card. Every time I hand out 21 the card, I ask them to turn off their engines. I 22 also ask them to spread the word. 23 Recently I wrote a letter to the 24 alderman, Mrs. Margaret Laurino, about my concerns. 142 1 I was very pleased to receive a letter from the 2 Department of Fleet Management of the City of 3 Chicago. The Commissioner, Mr. Howard Henneman, 4 informed me that in 2005, the City of Chicago took 5 a step to implement its Vehicle Idling Management 6 Policy. In addition, the City of Chicago sent me 7 some important information and this is what I put 8 on the back of my card: "Unnecessary idling of the 9 City's fleet wastes approximately one gallon of 10 fuel per hour for diesel vehicles and roughly .75 11 gallons of fuel per hour for automobiles or 12 light-duty vehicles," et cetera, all these facts, 13 these many, many facts. But there's a lot of 14 carbon dioxide. From a cost perspective, the same 15 amount of idling would result in 2,900,000 in 16 unnecessary fuel expenditure, lots of waste. 17 These facts apply only for the City of 18 Chicago Department of Fleet Management. Imagine 19 the number of the whole city and beyond. So many 20 cities and many states all around the U.S. adopt a 21 new adoption law and regulation for better air 22 quality. 23 You know, we could put in the 24 supermarket, in the Chicago Public Schools and in 143 1 the idling zone. It's very easy to do, many 2 parents waiting for their children idling their 3 cars. So this action can really make a difference. 4 Unnecessary idling, it's a habit that costs us 5 millions of dollars a day in wasted fuel and 6 energy, produces enormous amount of pollutant and 7 after all gets us nowhere. When you have it, an 8 easy idea has to be put into practice by everyone, 9 it is simply by turning off our engine when not 10 driving and when you're waiting. 11 I really wish that everyone could 12 receive this Pure Air message so we could 13 altogether really make a difference. This country 14 is capable to be one of the leaders in environment 15 issues. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. And we will take 18 your written testimony and your card. Thank you 19 very much. We are going to take two more 20 presenters before a lunch break, Mr. Vinson Hellwig 21 and Ms. Andrea Daniels. 22 I just want to make sure that at our 23 registration table they informed you of the 24 logistics here. You have five minutes to speak, 144 1 green light, yellow light and red light. 2 Mr. Hellwig. 3 STATEMENT OF VINSON HELLWIG 4 MR. HELLWIG: My name is Vince Hellwig, I'm 5 Chief of the Air Quality Division at the Michigan 6 Department of Environmental Quality. I'm also a 7 member of the National Association of Clean Air 8 Agencies, NACAA, on the Board of Directors and 9 serve as co-chair of the association's Air Toxics 10 Committee. I am testifying today not for the state 11 of Michigan, but rather on behalf of NACAA, which 12 is an association of air pollution control agencies 13 in 54 states and territories and over 165 14 metropolitan areas across the country. I'm 15 testifying today on EPA's ozone National Ambient 16 Air Quality Standards. I'm testifying here today 17 on behalf NACAA. 18 NACAA commends EPA for proposing to set 19 a more stringent primary ozone NAAQS to protect 20 public health. Ozone exposure is linked to a 21 myriad of diverse health effects including 22 premature mortality in people with heart and lung 23 disease and recent evidence shows that the adverse 24 health effects occur in concentrations lower than 145 1 the current standards. Although we appreciate 2 EPA's proposal for tighter standards, we 3 nevertheless have significant concerns with the 4 agency's proposal. 5 The EPA is a congressionally chartered 6 body of independent scientific advisors, the Clean 7 Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC, 8 unanimously concluded based on several significant 9 ethnological studies and clinical studies that the 10 primary ozone standard needs to be substantially 11 reduced and recommended strengthening the primary 12 ozone facts to a level within the range of .060, 13 .070 parts per million. 14 However, EPA's proposed range of level, 15 .070 to .075 parts per million, falls outside the 16 range that were recommended unanimously by CASAC. 17 The proposal coincides only if CASAC's upper bound. 18 In determining the levels requisite to protect the 19 public health and welfare, NACAA strongly believes 20 that EPA should follow the science, the learned, 21 informed advice of CASAC. 22 Given CASAC's statutorily defined role 23 from NACAA review process, EPA needs to 24 specifically indicate why it should follow the 146 1 advice of its independent scientific advisors. In 2 addition, we question why EPA is considering 3 retaining the current standard at .084 parts per 4 million when as CASAC points out, a large body of 5 scientific evidence clearly demonstrates adverse 6 health effects at the current standard. CASAC said 7 it best, there's no scientific justification for 8 retaining the current primary eight-hour NAAQS. 9 Turning now to the secondary ozone 10 standards to protect public welfare, NACAA is 11 pleased that EPA has proposed a distinct, 12 cumulative seasonal standard. Ozone inhibits 13 photosynthesis, inhibits root growth, negatively 14 affects tree growth and causes visible damage to 15 leaves and reduces agricultural crop yields. A 16 cumulative seasonal standard more directly 17 correlates with the exposure of plants to ozone, 18 since plants are exposed to ozone during the entire 19 ozone season. 20 As with the primary standard, EPA's 21 proposal is a step in the right direction but falls 22 short of what science indicates is needed. While 23 EPA did propose promulgating a distinct, cumulative 24 seasonal standard W126, the Agency's proposed range 147 1 for a level just outside CASAC's range. 2 In addition, we are troubled that EPA 3 proposed as an alternative secondary making the 4 secondary standard identical to the primary 5 standard, despite agreement among CASAC, the 6 ecological experts convened in a 1997 workshop and 7 EPA staff on the need for a distinct, cumulative, 8 seasonal secondary standard to protect vegetation. 9 Finally, with respect to both primary 10 and secondary standards, to the extent that new 11 peer-reviewed scientific studies have been 12 published in scientific journals since EPA proposed 13 this rule, we encourage the Agency, time 14 permitting, under the court-ordered deadline, to 15 review these studies during its deliberation of a 16 final rule. 17 We are further concerned that EPA in its 18 proposal, as in the particular matter NAAQS is 19 mixing in implementation issues in a rule setting a 20 health-based standard. 21 EPA needs to erect a strong firewall 22 between standard setting and health-based issues. 23 The Supreme Court in Whitman versus American 24 Trucking Association was very clear that EPA may 148 1 not consider the cost of implementation in setting 2 the NAAQS. In addition, for quality reasons, the 3 EPA should not let considerations of implementation 4 to bleed into standard-setting. 5 The benefits of setting strong standard 6 are part of a measure. One cannot precisely 7 identify whose life was saved, whose child had 8 fewer asthma attacks, which trees grew faster and 9 stronger because of less ozone pollution. The 10 cost, on the other hand, can be more easily 11 tallied, and once considerations of implementation 12 bleed into standard-setting, then the human 13 propensity for avoiding pain makes it likely that 14 some stakeholders will clamor for a weaker standard 15 to avoid these talks. 16 Let me close by staying that while EPA 17 should not conflate implementation and 18 standard-setting issues in this rulemaking, 19 whatever decision EPA makes on the level and form 20 of the primary and secondary NAAQS will have a 21 profound impact on the work of state and local 22 clean air agencies. EPA must recognize this, not 23 in setting the NAAQSs, but in timely future 24 rulemakings and appropriation requests by 149 1 requesting sufficient funds for state and local 2 clean air agencies to carry out work associated 3 with meeting the new NAAQS. 4 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you Mr. Hellwig. We'll 5 take down your written comments and put them in the 6 record. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. HELLWIG: Thank you for allowing me to 9 testify. 10 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Daniels. 11 STATEMENT OF ANDREA DANIELS. 12 MS. DANIELS: Thank you for allowing me to 13 speak on this issue. I'm a private citizen and I 14 just want to say a few simple comments about a 15 complex issue to me as an no-brainer that the 16 environmental protection agency should lower the 17 standard to 0.060. I am an avid bike rider, I ride 18 my bike to work every day and I notice the effects 19 of air pollution. I also have asthma and it's not 20 fun to use your inhaler when you get to work 21 because you are sucking in all of the polluted air. 22 There has to be something is addressed. This is 23 the world in which we live, and as I said, it is a 24 no-brainer, to me and to everyone who wants to 150 1 breathe clean air. 2 So thank you for my time to speak here 3 and I hope that we can reach a consensus. Thank 4 you. 5 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Dennis. We 6 will break now for lunch and we'll resume the 7 public hearing on at 2:00. 8 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was 9 recessed until 2:00 p.m., 10 this date.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24