1

1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

2 Proposed Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National

3 Ambient Air Quality Standard

4 Marriott Dallas/Fort Worth Airport North

5 Irving, Texas

6 June 17, 2003, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 A hearing was held in the above-styled

20 matter at Marriott Dallas/Fort Worth Airport North,

21 before Thomas Helms, John Silvasi and Tom Diggs, the

22 Panel, taken by Charis M. Hendrick, a Certified

23 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,

24 beginning at 8:30 a.m., and the following proceedings

25 were had:

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

2

1 INDEX

2 Opening Comments by Thomas Helms 4

3 Testimony of J.P. Suplita 14

4 Testimony of Matt Kaarlel 24

5 Testimony of John Rath 32

6 Testimony of Ramon Alvarez 35

7 Testimony of Ralph Marquez 48

8 Testimony of Herb Williams 50

9 Testimony of Kelly Haragan 57

10 Testimony of David Duncan 61

11 Testimony of Susan Rhodes 63

12 Testimony of Rita Eason 64

13 Testimony of Becky Bornhorst 68

14 Testimony of Peter Bell 73

15 Testimony of Tracey Casto 75

16 Testimony of Roger Kallenberg 76

17 Testimony of Susybelle Gosslee 81

18 Testimony of Molly Rooke 84

19 Testimony of Katy Hubener 91

20 Testimony of Dan Harrison 103

21 Testimony of Kyle Hancock 106

22 Testimony of Earl Burnam 108

23 Testimony of Diane Castillo 111

24 Testimony of Joseph Grinnell 114

25 Testimony of Jan Sanders 115

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

3

1 INDEX

2 Testimony of Bradley Adams 119

3 Testimony of Rita Beving 121

4 Testimony of Wyldon Fishman 128

5 Testimony of Rita Beving 131

6 Testimony of Esther McElfish 134

7 Testimony of Henry Harjo 140

8

9 Reporter's Certificate 145

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

4

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 MR. HELMS: Let's convene the hearing

3 now. Thank you very much for coming out and spending

4 some time with us today, hopefully to provide and/or

5 hear comments dealing with EPA's recently proposed

6 Eight-hour Ozone Implementation Rule.

7 I am joined -- I am Tom Helms with the

8 US Environmental Protection Agency. I am group

9 leader for the Ozone Policies and Strategies Group.

10 We are located in North Carolina. I am joined by

11 John Silvasi. John is the principal author of our

12 rule, along with Denise Gerth. Where is Denise?

13 There is Denise right there. I am also joined by Tom

14 Diggs, the Region 6 air expert. He's the fellow in

15 the know. So you Texas people, if you have

16 questions, that's the man to talk to right there, and

17 the Oklahoma people as well.

18 We are here to receive your comments on

19 our recently proposed implementation rule. It is a

20 proposed rule. What we are not here today -- it is

21 very important. We are not here to talk about

22 nonattainment designations. They were not -- they

23 were discussed, but the rule-making has nothing to do

24 directly with nonattainment designation. So when we

25 solicit your comments, remember we are talking about

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

5

1 the rule.

2 I want to give you a little history,

3 how we got to where we got, because many of you have

4 probably read the rule or the road map to the rule,

5 and you have said, my goodness, that is really a

6 complex rule. How in the world did these bureaucrats

7 come up with a rule such as this.

8 Well, there is a big legal history

9 behind the development of the rule. It is important,

10 if you know it, you understand why the rule is

11 complex. If you don't, let me point out

12 there -- back when EPA issued our Ozone National

13 Ambient Air Quality Standard, the health protective

14 standard, back in 19 -- back in 1997, immediately

15 there was litigation. And the gentleman back there

16 is an attorney and I asked him if he was one that had

17 sued us and he guaranteed he did not. He is a good

18 guy.

19 We had -- litigation ensued in May of

20 1999. There was a court case. The DC circuit ruled

21 against part of our rule. Then in May '99, there was

22 a follow-up court decision, in February 2001 and

23 finally March of 2002. So we at EPA were founded by

24 certain principals that the courts laid out in the

25 way we could implement our eight-hour rule.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

6

1 The rule is complex. The keys to the

2 rule are flexibility, the ability to make local

3 decisions where appropriate, continued progress

4 toward clean air. Many measures -- air pollution

5 control measures that have been put into place under

6 the previous One-hour Ozone National Ambient Air

7 Quality Standard. We hope our rule continues the

8 progress made there.

9 And the final principal

10 anti-backsliding. The rules that have been put into

11 place need to stay in place and/or a couple of

12 adjustments made. But those are the three principals

13 that John, Denise and others with the EPA developed

14 this rule based upon.

15 We propose numerous options in our

16 rule. Sometimes we say this is our preferred option.

17 Sometimes we leave it open to you to make comments to

18 us on your preferences. We hope we will get feedback

19 from you today in both arenas.

20 We held three national stakeholders

21 meetings to get input from citizens such as you. We

22 held one in Washington, D.C. We held one in Atlanta,

23 and then we held one in Phoenix. John, what was

24 that, about a year, a year or so ago?

25 MR. SILVASI: Late winter or early

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

7

1 spring.

2 MR. HELMS: Okay. We held those three

3 national meetings. The rule that we proposed was

4 signed May 14th of this year and then published in

5 the Federal Register on June the 2nd.

6 With respect to timing for our rule,

7 it's important to figure we have a designation

8 process underway right now -- nonattainment

9 designation process, which we are not talking about

10 today. We need to get our rule -- our rule is

11 proposed. You will have an opportunity to comment

12 today. The record will stay open until August 1st of

13 this year so you can write comments into us. We will

14 take those comments. We will move forward in

15 finalizing this rule. Our target date is this

16 December. So we are on a tight time frame, which

17 might suggest to you as you give us comments, we love

18 executive summaries in the front of your comments,

19 the key points you want to get across, because we

20 will have a lot of comments, and we will have a short

21 time to process them and go forward with our rule.

22 Once the rule's -- rule is finalized

23 and states interacting with EPA through a process,

24 EPA designates nonattainment areas. Plans -- the

25 clean air plans, if you will, will be submitted to

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

8

1 EPA in about 2007, but there will be a lot of interim

2 actions between now and 2007. It is too lengthy for

3 me to go through today.

4 Attainment dates, we propose will vary.

5 Attainment dates are simply the time we expect clean

6 air to occur because of these plans that the states

7 will submit and EPA will approve. Attainment dates

8 will range from 2007 up to probably 2015, to 2021,

9 depending on the severity of the air pollution

10 problem.

11 We are here again -- let me repeat

12 myself. We are here to get your comments. There

13 will be a transcript of this hearing available

14 approximately 30 days from now. We have a court

15 reporter, and her instrument is now fully charged, so

16 you are ready to roll. We have contractors

17 available -- raise your hand, Barbara -- from E.H.

18 Pechan. They are helping us put the session on

19 today. They are also here to help any of you.

20 Let's talk a little bit about ground

21 rules at a hearing. We had 17 people preregister to

22 speak. We invite any of you to speak. Anyone here

23 can speak. If you are going to speak, we ask you to

24 register outside. If you just sitting here and

25 suddenly realize, I need to speak or comment, that's

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

9

1 fine. We just like when you go back out, tell the

2 people from Pechan, we did speak. My name is

3 so-and-so. Some identifier, if you will. But we

4 encourage all of you to speak.

5 When I call your name as a speaker, we

6 ask you to come here to the podium, introduce

7 yourself again. Even though I will have called your

8 name, introduce yourself again so our court reporter

9 will know who you are and who you are affiliated with

10 and any other identifier, such as address or an

11 e-mail. If you raise critical points that we want to

12 follow up with, we will have it right in the record.

13 For that matter, for any of you out there that want

14 to follow up with someone else, we will have that in

15 the record.

16 We will stay here until all people have

17 had an opportunity to speak. We will be here till

18 5:00, and maybe Tom and John and I will be looking at

19 each other by 4:45. We will be here, so don't feel

20 rushed. Feel free to stay as long as you want. If

21 you want to think about what is said this morning and

22 then come back this afternoon, that's fine.

23 We ask you to be concise, get to the

24 point, summarize what the points -- the key points

25 during your presentation would be great. We will

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

10

1 provide 10 minutes -- up to 10 minutes' time. You

2 are not forced to take 10 minutes, obviously, but we

3 will provide 10 minutes. Denise Gerth -- raise your

4 hand again, Denise -- she will be standing right down

5 here, and at the nine-minute point, she will hold up

6 a piece of paper saying one minute left.

7 The panel, John Silvasi, Tom Diggs, Tom

8 Helms, will ask clarifying question. If you raise a

9 point and we want to follow up on it, we'll most

10 likely ask, well, what did you mean by that or how

11 would you suggest that. We are not here during the

12 hearing to necessarily go into great depth

13 explaining. We are certainly available outside of

14 this hearing, especially the regional office, to

15 interact and provide information to you.

16 Any additions, fellows?

17 MR. SILVASI: I just will point out

18 that there are folks that have asked to speak at

19 certain times, and we have tried to accommodate them.

20 There is one person who requested to speak close to

21 5:00, so as Tom said, we will be here until then.

22 MR. HELMS: Anyone out there have any

23 questions before we get started? If we are waiting

24 for speakers to speak, I have a question that maybe

25 you can answer. There is a one-hour monitoring

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

11

1 procedure in place now for clean air. There is a

2 proposed eight-hour procedure, I understand, that we

3 are talking about today. What is the big difference

4 between those two? Why is eight hours better than

5 one?

6 We believe the eight-hour standard when

7 we ultimately move from one to the eight-hour is more

8 protective of public health. And that's the

9 reason -- EPA, every five years is required to review

10 the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Each

11 standard and upgrade is based on the most recent

12 scientific information. We did that in 1997, and at

13 that time we indicated this new eight-hour standard

14 is more protective of public health. And as we go

15 through and collect more and more information, it

16 continues to confirm the fact that it is more

17 protective.

18 One of the key issues in our rule, and

19 we will be soliciting comments from you up until

20 August 1st, is how do you make the transition from

21 the old one-hour program to the new eight-hour

22 program. At what point in time does it make sense to

23 revoke the old one-hour standard and move to the

24 eight-hour.

25 Again, as I pointed out, as you move

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

12

1 from one to the other, how do you maintain progress

2 that many states have made in regard to protecting

3 public health under the one-hour plan? How do you

4 continue that progress as you move into a transition

5 to the eight-hour standard? So that is it.

6 I think we are ready then.

7 MR. SILVASI: Can I make one other

8 point here that might be of particular interest to

9 the folks here in the area? A lot of our proposal

10 deals with this issue of how to transition from the

11 one-hour standard to the eight-hour standard, how we

12 intend to implement it. And we do -- Tom mentioned

13 there are provisions in the Clean Air Act and in our

14 proposal that deal with this concept of

15 anti-backsliding.

16 The idea there is that areas that are

17 making progress and that have obligations under the

18 one-hour standard should continue those. However, we

19 do -- we know we are in this transition to the

20 eight-hour standard, and there is a tension, if you

21 have read through the proposal, on how we should

22 focus. Should we -- where is the point we should

23 kind of turn our attention more fully to the

24 eight-hour standard? And there are areas that we

25 know that will have obligations under the one-hour

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

13

1 standard. And there may be a particularly defined

2 one-hour nonattainment area. And the eight-hour

3 nonattainment area may be somewhat larger than the

4 one-hour nonattainment hour. And that one-hour area

5 may have some obligations, some planning obligations

6 to continue, so should we continue to force them to

7 do that, or should we broaden what they are trying to

8 do, continue to make progress, but not so much for

9 the one-hour standard at that point, but for the

10 eight-hour standard in the larger area.

11 And we have several -- I just want to

12 draw your attention that we have raised a couple of

13 options in our proposal. One is to continue to make

14 them do the one-hour obligation. And the second one

15 is to determine at some point that that requirement

16 no longer applies, give your attention to the

17 eight-hour standard.

18 But we are also entertaining comments

19 on a couple of alternatives that if we do turn their

20 attention to the eight-hour standard. One would be

21 to get kind of a down payment, if you will, on

22 emission reductions towards the eight-hour standard,

23 while not doing exactly what was required under the

24 one-hour standard.

25 And the second alternative that we are

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

14

1 looking for comment on is the idea of actually

2 preparing the eight-hour implementation plan much

3 earlier than they would have to do under normal

4 circumstances.

5 So this is one way we've tried to deal

6 with this tension that exists during this transition

7 time. So I hope you give some thought to that as you

8 make your comments either today or written comments

9 afterwards. Thank you.

10 MR. HELMS: I think we are ready to

11 roll then. Now, is Commissioner Marquez from Texas

12 here yet? How about Herb Williamson from the State

13 of Texas, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality?

14 All right. Then let's move to -- you are going to

15 have to bear with me here. I am a North Carolinian.

16 I talk pretty slow and I pronounce atrociously. So

17 when I murder your name, please come up to the front

18 and with style and grace and correct me and pronounce

19 it the right way.

20 J.P. Suplita.

21 MR. SUPLITA: Suplita.

22 MR. HELMS: J.P., clarify for everybody

23 your name.

24 MR. SUPLITA: My name is J.P. Suplita,

25 and I am here speaking for the Electronics Industries

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

15

1 Alliance.

2 MR. HELMS: Can all of you hear? We

3 need to get our -- time-out for just a second here

4 and get our audio squared away.

5 THE REPORTER: Mr. Suplita, will you

6 spell your last name too?

7 MR. SUPLITA: S-u-p-l-i-t-a. Is that

8 about right? Am I hurting anybody's ears? Okay. I

9 am not used to speaking at a podium. Usually just

10 yell.

11 Good morning. Electronics Industries

12 Alliance or EIA appreciate this opportunity to give

13 oral comments on the eight-hour ozone implementation

14 for the NAAQS. We will be brief and make a couple of

15 points here. First -- the first rules -- two options

16 for NAAQS implementation do not accord with the

17 Whitman and American Trucking Association decision

18 and do not comply with the Clean Air Act and do not

19 provide sufficient flexibility for the states.

20 Second, the EPA should not require

21 Texas to submit a revised one-hour attainment

22 demonstration, the state implementation plan or SIP

23 to the Dallas/Fort Worth or D/FW nonattainment areas

24 in light of EPA's proposed revocation of the one-hour

25 standard.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

16

1 First, I will address the EPA's

2 proposed implementation options. Of course, the EIA

3 agrees the EPA must implement the eight-hour NAAQS in

4 accordance with the Whitman decision. That said,

5 EPA's Option 1, implementation exclusively under

6 Subpart 2, does not accord either the Court's

7 decision on the Clean Air Act -- does not accord with

8 either the court's decision or the Clean Air Act.

9 Indeed, if the Supreme Court had intended to mandate

10 exclusive implementation of the eight-hour NAAQS

11 under the Subpart 2, the Court would have simply

12 affirmed the decision made by the appeals court in

13 the American Trucking Association case. This said --

14 which said that the EPA can enforce a revised primary

15 ozone act only in conformity with Subpart 2.

16 Instead, the Supreme Court rejected the Court's

17 appeal approach. In doing so, the Court stated, we

18 cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that Subpart 2

19 clearly controls the implementation of the revised

20 ozone NAAQS because we find the statute somewhat

21 ambiguous.

22 The Court later pointed out various

23 inconsistencies between Subpart 2 and the eight-hour

24 NAAQS. The Court noted that these gaps in Subpart

25 2's scheme prevent us from concluding that Congress

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

17

1 clearly intended Subpart 2 to be an exclusive,

2 permanent means of enforcing the revised standard in

3 nonattainment areas.

4 In light of the Court's decision, we

5 cannot understand why EPA is proposing the very

6 option by -- rejected by the Court. It is clearly

7 inconsistent with both the structure of Subpart 2 of

8 the Clean Air Act and the decisions of the US Supreme

9 Court.

10 EPA's Option 2 implementation for some

11 areas under Subpart 1 and others under Subpart 2

12 better reflects the Court's decision of the Supreme

13 Court in the Whitman case, but nonetheless suffers

14 from the same legal and policy problems as Option 1

15 to the extent that Option 2 would require some areas

16 to implement the eight-hour NAAQS exclusively under

17 Subpart 2.

18 In particular, why Option 2

19 acknowledges the statutory ambiguity noted by the

20 Supreme Court and attempts to address that ambiguity

21 by dividing the areas between Subparts 1 and 2,

22 Option 2 still would require EPA to revise design

23 values in Table 1 and Subpart 2 to accommodate some

24 areas that have not met the one-hour NAAQS. Those

25 design values were embedded by Congress into the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

18

1 statutory text and framework and may not, under basic

2 legal principles, simply be abandoned, rewritten,

3 suspended or superseded through regulation.

4 In addition, Option 2 does not make

5 good policy sense. It will subject areas with

6 similar air quality to different implementation

7 approaches. For example, under Option 2 based on

8 EPA's data for '99 to 2001, Wake County and Davies

9 County in North Carolina, your home state, would have

10 both eight-hour design values of .95 and .96

11 respectfully, but both would be classified under

12 Subpart 1 because of your current one-hour NAAQS

13 status, while in Washington, D.C. and Boston,

14 Massachusetts, both would have an eight-hour design

15 value of .85, which would be classified under

16 Subpart 2. We believe that such an approach is, by

17 definition, arbitrary and capricious.

18 The EIA urges EPA to take a third

19 approach; implement the standard under Subpart 1 and

20 take steps to preserve the textually applicable

21 provisions under Subpart 2. Such an approach would

22 accord with the decision of the Supreme Court. The

23 Court did not require EPA to implement the eight-hour

24 NAAQS in part under the Subpart 2, as suggested by

25 the EPA proposed rule. Instead, the Court noted that

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

19

1 the EPA could not ignore any Subpart 2 provisions

2 that may be relevant to an eight-hour NAAQS

3 limitation.

4 The Court stated as follows: To use a

5 few apparent gaps in Subpart 2 to render its

6 textually explicit applicability to nonattainment

7 areas under the new standard utterly inoperative is

8 to go over the edge of reasonable interpretation.

9 The EPA may not construe the statute in a way that

10 completely nullifies textually applicable provisions

11 meant to limit its discretion.

12 The statement by the Court clearly

13 recognizes that the EPA cannot ignore textually

14 applicable provisions under Subpart 2. However, the

15 Court does not specify what these textually

16 applicable provisions are. In fact, the Court states

17 that the statute is, in our opinion, ambiguous

18 concerning the matter in which one -- Subpart 1 and

19 Subpart 2 interact with regards to the ozone

20 standard.

21 We would defer to EPA's reasonable

22 resolution of that ambiguity. The Electronics

23 Alliance encourages EPA to exercise that discretion

24 and adopt an option that provides the maximum degree

25 of flexibility to the states to implement the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

20

1 eight-hour NAAQS.

2 The EIA strongly believes that EPA

3 appears to recognize in the proposed rule that

4 implementation of the eight-hour NAAQS under

5 Subpart 1 provides the most flexibility to the

6 states.

7 In the EIA's view, the most reasonable

8 resolution of the ambiguity is to implement the

9 eight-hour NAAQS under Subpart 1 and retain those

10 textually applicable provisions under Subpart 2.

11 Such a reasonable resolution should

12 give -- should not involve retaining the

13 classification system within Subpart 2 because the

14 system does not, in its plain statutory language of

15 design values and attendant classification time

16 frames established for the one-hour NAAQS standard,

17 apply to the eight-hour NAAQS standard. Instead, the

18 textually applicable provisions of Subpart 2 include

19 provisions that, by plain statutory language, are not

20 limited to the one-hour NAAQS, and hence, also can be

21 applied to the eight-hour NAAQS.

22 Such a provision would include, for

23 example, ozone transport under Section 184 and, as

24 another example, measures that have already been

25 implemented under Subpart 2 in certain one-hour NAAQS

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

21

1 nonattainment areas which are related under EPA's

2 traditional anti-backsliding approach. This is the

3 most reasonable resolution to avoid the issues with

4 Options 1 and 2.

5 The Electronics Industries Alliance

6 asks the EPA to reconsider its previous decision not

7 to pursue this approach on the theory that it is

8 improper sequential implementation. Contrary to the

9 EPA's claim, Section 107 of the Clean Air Act does

10 not prevent EPA from implementing the one-hour NAAQS

11 and the eight-hour NAAQS sequentially for the few

12 nonattainment areas for which it applies.

13 Moreover, any past nonadherence by EPA

14 with Section 107 is just that, past nonadherence, and

15 should not prevent EPA from exercising the

16 appropriate judgment and discretion regarding 107 in

17 the future.

18 Although sequential implementation

19 represents one way to implement the eight-hour NAAQS,

20 sequential implementation is not the only way. If,

21 as the proposed rule contemplates, EPA were to revoke

22 the one-hour NAAQS, then no need would exist for a

23 sequential implementation approach and no issue would

24 arise with Section 107 designations and set time

25 lines.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

22

1 Thus, EPA's proposal to revoke the

2 one-hour NAAQS within the one-year designation of the

3 eight-hour implementation areas is consistent with

4 the third implementation option. EPA's proposal to

5 revoke the one-hour NAAQS also accords with Whitman,

6 which clearly rejected any simultaneous

7 implementation approach as the additional advantages

8 of simplifying implementation and avoiding waste of

9 state resources.

10 Next, I want to address the need for

11 Texas to submit -- I want to address the need for

12 Texas to submit a revised one-hour nonattainment

13 demonstration set for the D/FW area. EPA has

14 proposed to approve the Texas attainment

15 demonstration for the SIP for D/FW and extension of

16 the attainment deadline under the one-hour standard

17 to November 2007 under the agency's policy on ozone

18 transport because of the -- under the agency's policy

19 of ozone transport.

20 Because of the recent Court decisions,

21 EPA may be unable to finalize this proposal and the

22 eight-hour standard not being promulgated might have

23 directed Texas to submit a revised one-hour

24 attainment demonstration. Such a revised attainment

25 demonstration would likely have been due in late 2004

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

23

1 or early 2005.

2 Under its proposed eight-hour

3 implementation rule, EPA would revoke the one-hour

4 standard effective one year following the designation

5 of the eight-hour standard.

6 MR. HELMS: Could I ask you to do a

7 quick summary? Your time has expired. I'm sorry.

8 MR. SUPLITA: That's alright.

9 Basically, under that proposal we would like the EPA

10 to just give us the eight-hour standard quickly, and

11 then we could include -- as a state, use all of our

12 resources to that end.

13 MR. SILVASI: Do you have a copy of

14 your --

15 MR. SUPLITA: Yes, I do.

16 MR. SILVASI: Okay. Great.

17 MR. HELMS: Before you leave, I would

18 like to ask -- we'd like to ask you a couple of

19 questions. First, any of you have any questions?

20 MR. DIGGS: Not at this point.

21 MR. HELMS: I have one simple question.

22 Perhaps it's not simple. The sequential

23 implementation, could you, maybe in three sentences,

24 explain how that works?

25 MR. SUPLITA: The sequential

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

24

1 implementation would be like for areas that are under

2 the one-hour NAAQS where we are trying to transition

3 to the eight-hour NAAQS. If the EPA revokes the

4 one-hour standard and then puts all of its marbles in

5 the eight-hour basket, and then really we can use

6 those credits which you were referring to earlier,

7 saying, hey, our progress this far has got us here,

8 and then take that and put that in the bank and then

9 carry on with the eight-hour standard.

10 So that's basically the point I was

11 trying to make with the eight-hour shift.

12 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Is it Matt

13 Kaarlela?

14 MR. KAARLELA: Kaarlela.

15 MR. HELMS: I told you I would butcher

16 your name. Matt, come forward. I understand you

17 have to leave. Please do observe our timekeeper

18 there in front.

19 MR. KAARLELA: This will be quick. My

20 name is Matt Kaarlela, K-a-a-r-l-e-l-a, and I

21 represent printers throughout the states of -- a

22 little feedback going on here. I represent printers

23 throughout the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and

24 Missouri. Although we don't have specific and

25 detailed comments, as our previous association read,

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

25

1 we would like to speak to the group and to EPA to let

2 you know that, as a whole, the printers in the states

3 of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri have

4 expressed a lot of interest because most of the

5 printers we represent are small businesses.

6 And as small business owners, some

7 points that they wanted me to bring up to y'all to

8 consider in this process as we try to address the

9 complicated issue of balancing business and

10 maintaining business in the state in these hard

11 economic times with the environment, which printers

12 are very concerned about, is that we've invested a

13 lot of time, energy and money to improve air quality

14 as a group in the past.

15 Some of the steps printers have already

16 taken to reduce the impact that their businesses have

17 on the environment would include the reduction, and

18 in many cases, elimination of alcohol in the presses,

19 modifying the solvent content of the chemicals used

20 to put ink on paper that we all use every day and

21 major improvements in the control technologies that

22 are used in our larger companies.

23 So as a whole, the printing industry

24 has invested a lot of time and money to clean up our

25 air. We would like to request from EPA that whether

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

26

1 the one-hour standard, the eight-hour standard or a

2 combination of the two standards is applied, that you

3 allow businesses like printers to take credit for the

4 improvements that have already taken place.

5 And one concern that we have is that in

6 the shuffle between the one-hour attainment standard

7 and the eight-hour, credit for past efforts is going

8 to be lost. And so as an industry group, we would

9 respectfully request that you would consider those

10 past credits in the move forward, whether we adopt a

11 one-hour or an eight-hour standard in the transition

12 between the two.

13 We would also like to request that the

14 state's own efforts using some of the college

15 knowledge pool, including the UT Austin study of

16 printers, be applied and studied by EPA and the

17 specific requirements that are made for printers here

18 in the state.

19 And then finally, I would like to say

20 that as a whole, the group of printers wants to work

21 towards cleaner air as well as a lot of other

22 businesses here in the State of Texas, but we'd like

23 the opportunity to work with EPA and other governing

24 bodies before the final rules are promulgated.

25 So we appreciate the chance to speak

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

27

1 here, but we'd like this to just be a start, and, as

2 these options are considered, that you work with

3 industry groups like printers so that we can give you

4 valuable feedback and let you know what we think we

5 can do, because we are willing to help, and we want

6 to see the air in Texas improve. Thank you.

7 MR. HELMS: Let me ask you a couple of

8 questions.

9 MR. KAARLELA: Sure.

10 MR. HELMS: How would you suggest the

11 EPA and the State of Texas, Oklahoma and others,

12 specifically work with you? Do you have thoughts or

13 ideas along that line?

14 MR. KAARLELA: In the State of

15 Missouri, I am working with a group, including the

16 state regulators, which then transmit to EPA. It's a

17 focus group that basically gives options of how they

18 get to those proposals. So I would suggest that a

19 group like that could take place here in Texas as

20 well.

21 MR. HELMS: Could you submit some of

22 that for the record?

23 MR. KAARLELA: I will have written

24 comments also that I'll be sending in before August

25 1st.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

28

1 MR. HELMS: You mentioned a University

2 of Texas at Austin study on printers?

3 MR. KAARLELA: That is correct.

4 MR. HELMS: Could you provide the

5 executive summary of that in your comments?

6 MR. KAARLELA: I will do that as well.

7 MR. HELM: Thank you.

8 MR. SILVASI: I have a question too,

9 Matt. When you said you would like credit for past

10 improvements in the DOC technologies that you have

11 applied in the printer industry, what exactly do you

12 mean by credit? Could you just kind of -- what you

13 see as meaning by credit?

14 MR. KAARLELA: What I mean is, when we

15 are looking at what industries are going to have to

16 make specific reductions to get the state -- to reach

17 the state -- to help achieve that SIP, then you

18 realize that our industry has already invested a lot

19 of money to get significant reductions, the dollar

20 cost. To get per ton reduction for us would be much

21 higher than maybe some other industries that haven't

22 made the same improvements.

23 We've already invested, for our larger

24 companies, millions of dollars in control

25 technologies that get 95 percent of the DOCs out of

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

29

1 the airstream before it leaves the shop. That's what

2 I was relating to.

3 MR. SILVASI: Sounds like -- the Clean

4 Air Act does require certain control technologies.

5 They're by and large referred to as reasonably

6 available controlled technologies.

7 MR. KAARLELA: Right.

8 MR. SILVASI: It sounds as if, from

9 what you are saying, you may have already met that

10 Clean Air Act requirement for nonattainment areas.

11 MR. KAARLELA: Yeah. And what I am

12 referring to is the difference between a RACT and a

13 BACT, if you know what I am talking about on the

14 specific terms. The cost impact on printers is huge.

15 So we believe that because we've already met the RACT

16 requirements, we don't want to see these -- to get to

17 these new reduction efforts that enforce a BACT on

18 us, which the cost, when we have already invested

19 costs in new control technologies, to get that last

20 two percent would be very painful on business owners

21 that are struggling to survive right now.

22 MR. SILVASI: I guess we should just

23 kind of make a point here that the Clean Air Act

24 basically leaves a lot of discretion to the state air

25 pollution control agencies to actually come up with a

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

30

1 plan that demonstrates attainment of the air quality

2 standard. I don't think we, as a rule, unless we are

3 forced to under a federal implementation plan, would

4 require specific control technologies that are kind

5 of beyond what the minimum of the Clean Air Act is.

6 We do -- the Clean Air Act does require

7 attainment demonstration, and it's kind of up to the

8 state to figure out what is the proper controls for

9 that particular area. So it's not -- I don't think

10 it was -- I don't think we proposed to do, for

11 instance, application of BACT, best available control

12 technology, in our proposal anyway.

13 MR. KAARLELA: Okay. Appreciate that.

14 MR. DIGGS: Just to be aware, down in

15 Region 6 and across the country there's a number of

16 stakeholder processes that are taking place on the

17 early action compact approach of Earl Simpson, so if

18 the industry group can work with Region 6 in the

19 states in this early action impact process, the

20 stakeholders are meeting now on different flexible,

21 reasonable control strategies to take place. And by

22 March of 2004, early stakeholder recommendation to

23 the state would be coming forth.

24 So we have these processes in place and

25 as -- from an industry group, y'all may be assisting

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

31

1 now in this early action impact approach. Certainly,

2 that is one approach to take place almost in the

3 immediate term. And as different groups are

4 involved, we certainly welcome those stakeholders'

5 processes and to give feedback as to what are the

6 most reasonable approaches.

7 MR. KAARLELA: And we have volunteered

8 for those in Austin and St. Louis. So we are

9 involved in some.

10 MR. DIGGS: Thank you.

11 MR. HELMS: One last question. If it's

12 not already included in this Texas report that you

13 are going to submit to us, could you provide us

14 information with examples of plants and control level

15 processes and control levels where you have put on

16 carbon sorbers (phonetic) and reformulated or that --

17 just for the record so we can, in fact, document the

18 levels of control?

19 MR. KAARLELA: It is in that report.

20 We give specific details in a number of cases in the

21 amount of reductions.

22 MR. HELMS: Perfect. Thank you very

23 much.

24 Our next speaker, Becky Bornhorst.

25 Becky Bornhorst, raise your hand. Okay. Let's move

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

32

1 on then. John Rath. John, did I get your name

2 right?

3 MR. RATH: Sure did.

4 MR. HELMS: Great.

5 MR. RATH: My name is John Rath, and I

6 am a citizen. R-a-t-h. I live at 2024 Parkside

7 Drive, just down the road, in Grapevine. Thanks for

8 the chance to come and talk to you. I am not a

9 scientist, but I try to stay up on rules and what's

10 going on. I did work for a large corporation, so I

11 know how wheels of corporate America turn and how

12 sometimes strong suggestions from government entities

13 spur things along. I also know that corporate

14 entities can use their own initiative to reduce

15 pollution and do it very profitably.

16 Today I would like to talk to you about

17 just me being a citizen representing the people in my

18 neighborhood who have kids and who are really, really

19 concerned about the red and the purple ozone that

20 happens in our area.

21 It's affecting our life-styles. Our

22 kids can't go out to play during the day. I am sure

23 you're aware of all the health hazards that have been

24 documented pretty much. I am trying to do my best by

25 cycling to and from work. It's a lot of fun. It's a

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

33

1 long distance, and actually, I get a better parking

2 spot that way. But as far as the rules of one-hour

3 versus eight-hour and when they happen, I have a

4 coffee cup at home. It's from the North Texas

5 Council of Governments given me in the early '90s.

6 And it says, do your share for cleaner air. At that

7 time there was recognition, strong recognition that

8 grew out of attainment that we needed to do

9 something. And this is the Council of Governments

10 that was initiating this.

11 Their reasoning was they were concerned

12 about EPA sanctions which would limit the business

13 growth in this area. That was the early 1990s. And

14 with it came a slide show that we, as volunteers,

15 would go out and give to anybody that would listen,

16 Kiwanis Clubs, Lion's Clubs, social groups,

17 et cetera. That's in the early '90s. As far as I,

18 as a citizen, can see, our air has not gotten any

19 better. And it is getting worse.

20 They were concerned in Bush

21 administration 1 that we would have sanctions if we

22 didn't comply. And here it is 10 years later, and we

23 still aren't there. And I am very concerned that if

24 we delay with some tactical things, the cleaning up

25 of our air, it's going to continue to hurt business

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

34

1 in this area, as we've already lost some major

2 manufacturing opportunities in this area. It's not

3 going to help the health of our kids and our citizens

4 and bike riders.

5 So I am definitely in favor of moving

6 the standards to an eight-hour, and doing it as

7 quickly and as efficiently as possible, fully

8 recognizing it's going to impact a lot of people.

9 Gentlemen, right now it is impacting a lot of people,

10 and it's more than just business.

11 Thank you very much. I appreciate the

12 chance as a citizen to come and talk to you.

13 MR. HELMS: Thank you, John. Hold on.

14 Questions? Okay, John. Thank you very much. Thanks

15 for taking time to come here today.

16 MR. RATH: You are welcome.

17 MR. HELMS: Our next speaker -- and you

18 are going to -- Dorrie Simmons? She's replacing Sue

19 Pope who signed up. Did I pronounce the name right?

20 Dorrie Simmons? As they say back home, moving right

21 along.

22 Rita Eason. If we miss a speaker, we

23 are here till 5:00. All of these people will have a

24 chance to testify.

25 Did Herb Williams from the State of

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

35

1 Texas arrive yet? How about Ramon Alvarez? He asked

2 to speak between 11:00 and 12:00. You didn't --

3 okay. You didn't know we were going to be so

4 expeditious.

5 MR. ALVAREZ: Actually, you put me

6 first on the list, and I wasn't sure I was going to

7 make it. That's why I asked for the second time.

8 MR. HELMS: I commend you for being

9 early.

10 MR. ALVAREZ: Good morning. My name is

11 Ramon Alvarez, and I am an atmospheric scientist in

12 the Austin, Texas Office of Environmental Defense.

13 Environmental Defense greatly appreciates the

14 opportunity to comment on EPA's June 2nd proposal to

15 implement the eight-hour Ozone National Ambient Air

16 Quality Standard. I am testifying today on behalf of

17 approximately 300,000 members of our nonprofit,

18 nonpartisan and nongovernmental environmental

19 organization.

20 In 1997, EPA revised the health-based

21 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone to

22 improve protection of children and other vulnerable

23 populations against decreasing lung function,

24 respiratory ailment and hospital admissions and

25 emergency room visits for respiratory causes,

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

36

1 inflammation of the lungs and possible long-term lung

2 damage.

3 It is now six years later, and we have

4 lost precious time in realizing these critical public

5 health protections because there has been little

6 progress in implementing the standard. This delay,

7 together with the serious public health risks posed

8 by ground level ozone, means that is imperative that

9 EPA both expeditiously complete action on this

10 proposal and adopt a rigorous protective

11 implementation program that will, in fact, safeguard

12 the health of our most vulnerable populations.

13 The focus of my comments today will be

14 on EPA's proposal to revoke the one-hour ozone

15 standard. In my written comments, I have submitted

16 some other thoughts about excluding numerous areas

17 from the requirements, implement specific improvement

18 and cost-effective ozone abatement measures under

19 Subpart 2, as well as transportation conformity.

20 But today I will focus on the transition from the

21 one-hour to the eight-hour.

22 The EPA proposes to summarily revoke

23 the old one-hour standard and its associated

24 designations and classifications one year after the

25 effective date of the designations for the eight-hour

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

37

1 standard. This proposal will undermine ongoing state

2 planning processes in major metropolitan areas,

3 including three in Texas, these planning processes

4 that would have lowered harmful ozone concentrations

5 in the very short term.

6 We also think it is unlawful. The

7 Clean Air Act is clear that EPA may only alter

8 nonattainment designations pursuant to the

9 requirements of Section 107(d)(3)(E). These

10 statutory safeguards include actually achieving the

11 one-hour standard and adopting a long-term

12 maintenance plan to ensure ongoing public health

13 protection.

14 I am glad that you are here in Dallas

15 today because to my knowledge, Texas is unique by

16 having three ozone nonattainment areas without fully

17 developed attainment plans that have been approved by

18 EPA. These areas include Houston, Galveston,

19 Dallas/Fort Worth and Beaumont/Port Arthur. How EPA

20 handles the transition from the one-hour standard is

21 of particular importance to the roughly 10,000,000

22 Texans that live in these three nonattainment areas.

23 In the interest of protecting public

24 health from the harmful effects of ozone, the

25 one-hour standard should be retained for current

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

38

1 one-hour nonattainment areas. To illustrate the

2 negative implications of repealing the one-hour

3 standard, I would like to walk you through two real

4 life examples from right here in Texas.

5 First example or case study is in

6 Houston. After more than 25 years of missed

7 performance and administrative deadlines, Houston is

8 just one year away from completing an attainment plan

9 for the one-hour ozone standard. EPA's proposal to

10 revoke the one-hour standard will severely jeopardize

11 this significant momentum.

12 Just thinking about the history, the

13 first ozone attainment deadline for Houston was 1977.

14 It was then extended to 1987, and finally to the

15 current deadline of 2007.

16 Key planning milestones have also been

17 missed in Houston. The most important of these was

18 the requirement to submit an attainment plan before

19 November of 1994. EPA extended this deadline until

20 December of 2000, but at that time Texas submitted a

21 plan that, by its own admission, did not contain

22 enough adopted emission reduction measures to meet

23 the ozone standard.

24 In fact, EPA further allowed Texas to

25 further defer the adoption of 56 tons per day of

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

39

1 measures until May of 2004. That is the plan that's

2 currently being worked on and will be completed in a

3 year. A more detailed chronology is attached to

4 these comments.

5 Now, Patrick Henry said, I know of no

6 way of judging the future but by the past. Judging

7 from Houston's experience, delays have been pervasive

8 in the implementation of the Clean Air Act, and there

9 is no reason to believe that the eight-hour standard

10 should be any different.

11 The good news is that after all the

12 delays, Houston is finally poised to complete its

13 attainment plan by May of 2004. This will include

14 the adoption and implementation of additional clean

15 air measures in the very near term, measures that

16 will afford immediate public health benefits.

17 EPA's proposal to revoke the one-hour

18 standard will thwart the current momentum in Houston.

19 EPA should not revise its existing regulation

20 governing the revocation of the one-hour standard.

21 Instead, EPA should ensure that the nascent planning

22 efforts to achieve the eight-hour standard occur

23 simultaneously with the more mature efforts to

24 complete adoption and implementation of ozone

25 abatement measures for the one-hour standard.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

40

1 As a postscript to this story, I would

2 add that this is not just a theoretical argument. It

3 is already happening here in the Dallas/Fort Worth

4 area. Local officials here are exploring whether

5 it's possible to skip the one-hour deadline of 2005

6 and go directly to an eight-hour deadline of 2010.

7 I have attached to my comments some

8 materials, a letter from the director of the North

9 Central Texas COG talking about this issue, and then

10 an article admonished editorial from last week's

11 Dallas Morning News that talked about this.

12 The second case study I wanted to bring

13 up was Dallas/Fort Worth. This story illustrates the

14 power of two Clean Air Act hammers, which EPA's

15 proposal evidently eliminates, reclassification for

16 failing to attain the standard, or bump up, and the

17 threat of sanctions. Here in Dallas/Fort Worth the

18 threat of sanctions mobilized the community to

19 develop a SIP in 2000.

20 Giving you the historical perspective,

21 in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Dallas was

22 classified as a modern nonattainment area with a 1996

23 attainment date. The region failed to attain, and

24 EPA bumped it to serious in March of 1998. In March

25 of 1999, Texas -- the State of Texas -- intentionally

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

41

1 submitted a clean air plan that, by its own

2 admission, was inadequate and triggered the start of

3 a sanctions clock.

4 The stakes became so high that top

5 local political leaders made air quality the single

6 most important issue facing the region. Local

7 leaders spearheaded the development and submission of

8 an attainment SIP by April of 2000.

9 Now, even though SIP will not

10 ultimately be approved by EPA because of reliance on

11 the attainment date extension policy, the 2000 SIP

12 represented a major step forward in a very short

13 amount of time, and it was precisely because of the

14 threat of sanctions that loomed over nonattainment

15 area stakeholders and the State of Texas.

16 Without these provisions, there will be

17 no disincentive for failing to attain the one-hour

18 standard. Accordingly, EPA should not revoke

19 one-hour attainment deadlines and SIP planning

20 requirements.

21 Finally, there was mention earlier

22 today about the protectiveness of the one-hour versus

23 the eight-hour standard. And we agree that overall

24 across the vast majority of areas of the country, the

25 eight-hour standard will be more protective than the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

42

1 one-hour standard. But that may not be the case

2 everywhere. In particular, EPA's own analysis shows

3 that the one-hour standard is more protective of

4 children's health in certain urban areas, including

5 Houston and Los Angeles, where there are relatively

6 very high, short duration ozone peaks. In these

7 areas, it is more likely that more children, the very

8 population that we are trying to protect, will suffer

9 adverse health effects under the new eight-hour

10 standard than the one-hour standard.

11 I've provided an attachment that lists

12 all of the data from EPA's documents that summarize

13 the health protectiveness of both standards, showing

14 that in Houston the eight-hour is better.

15 In sum, we respectfully urge EPA to

16 retain the one-hour ozone standard until it is, in

17 fact, achieved, to leave in place the important

18 public health protections provided by the

19 Transportation Conformity Program and to ensure that

20 we do not repeat the mistakes of the past by

21 excluding vast numbers of eight-hour ozone

22 nonattainment areas from the statutory requirement to

23 implement specific proven, cost-effective ozone

24 abatement measures.

25 In closing, I would just like to

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

43

1 mention that Environmental Defense will be submitting

2 written comments prior to August 1st. And thank you

3 again for your time.

4 MR. HELMS: Questions? In your

5 submittal, will you provide us or reference the

6 health information, the one versus eight-hour? And I

7 will commit to you we will have Dr. McKee, our health

8 expert, who will be at the San Francisco hearing, but

9 is not here, I will have him take a look at that. If

10 you have representatives at the San Francisco hearing

11 this Thursday, you might want to raise that again.

12 MR. ALVAREZ: Okay. There is in the

13 attachment a reference to the specific reports that

14 data came from. And we would love to talk more about

15 it.

16 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much.

17 MR. SILVASI: Could I ask a question?

18 Your comment about not -- about the fact that

19 momentum would be lost, do you see that as a problem

20 with the law itself or just the fact of life that

21 people are -- if we take the approach we are taking

22 in our proposal that -- kind of the system -- will

23 simply look towards the eight-hour standard and kind

24 of forget about the one-hour standard? Is it more of

25 a legal problem that you are identifying in our

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

44

1 proposal, or is it kind of a human nature type of a

2 problem, if you will?

3 MR. ALVAREZ: It's probably both. My

4 concern is that we preserve the -- sort of the

5 pressure, the legal pressure, regulatory pressures

6 that these efforts continue. Right now, the Texas

7 Commission of Environmental Quality is working to

8 develop what they call mid-course corrections for the

9 Dallas/Fort Worth and the Houston/Galveston areas.

10 We worry that if this proposal goes as proposed, that

11 these areas could just sort of stop that process, not

12 submit any kind of a plan, and that there might be no

13 consequences for doing that.

14 That would be a serious blow to public

15 health because in both of these cases, I can almost

16 guarantee to you that there will be additional

17 reductions implemented. And these reductions will be

18 identified and adopted within the next year.

19 You know, it's kind of like a bird in

20 the hand and two in the bush. We know that's going

21 to happen, and that's going to be a good thing for

22 public health. Eight-hour standard, eventually, when

23 it gets implemented, will be a good thing. But how

24 long is it going to take us to get there? The

25 history of delays of the Clean Air Act say it might

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

45

1 be another five or 10 years before we get those plans

2 in place.

3 Let's keep going with the momentum we

4 have got right now while we get going on the

5 eight-hour standard and get those maximum public

6 health benefits.

7 MR. SILVASI: Okay. Thank you.

8 MR. DIGGS: For the new standard, if

9 the policy allowed for early eight-hour plans to

10 commence at the same time frame as the one-hour

11 standard would call for, early plans and measures

12 would be put in place due to those early plans, is

13 that something you would see as a positive approach

14 taking place, that not coming forward with two

15 different plans for the one-hour standard and

16 eight-hour standard, but if a faster time frame to

17 meet the eight-hour standard would take place with an

18 early plan in about the same time as a mid-course

19 view for the one-hour standard would take place, can

20 you give your observation on the early eight-hour

21 planning and the proposal that is part of what is out

22 for comment now?

23 MR. ALVAREZ: Yeah. I think that that

24 proposal is attractive, and we would have to look at

25 kind of the area, specific kind of details to see

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

46

1 whether it makes sense for specific areas or not.

2 For an area that might not develop a plan until 2007,

3 you know, getting an earlier plan under the

4 eight-hour standard would be good. But, you know, in

5 our opinion, the Dallas/Fort Worth area, for example,

6 is under an obligation to do a plan revision in May

7 of 2004, so, you know, if somehow that gets delayed,

8 and it's called an early eight-hour plan and measures

9 that would have been otherwise been adopted get

10 delayed, that's not really a step forward; that's a

11 step backward.

12 So it just depends on the specific

13 area. And as I mentioned in Texas, because we have

14 these three nonattainment areas that still haven't

15 finished the job of even adopting the one-hour

16 attainment plans, you know, we are not there yet.

17 Areas that have those plans in place, that might make

18 sense. But in Texas, I don't think it's going to be

19 a good step.

20 MR. DIGGS: Thank you.

21 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. We've

22 had a number of people arrive since the initial

23 opening of the hearing, so I want to repeat for you

24 three or four items that I pointed out earlier.

25 Again, we invite anyone here to come

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

47

1 forward and make a presentation. We want to make

2 sure that you register in the back or after you come

3 up and make your presentation, make sure you are

4 registered there.

5 We ask you to come forward to the

6 speaker's podium. We will provide you up to 10

7 minutes' time for presentation. Denise Gerth --

8 raise your hand again -- will give you the

9 nine-minute signal.

10 Please come forward and identify

11 yourself, name, who you represent and some other

12 identifier, such as an address or an e-mail or

13 whatever. Again, we are open to everyone.

14 Let's move along now. We have -- we

15 will go back and start off the top of the list. We

16 have Commissioner Ralph Marquez from the State of

17 Texas. And I understand, Ralph, that you are

18 representing Texas and ECOS; is that correct?

19 MR. MARQUEZ: Just ECOS.

20 MR. HELMS: ECOS. And then we have

21 Herb Williams. I think I saw Herb come in. Herb,

22 you can get ready. You will follow -- and Herb is

23 representing Texas.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

25 MR. HELMS: Ralph, it's yours.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

48

1 MR. MARQUEZ: Good morning. Welcome to

2 Texas. For the record, my name is Ralph Marquez, and

3 I am here as a chairman of the Air Committee of the

4 Environmental Counsel of States, ECOS. And on behalf

5 of ECOS, I appreciate the opportunity to provide very

6 brief comments on the proposed implementation rule.

7 ECOS is the national nonprofit,

8 nonpartisan association of state and territorial

9 environmental commissioners. We are supportive of

10 the direction the EPA is taking with this proposal

11 and the recognition that states and locals need

12 flexibility when addressing their unique air quality

13 issues. One size does not fit all areas. Even

14 within my own state, the approach we take of the

15 ozone in Dallas would likely be quite different from

16 the one we take in Houston or in more rural areas.

17 In these difficult economic times, we

18 need to be smart in our approach to environmental

19 issues and avoid planning just for the sake of

20 planning. Mandatory controls should only be imposed

21 in situations where the measures are clearly needed

22 to make progress or to meet a new standard. States

23 need the flexibility to make common sense decisions

24 that result in the greatest benefit in a reasonable

25 amount of time with minimal process and for the least

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

49

1 amount of cost.

2 We also appreciate the acknowledgement

3 in the proposal that EPA put out that EPA does have a

4 role to play. And I quote, for the states to be

5 successful in developing local plans, showing

6 obtaining of standards, EPA must do its part to

7 control the sources that are more effectively and

8 efficiently controlled at the national level and to

9 ensure that interstate transport is addressed through

10 SIPs or other means.

11 We are very pleased to see the new

12 federal rules for off-road diesel engines and believe

13 they will greatly assist state and local governments

14 in developing attainment plans for the eight-hour

15 standard. However, there are other sources that also

16 need to be addressed. And specifically the

17 multi-pollutant strategy to reduce power plant

18 emissions is needed.

19 ECOS has already gone on the record

20 encouraging Congress to pass a bill to review

21 transport of air pollutants through a multi-pollutant

22 strategy and to assure that the transport of these

23 pollutants is adequately addressed will demonstrate

24 attainment of the standard large regions of the

25 nation. We look forward to working with EPA in the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

50

1 event that this legislation is passed so it can be

2 integrated or incorporated into the implementation

3 process.

4 We are committed to working with EPA to

5 ensure it's smooth from the one-hour standard to the

6 eight-hour standard. We believe the process should

7 make efficient use of scarce resources, preserve our

8 progress toward achievement of the federal standard

9 and result in expeditious attainment of the more

10 stringent standard while minimizing costs.

11 On behalf of ECOS, I thank you again

12 for the opportunity to present these comments.

13 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Questions?

14 Thank you, Commissioner.

15 Now we will move on Herb Williams,

16 representing the Texas Commission on Environment

17 Quality. Herb?

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Tom, John

19 and Tom. How are y'all? Good to see you. Good

20 morning, everyone else. As Mr. Helms mentioned, I am

21 Herb Williams with the Texas Environmental -- Texas

22 Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ, and we

23 want to welcome the EPA today and actually express

24 our appreciation for the EPA considering the central

25 part of the nation in holding this public hearing

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

51

1 here, otherwise we would have had to travel to one of

2 the coasts. And we all know that the central part of

3 the nation is better than some of those places.

4 That's not the official -- unofficial --

5 MR. HELMS: I can't mention that when I

6 go to San Francisco Thursday.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: No, you can't. Texas

8 strongly supports the flexible planning process that

9 would move efficiently to implementation of the

10 eight-hour standard while continuing to meet our

11 obligations under the one-hour standard. Therefore,

12 we encourage EPA to adopt a common sense approach

13 that would be better -- would be a better use of

14 states' limited resources and would enable the TCEQ

15 to better protect public health and air quality by

16 focusing on our planning efforts on a more protective

17 eight-hour ozone standard.

18 We also support the inclusion of

19 provisions to ensure that existing control measures

20 remain in place as needed, and that backsliding is

21 avoided. The TCEQ strongly supports EPA's

22 recommendations that states need great flexibility to

23 implement the eight-hour standard.

24 Of the two options presented for

25 classifying areas, the TCEQ prefers Option 2, EPA's

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

52

1 preferred approach. This two-step classification

2 approach would allow states to recommend some areas

3 that are subject to Subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act

4 and areas that are subject -- other areas that are

5 subject to Subpart 2. We have counties in our state

6 that have never been designated nonattainment for the

7 one-hour area, but which voluntarily selected control

8 strategies, including in some cases vehicle

9 inspection maintenance, in order to ensure that their

10 air quality and air region is addressed.

11 This area quality planning region

12 approach has enabled us to develop effective

13 strategies to address the one-hour standard with a

14 significant amount of local buy-in. It does not make

15 sense to apply additional requirements, such as the

16 15 percent rate of progress requirements, on these

17 areas without specific scientific bases that proves

18 they are necessary. Under this framework, the

19 proposed framework, more options would be available

20 to states in their designation recommendations.

21 Although the TCEQ is generally

22 supportive of the proposed eight-hour implementation

23 rules, the commission is concerned with some

24 unaddressed issues. It seems inappropriate that the

25 attainment dates for the eight-hour standard be in

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

53

1 May or April, which happens to be just before the

2 normal ozone season, when the average of over three

3 years is the criteria by which compliance with the

4 standard will be judged.

5 The current proposal does not allow for

6 a consideration of that last year's ozone season, and

7 we recommend that EPA take that into consideration

8 when establishing the designation dates, and

9 particularly effective dates, to allow consideration

10 of that final attainment year's ozone season in the

11 calculation of the attainment status.

12 The TCEQ also strongly encourages EPA

13 for a more aggressive national strategy to reduce

14 regional ozone levels, much like Commissioner Marquez

15 just mentioned for ECOS. On many days we have

16 measured levels in excess of 70 parts per billion

17 entering our state. In order to address our one-hour

18 issues, we have had to implement control strategies

19 that are in some areas more stringent than anywhere

20 in the nation. There is very little else we can do

21 since we are federally prevented from controlling

22 remaining significant emission source categories.

23 The TCEQ recommends that a strong

24 transport policy be developed by EPA to assist many

25 areas in demonstrating attainment with the eight-hour

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

54

1 standard. The TCEQ also suggests the EPA promulgate

2 new standards for emission sources that the states

3 are preempted from controlling and allow time for

4 their implementation before holding states

5 accountable for additional local measures.

6 Additionally, the TCEQ recommends that

7 the EPA work to expedite verification of emerging

8 emission reduction technologies. With a more

9 stringent eight-hour standard, challenges states face

10 demonstrating attainment will be very significant,

11 and the need for a stronger national approach and

12 approval of new technology is apparent.

13 We are also very concerned with the

14 issue of transport, both inter and intratransport.

15 We believe EPA should address this -- the transport

16 by allowing harmonization of attainment dates for

17 areas impacted by transport as long as the

18 adjustments do not exceed the latest attainment date

19 allowed by the Clean Air Act.

20 These comments reflect the issues that

21 are most important to the TCEQ and our ability to

22 protect the air quality and the public health. More

23 detailed comments will be submitted in written format

24 at a later date.

25 Thank you for the opportunity to

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

55

1 comment here today, and I will try to answer any

2 questions you may have.

3 MR. HELMS: John?

4 MR. SILVASI: Herb, your question

5 concerning -- or your comment concerning the

6 attainment dates that the April, May time frame

7 doesn't appear appropriate, in light of the fact that

8 you would need to have your emission reductions occur

9 in the previous year, does TA -- Texas Air Quality

10 Commission see a legal way of dealing with that issue

11 of -- the Clean Air Act actually specifies attainment

12 dates, maximum attainment dates, that run from the

13 date -- effective date of the designation. So how --

14 do you see a legal way that we can deal with that

15 particular issue?

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Actually, we haven't

17 discussed internally a mechanism for that, but you

18 just mentioned something that to me seems to be maybe

19 the most apparent one, and that's the effective date

20 of the designation. If the effective date of the

21 designation is delayed just a few months, you would

22 have an attainment date after the ozone season in

23 most parts of the country.

24 MR. SILVASI: Is Texas recommending

25 more --

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

56

1 MR. WILLIAMS: That's just our comment.

2 That's not our official position yet. We just think

3 it needs to be addressed.

4 MR. HELMS: You make a valid point

5 there. Make sure you give us some legal rationale

6 and/or any suggestions, because we -- that has

7 troubled us as well.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: We will try to do that

9 in our written comment.

10 MR. SILVASI: One other comment. In

11 terms of your comments on the transport problem, did

12 you say your written comments will have more

13 specificity with regard to what -- I think you said

14 that we need to have a stronger transport role; is

15 that what you were suggesting?

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We are

17 concerned and we are aware that the proposal

18 addresses, to some extent, interstate transport.

19 Being a big state and having some nonattainment areas

20 that are fairly distant apart, we feel like we have

21 interstate -- intrastate transport problems, and we

22 would like to see those addressed. And we will try

23 to address that in our written comments too, if

24 that's appropriate.

25 We are well aware of the recent

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

57

1 litigation on the transport policy, and so we know

2 that's an issue that probably is beyond your

3 immediate control, but we are interested in how that

4 might play out in the future too.

5 MR. HELMS: Herb, I will be very

6 interested in you placing into the record any

7 suggestions, possibilities, including legal rationale

8 to allow the date of harmonization. That's one of

9 the issues we've struggled with. It makes a lot of

10 practical sense. Any thoughts you have would be very

11 helpful.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I don't know that

13 we are going to have any more thoughts than you do.

14 We'll try to provide whatever we can.

15 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

17 MR. HELMS: Someone's going to have to

18 help me here. The handwriting is not real legible.

19 It looks like Kelly --

20 MS. HARAGAN: Haragan.

21 MR. HELMS: Haragan. Thank you, Kelly.

22 You saved me.

23 MS. HARAGAN: Kelly Haragan, with the

24 Texas Office of Public Citizen. Thank you for the

25 opportunity to speak today. Public Citizen supports

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

58

1 implementation of the eight-hour standard. It's been

2 a long time in coming. We think the data clearly

3 shows that this standard is needed to protect the

4 public, particularly children and the elderly, from

5 the effects of long-term, low level exposure to

6 ozone.

7 That said, we have three overacting

8 concerns about this proposal. One of them is more

9 procedural, the fact that we haven't seen an actual

10 rule yet. This proposal is more like a preamble than

11 actual text. And we would urge EPA to actually

12 publish and allow comment on the rule before you go

13 final. Seeing the rule itself really let's you know

14 what the proposal's about and what the effects are of

15 the proposal.

16 On a more substantive note, we believe

17 that you shouldn't be eliminating the one-hour

18 standard until the areas that are currently in

19 nonattainment with that standard have achieved

20 attainment and have their maintenance plans in place.

21 We believe this is necessary, as Mr. Alvarez went

22 over it, to keep the momentum going, the progress

23 that's being made in Texas right now on complying

24 with that standard. We have a lot of gaps in our

25 programs that are in the process of being filled, and

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

59

1 we don't want to see deadlines pushed back so that

2 that process stalls.

3 Secondly, for areas like Houston where

4 the ozone problem has been shown to be due to spikes

5 in ozone, Texas and the EPA have done a lot of work

6 on the Houston problem, a lot of studies over the

7 past few years, and they have identified clearly that

8 it's the spikes of the OCs that are causing a big

9 problem in that area. And we are afraid that the

10 eight-hour standard may actually be less protective

11 of health in the Houston area than the eight-hour

12 standard. So that's the reason we believe that the

13 one-hour standard should be left in place.

14 Finally, we think that the eight-hour

15 standard should be implemented through Part 2 rather

16 than Part 1. We think that in 1990 the Part 2

17 requirements were added to the Clean Air Act because

18 the Part 1 requirements weren't getting us where we

19 needed to be on ozone. So we added -- Congress added

20 more specific requirements and clearer deadlines

21 under Part 2.

22 We are already six years behind the

23 time when we originally identified that the

24 eight-hour standard was needed to protect public

25 health, and we believe that we need those more

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

60

1 stringent and clearly defined measures under Part 2

2 to get us where we need to be.

3 We will be filing more specific

4 comments, written comments, before the deadline, but

5 those are our basic two substantive concerns with the

6 rules, that the one-hour standard be left in place,

7 and that we not implement the eight-hour just under

8 Part 1. Thank you.

9 MR. SILVASI: If I could just make a

10 clarification. I think our proposal indicates that

11 we had intended to develop regulatory text. Our

12 attorneys have advised us that we don't actually need

13 to have a proposed regulatory text out there for this

14 to be a proposed rule-making. And -- but we are

15 working on regulatory text. In fact, we have an

16 internal draft ourselves that we are hoping to move

17 forward, move out as soon as we can. So that is

18 coming. As I say, our attorneys have advised us that

19 we don't actually have to have that for purposes of a

20 proposed rule.

21 MS. HARAGAN: And will there be a time

22 for public comment on the --

23 MR. HELMS: When we develop the

24 regulatory text, we will post that on the Web. At

25 that time, we will solicit comments. We would ask

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

61

1 you to comment back very quickly, though, because if

2 you were here at the first, you saw the time frame

3 that we are under to get this rule out by this

4 December so that states will understand or have a

5 fair knowledge of what the requirements are for

6 designated nonattainment areas. So watch our

7 Website. When we get it out, we will notify you. We

8 will keep in touch with the people here.

9 Yes, Denise.

10 MS. GERTH: We plan to publish a Notice

11 of Availability so folks will know --

12 MR. HELMS: Okay. So you should see

13 something in the Federal Register. It's available at

14 this site. But in the interim, get ahold of Tim

15 Diggs in the regional office. He'll tell you when

16 it's out.

17 MS. HARAGAN: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. HELMS: Any other questions, Tom?

19 Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate

20 the help pronouncing your name.

21 I believe I can do this one now, David

22 Duncan. David Duncan?

23 MR. DUNCAN: Good morning. My name is

24 David Duncan, and I'm the environmental regulatory

25 manager of TXU Energy. I appreciate the opportunity

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

62

1 today to present the statement of TXU Energy on EPA's

2 proposed rule to implement the Eight-hour Ozone

3 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Since the

4 proposed rule has been available for less than a

5 month, a detailed review has not been possible, and

6 TXU Energy plans to submit more comprehensive,

7 written comments by the August 1st, 2003 deadline.

8 TXU Energy understands the difficulty

9 of developing a reasonable approach for

10 implementation between Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 of

11 Part D of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act and agrees

12 with the guiding principles that EPA has expressed in

13 the proposed preamble on which -- 32802. TXU Energy

14 supports EPA's classification Option 2 because it

15 provides more flexibility to the states in developing

16 state implementation plans.

17 In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, where

18 on-road and nonroad emissions make up the majority of

19 the nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compound

20 emissions, time is necessary for national rules for

21 motor vehicles and diesels engines to take effect and

22 result in emission reductions.

23 Finally, EPA is apparently under a

24 consent decree to make area designations by

25 April 15th, 2004. The schedule for finalizing this

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

63

1 eight-hour ozone standard implementation rule is very

2 compressed, and should the rule not be finalized in

3 time for states to have at a least a month to review

4 it before its designation deadline -- before this

5 designation deadline, EPA should be asked to defer

6 the designation date.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. HELMS: Questions? Thank you very

9 much.

10 Is Susan Rhodes here? Come forward,

11 Susan.

12 MS. RHODES: I am here basically to

13 speak as a private citizen who does have problems

14 with chemical irritants in the air. And I have lived

15 in Texas since '92. I travel 75 to 80 percent in my

16 job, so I have had a chance to experience air quality

17 across the country. I will say Texas has some of the

18 worst air quality that I experience in my travel,

19 especially Houston. I can go to Houston in the

20 summertime and have a cough after two days that will

21 last for a month.

22 And I have noticed since I have lived

23 in Dallas since '96 that the air quality has gotten

24 increasingly bad, to the point where many times I

25 can't even go work in my yard or not even sit in my

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

64

1 yard because I will start coughing. And my

2 medications for asthma-type symptoms has increased

3 over this time.

4 My position is I am here today because

5 I want to make it clear to the EPA that as a private,

6 voting citizen, I want to see our air standards made

7 much, much better because there is no reason for me

8 to not be able to even sit comfortably in my own yard

9 and be able to breathe.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Questions?

12 Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for coming today.

13 Rita Eason?

14 MS. EASON: I think this poster will be

15 self-explanatory. It's kind of like a backdrop the

16 president uses, you know, a subliminal message.

17 MS. GERTH: Which side do you want to

18 show?

19 MS. EASON: Hangman's side. I am Rita

20 Eason. I am kind of speaking for the seniors, who

21 are one of the most population -- one of the most

22 likely to be at risk in our population for the kinds

23 of toxins that we have in our air quality here in

24 Dallas and Fort Worth. But I have been actively

25 involved because I have sat on several committees and

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

65

1 so on. I am really trying to talk straight to the

2 EPA on the clean air standard for Dallas and Fort

3 Worth, and I think the nation too.

4 I read in the New York Times that in

5 two years your agency, the EPA, has dropped

6 enforcement of the Federal Clean Air Act by

7 50 percent, and dropped enforcement of the Clean

8 Water Act by 80 percent. You have discounted the

9 dollar value of the life of an elderly person down

10 from 6.1 million to a low of 2.1 million dollars.

11 That's a 63 percent drop in the value of my life.

12 This is people over 70.

13 I think that's an outrageous attempt to

14 not -- to deny the elderly the constitutional equal

15 protection of the laws, whatever those laws are in

16 this case, clean air.

17 You and the malevolent leaders have

18 given the nation 32 percent more days of dirty

19 healthier (sic) air to breathe in the last two years.

20 Now today, you are playing games with the changeover

21 from the one-hour standard -- this is going to be

22 hard to keep -- I have to be quiet -- healthier

23 eight-hour clean air standard from the old, lax

24 one-hour standard, which, as you know from medical

25 evidence, caused far too many illnesses and deaths

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

66

1 from dirty air toxins.

2 This plan -- well, what can you call

3 it? Maybe it's as clear as mud. I was not able to

4 understand it.

5 West Texas mud, I am really familiar

6 with that. Really, you are muddying your attempt, I

7 think, to deal with this issue, and perhaps what you

8 are really after is to deal a blow to the Federal

9 Clean Air Act.

10 Under your malevolent treatment, the

11 Clean Air Act will soon be on life support, for your

12 leaders' next action in Congress will be to pull the

13 plug and repeal the Clean Air Act, replacing it with

14 what I call the Dirty Skies Act, officially known as

15 the Clear Skies Act -- Plan.

16 Like we do here in Texas, the EPA in

17 Washington is letting the polluters write the Clear

18 Skies Plan to protect themselves, regardless of the

19 solid evidence of thousands of deaths and millions of

20 illnesses each year from air pollution.

21 In just two years under your

22 leadership, we in local areas are sure we cannot

23 trust the EPA to back our D/FW plan, which is to

24 protect the health of our people. Our people want to

25 clean up our unhealthy air. But both the EPA and the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

67

1 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have been

2 throwing up barriers to defeat our efforts.

3 The D/FW SIP prepared by the North

4 Central Texas region would have put us within

5 compliance under the one-hour standard for ozone by

6 the deadline of 2007. Let me tell you, that's the

7 plan that the region -- North Central Texas region

8 prepared in 1999 and presented in 2000. But once

9 that plan was prepared and signed off by the steering

10 committee here in the region, it was TCEQ, or better

11 known as train wreck in the past, who let the

12 polluters in Ellis County sabotage it.

13 The tragic cost in people's health and

14 lives mandate that we stay with the original plan

15 prepared locally and stay within the time frame set

16 for full compliance of the one-hour standard. We

17 need the EPA to back up our plan and bless what we

18 have set in place and offer assistance or get out of

19 the way and quit buggering up our plan.

20 Rita Eason, from Grand Prairie, south

21 of Dallas.

22 MR. HELMS: Questions? Ms. Eason,

23 before you disappear, could you -- during the comment

24 period we have -- between now and August 1 have a

25 comment period open, could you give us specific 1, 2,

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

68

1 3, 4 recommendations of things you would like to see

2 in the rule? Would that be possible?

3 MS. EASON: Yes. If I could -- well,

4 if Leo, thank you, will help me, I would. I've spent

5 a lot of time on this. And this is my third

6 testimony this year in the State of Texas before an

7 EPA hearing on the national level. So you can see, I

8 am dedicated to see clean air for myself and for all

9 of our people.

10 MR. HELMS: We very much appreciate

11 your dedication.

12 MS. EASON: August --

13 MR. HELMS: August 1. That would be

14 wonderful. Thank you very much.

15 MS. EASON: I will do my best to help

16 you.

17 MR. HELMS: Okay. Moving right along,

18 becky Bornhorst. Did I get your last name right?

19 MS. BORNHORST: Pretty close.

20 MR. HELMS: I am getting better. Thank

21 you.

22 MS. BORNHORST: My name is Becky

23 Bornhorst, and I am here as a citizen and on behalf

24 of Down Winters at Risk. I am a board member. We

25 are a citizen grass-root group in southwest Dallas

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

69

1 County. And I am here today to comment on the

2 proposed eight-hour standard for ozone.

3 This standard was designed to be more

4 protective of the public health. This issue is about

5 public heath, and that should be the first priority

6 in all decisions. We are not here to comment about

7 how difficult it might be for cities, counties and

8 states to meet the old one-hour standard while also

9 trying to meet the new eight-hour standard.

10 The public has been suffering from the

11 health effects of bad air for far too long, and it is

12 time to get serious. No more extensions. No more

13 delays. No more excuses. This issue is about public

14 health, and we must not forget that.

15 Although the new eight-hour ozone

16 standard is a good concept, this current proposal by

17 the EPA has some very serious problems. First, in

18 some of the smoggiest areas of the country, including

19 North Texas, the EPA proposal will allow further

20 extensions of time to clean up the air.

21 EPA proposes to discard the existing

22 requirements of the one-hour standard entirely before

23 the air has been cleaned up sufficiently to meet it.

24 Let's think about that. If the area wants to meet

25 the eight-hour designated by 2010, wouldn't they also

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

70

1 have to meet the one-hour standard somewhere in time

2 before that? So why would the EPA want to discard

3 that standard and put an end to the progress that is

4 currently underway?

5 Four counties in North Texas are

6 designated nonattainment under the one-hour standard,

7 with a compliance date currently at 2005. And that's

8 after many extensions and missed deadlines.

9 Local officials want to abandon a

10 mid-course review and correction of the current SIP

11 in favor of the new eight-hour designation with the

12 deadline of 2010. That is five more years of bad air

13 in North Texas.

14 Let me read to you from an editorial in

15 the Dallas Morning News last week. Quote, bad ideas,

16 the state shouldn't backslide. It should fully

17 implement the current plan as a moral obligation to

18 the breathers and business owners of Dallas, Collin,

19 Denton and Tarrant Counties who face medical and

20 economic ruin because the state has failed to take

21 the antipollution laws seriously, end quote.

22 If the compliance deadline is extended

23 and the mid-course review is scrapped, we are not

24 going to meet our obligation to protect health. The

25 law was intended to protect people's health from

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

71

1 acute pollution episodes, and North Texas has not

2 come anywhere close to doing that.

3 The EPA must not let that happen. EPA

4 should not offer any loopholes for areas with air

5 quality violating the new standard. Under EPA's

6 proposal, areas with average smog concentrations high

7 enough to warrant moderate or greater eight-hour

8 classifications, but not currently violating the less

9 rigorous one-hour standard, would be able to avoid

10 Congressionally mandated controls altogether.

11 In north Texas, Ellis County has

12 violated the one-hour standard, but has never been

13 designated nonattainment. Although citizens have

14 petitioned the EPA to designate Ellis County

15 nonattainment, no action has resulted.

16 What does this mean under the proposed

17 eight-hour standard? It means that if Ellis County

18 is not designated under the one-hour standard before

19 April of 2005, it will remain a clean air fugitive.

20 It will never be subject to the most

21 health-protective regulations, and that has

22 far-reaching implications for the entire north Texas

23 area. For those of us raising families downwind of

24 Ellis County, it is critically important.

25 In short, I encourage the EPA to

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

72

1 implement a rule that will offer rule SIPs toward

2 cleaner area and better protection for our families,

3 a rule that is simple, easy to understand and to the

4 point without loopholes and special provisions and

5 extensions of time. We need clean air, and we need

6 it now.

7 Thank you for the opportunity to

8 comment.

9 MR. HELMS: Thank you. The Ellis

10 County issue that you raise, can you document that in

11 your written comments, the history of that?

12 MS. BORNHORST: Sure.

13 MR. HELMS: That would be very helpful.

14 Thank you very much.

15 Bear with me a minute. We are doing

16 some check-offs here. Is Earl Burnam present? Earl

17 Burnam? Jan Sanders? I believe it's Ms. Wyldon

18 Fishman? Victoria Zudak? Dan Harrison? All of

19 these individuals requested an after lunch time

20 frame, but I thought we might get lucky and have one

21 of them here early.

22 Is there anyone out there now that has

23 requested to speak that has not been recognized? Is

24 there anyone out here that would like to speak now,

25 if you would raise your hands. Fine. What we will

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

73

1 do, we'll start here. Please come forward and

2 identify yourself so the court reporter will have it.

3 And then when you leave, make sure our people outside

4 have your name and address. Come forward and

5 identify yourself.

6 MR. BELL: Hi. My name is Peter Bell.

7 I am an entrepreneur starting up a business. I am

8 interested to see what the EPA is doing about

9 enforcement on some of the regulations that come

10 along.

11 I was -- doing my research for the

12 establishing of the business I was amazed to find out

13 that there are quite a few regulations for EPA,

14 things on alternative fuels and also some stringent

15 regulations on the use of buying diesel and

16 transportation use.

17 What amazed me was the -- we did a lot

18 of research around the city fleet to see what demand

19 was for our fuel, and we found that nobody was aware

20 of the EPA regulations. And secondly, people were

21 bypassing the regulation. One of the classic things

22 that I saw on the fleets was the use of emergency

23 vehicles that are free of the '92 EPA Act. And what

24 fleets were doing were they were buying a vehicle,

25 putting them in the emergency fleets for a year and

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

74

1 then moving these vehicles into the rest of the

2 fleet. So they were bypassing the EPA regulations.

3 What I would like to know from the --

4 you're here, and this is great you guys are here --

5 is how you are going to enforce these regulations.

6 It is great that you guys are setting out the

7 regulations, but what are you doing about the

8 enforcement of these regulations? And that's my

9 comment for today.

10 MR. HELMS: Let me ask you to take some

11 time between now and August 1. Give us comments

12 raising these issues because we are not prepared --

13 quite honestly, we are not EPA enforcement people.

14 We are the policy office. But if you provide these

15 comments, we are obligated and will respond to the

16 comments in the record, so that will be a helpful way

17 to do it.

18 MR. BELL: Great.

19 MR. HELMS: Appreciate you bringing

20 this to our attention.

21 MR. SILVASI: Just one other thing.

22 Anything you do provide, what we will do is discuss

23 this and bring it to the attention of our -- we have

24 a separate office -- a mobile office, mobile sources,

25 of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality that

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

75

1 deals with fuel issues and fleet-related requirements

2 in the Clean Air Act. We can certainly pass that

3 information on to that office also.

4 MR. BELL: Great. Appreciate it.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. HELMS: I saw a hand somewhere out

7 there. Yes, ma'am. Come forward and identify

8 yourself. We are happy to have you.

9 MS. CASTO: I am Tracey Casto. I am

10 the public affairs director for the Dallas County

11 Medical Society for 13 years. That's the membership

12 organization of Dallas County physicians. We have

13 about 6,000 physician members in Dallas.

14 And I am also speaking as the mom of

15 two little girls who, when they wake up, the first

16 thing want to know in the summer is it a level orange

17 day, because if it's a level orange day, they don't

18 get to play outside. During school, they can't play

19 outside if the air is bad, and in the summer they

20 can't play outside when the summer (air) is bad. And

21 I just hope that you guys will do what is right for

22 the kids, for the people, for the people who consider

23 moving to north Texas and change their minds because

24 the air is so awful, for the people who have to drive

25 to work and look at the beautiful Dallas skyline and

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

76

1 just see the layer of brown, and for all the kids who

2 have a hard time breathing because of all the

3 pollution.

4 And if you have some -- if y'all have

5 some means to make it better, I hope that you will

6 find it to do so, no exceptions, no exemptions, no

7 loopholes. Just make the air better for everybody.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Comments?

10 Questions? Thank you, ma'am.

11 Are there others there that wish to

12 comment? Come forward and identify yourself.

13 MR. KALLENBERG: Good morning. My name

14 is Roger Kallenberg. I teach government at one of

15 our Dallas schools. I live in a house out by White

16 Rock Lake, and I can see the lake -- sometimes I can

17 see the lake, but I can't see the skyline. And I

18 wanted to come out and see what you-all were doing.

19 I drove out here. I passed my neighbor

20 mowing his yard. I followed a truck with two huge

21 black plumes coming out here. And right outside your

22 door is the Marriott shuttle that's idling away. So

23 I have some mixed emotions about this enterprise.

24 What I would like for you to do or like

25 to know is, does EPA -- the EPA doesn't really do

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

77

1 much to enforce the laws, but can you follow the

2 Dallas area cities and see how many tickets they

3 write for excess pollution, excess emissions,

4 tailpipe emissions. Are there any rules for lawn

5 mowers, as far as how they are contributing to air

6 pollution?

7 MR. HELMS: What I can do for you here

8 today, since we are not really prepared to go into

9 any depth, after the hearing breaks, Tom Diggs and I,

10 and probably we can grab Herb Williams here, and try

11 as best we can to answer your questions.

12 The other thing I might suggest you do

13 is give them to us in writing prior to August 1, and

14 we will address them in the record.

15 MR. KALLENBERG: I am afraid the EPA is

16 turning into the FCC of the environment, that you are

17 going to allow appropriate interest in the name of

18 jobs, in the name of the economy and in the name of

19 economic numbers to make the situation worse.

20 If they could do it voluntarily, if

21 they would have done it voluntarily, we wouldn't need

22 the EPA at all. So we need the government to protect

23 the air, and it's your responsibility.

24 MR. HELMS: Do you have -- as we have a

25 proposed rule out now, I would appreciate you giving

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

78

1 us -- taking a look at that. Granted, it's long and

2 it's complicated, but if we could have your thoughts

3 on ways to strengthen the rules to address your

4 concerns, that would be really helpful.

5 MR. KALLENBERG: Who is going to

6 enforce the rules?

7 MR. HELMS: Without getting into a long

8 discussion, the way the rules work, the State of

9 Texas and the local entities will adopt the rules.

10 They will be placed in the Texas State Air

11 Implementation Plan that's submitted to EPA. We will

12 go through a formal rule-making process, and we will

13 approve these rules.

14 Then they become federally enforceable

15 at the state and the federal level. Then the state

16 has first responsibility for enforcing the rules.

17 EPA is the backup in the event that the state does

18 not enforce the rule.

19 Beyond that, Tom, do you have any

20 thoughts or any comments on the system, the way it

21 works here in Texas?

22 MR. DIGGS: Just in Texas, there are

23 certain rules for the vehicles on the vehicle

24 inspection and maintenance. As the new program has

25 taken place, there is a lot more violations found of

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

79

1 vehicles not passing inspections, needing to get

2 repaired and go back in and get -- be inspected and

3 passed.

4 Since that is a motor vehicle rule, the

5 Texas Department of Public Safety, the state police

6 enforces that. And since the inspection and making

7 this program has started in surrounding counties in

8 May of this year, and a more aggressive program

9 started for Dallas, Denton and Collin in May of 2002,

10 DPS keeps track of the number of failed inspections.

11 And there is a lot closer tracking as the failed

12 inspections take place, repairs have to take place of

13 those vehicles. And so Department of Public Safety

14 is involved as well when noncompliance of the motor

15 vehicles takes place. And that is a much more

16 aggressive --

17 MR. KALLENBERG: Do you keep track of

18 that?

19 MR. DIGGS: Yes, we do.

20 MR. KALLENBERG: Do you keep track of

21 the, for instance, failed emissions?

22 MR. DIGGS: Well, the state tracks

23 them, their data system, failed inspections that

24 takes place, repairs that are made. And that is part

25 of the state's data system.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

80

1 MR. KALLENBERG: Did you publish that

2 data?

3 MR. DIGGS: I'm not sure what the

4 states's publication is and such. But if you want

5 some of the facts and figures for that region --

6 MR. HELMS: Let me suggest --

7 MR. KALLENBERG: What I would like for

8 you to do is get into the cities to enforce -- to

9 give tickets, to make it a disincentive to drive

10 around with these smokers. I mean, the city -- it's

11 a federal law, right? And our police department is

12 more interested in more immediate health and safety

13 issues. How do we get it enforced? It seems to me

14 if you gave them an incentive, if you gave them

15 $50.00 per ticket they gave out, that the city would

16 respond and get people's attention.

17 Okay. I appreciate your time.

18 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. I

19 would invite you to talk to Tom at the break. He can

20 provide you additional information contacts, because

21 I am sure the information is available. It's just a

22 matter of getting it to you. Thank you.

23 Now, are there others that would like

24 to comment? We have one here. Ms. Gosslee? Did I

25 murder that? Ms. Gosslee, would you come forward and

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

81

1 identify yourself, and then the podium is yours.

2 Thank you for coming.

3 MS. GOSSLEE: Thank you. I had no

4 idea -- when I asked, there was 16 people here. I

5 had no idea I would be here so quickly. Good

6 morning, everyone.

7 Everyone is talking about it. So many

8 people are feeling the effects. Everyone notices the

9 bad air in Dallas. And everyone wants to breathe

10 clean air.

11 I am Susybelle Gosslee, president of

12 the League of Women Voters of Dallas. The League of

13 Women Voters supports clean air for all citizens,

14 especially the weakest in our community who will

15 suffer the most.

16 A new report from the University of

17 Southern California shows that children who breathe

18 polluted air while exercising are at higher risk of

19 developing asthma. Although air pollution and high

20 levels of ozone have long been known to aggravate

21 symptoms in children who already have asthma, this is

22 the first clear evidence that may actually cause the

23 disease. According to the Washington Post, asthma is

24 the leading serious, chronic youth illness affecting

25 more than 9,000,000 children and leading millions of

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

82

1 hours of children each year out of school and parents

2 away from work.

3 This is published in the British

4 Journal, the Lancet. The study found that children

5 in Southern California who played active outdoor

6 sports in areas with high levels of air pollution

7 were diagnosed with asthma at a significantly higher

8 rate than similarly active children in less polluted

9 areas.

10 Texas children are affected by

11 pollution also. Children's Medical Center reports

12 that five years ago one nurse met with the occasional

13 patient and their families to teach them how to

14 manage their asthma and to use their medications.

15 Last year Children's Medical Center emergency room

16 admitted 8,000 children with asthma -- not eight

17 million. Eight thousand. I think I said eight

18 million, didn't I? Eight thousand children with

19 asthma.

20 Of those 8,000, 1,200 were admitted to

21 the emergency room for at least one overnight stay in

22 the hospital because their asthma was severe enough

23 that they could not be released to go home.

24 Have you ever seen the fear in the face

25 of a child who cannot breathe? Have you ever talked

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

83

1 to their parents about how afraid they are of the

2 well-being of their children? I have. In fact, I

3 had asthmatic children. And I have a grandchild that

4 I am concerned about having asthma. I can't go

5 outside and swim in the pool on ozone days because I

6 came down with my first case of asthma last summer

7 and could not find medications so I would be well

8 until late last fell.

9 The United States is a democracy, a

10 government of the people, by the people and for the

11 people. Our government is not a government of the

12 corporation, by the corporation or for the

13 corporation or for the king or for the queen or the

14 rich or the poor.

15 The Environmental Protection Agency is

16 an agency of our government working for the people,

17 not of the corporation, not by the corporation or not

18 for the corporation or the rich or any other special

19 group.

20 The people trust that the Environmental

21 Protection Agency will protect the environment, not

22 the corporation or the king or the queen or the rich

23 or the poor. The expectation of taxpayers who fund

24 this agency is that the EPA will protect the

25 environment for all of the people.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

84

1 The League of Women Voters works to

2 make democracy work for all the people. We support

3 the EPA's efforts to clean the air for all people,

4 including your children and your grandchildren.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. HELMS: Questions? Thank you very

7 much.

8 Molly Rooke? Did I get that right?

9 Ms. Molly Rooke?

10 MS. ROOKE: Yes, yes.

11 MR. HELMS: Come forward then. Thank

12 you.

13 MS. ROOKE: Hi. I am very concerned

14 about the air quality in the Dallas/Fort Worth area,

15 and that's why I am here today. We need clean air.

16 EPA promotes more time to comply even

17 in the smoggiest areas of the country. And even in

18 these areas, EPA proposes to discard the existing

19 requirements of the one-hour standard entirely before

20 the air has been cleaned up sufficiently to meet it.

21 For example, New York City, which has failed to meet

22 the one-hour standard by the deadline required by the

23 statute, would receive a new eight-hour

24 classification and is given yet another extension of

25 time to get cleaner air. The old deadline for

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

85

1 compliance under the one-hour standard would

2 disappear.

3 The EPA is letting power plants and

4 other stationary sources off the hook. And the EPA's

5 proposal will allow the smoggiest areas of the

6 country to avoid additional rigorous new source

7 review requirements based on the eight-hour standard.

8 Far from saving money, this shifts the

9 cost of dirty air to individuals who experience

10 adverse health impacts away from the polluters by

11 eliminating the scope of cleanup requirements imposed

12 on industrial sources like factories and power

13 plants.

14 The EPA proposal will allow even the

15 smoggiest areas of the country to receive lower

16 eight-hour classifications and therefore less

17 stringent control measure requirements under the

18 eight-hour standard, based only on vaguely specified

19 modeling demonstrations which may not meet EPA's own

20 published requirements.

21 Under this incentive feature, EPA would

22 allow air dirty enough to receive a serious

23 classification to worm its way down to the next

24 highest moderate classification, thereby avoiding

25 more stringent cleaning and control requirements all

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

86

1 on the basis of unspecified computer modeling.

2 EPA offers more loopholes for areas

3 with air quality violating the new standard. And

4 under the EPA's proposal, areas with average smog

5 concentrations high enough to warn moderate or

6 greater eight-hour classifications but not currently

7 violating the less rigorous one-hour standard would

8 be able to avoid Congressionally mandated controls

9 altogether.

10 Some areas with air quality of levels

11 just violating the new standard would be given an

12 additional three-year hall pass with a possible

13 result that they could avoid having to meet the

14 standard until 2019.

15 So in short, EPA's proposal is yet

16 another attempt to delay specific clean air measures

17 to be implemented by industry and to weaken

18 provisions necessary to actually clear -- clean the

19 air.

20 Rather than offering real steps toward

21 cleaner air EPA has put forward a set of options for

22 further delay, gaining a minimal control requirements

23 prescription for continued dirty air.

24 And I just ask that you please do

25 whatever you can to clean up the air as fast as

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

87

1 possible. And you thank you for letting me speak

2 now. Thank you.

3 MR. HELMS: Let me pose a question --

4 or a wish to you. As you look at our rule, long and

5 complicated as it is, if you could give us

6 specific -- within the comment period, between now

7 and August 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- these are our thoughts,

8 this is what we would like modified, changed and so

9 forth, that would be really helpful.

10 MS. ROOKE: Like it written if we were

11 writing at the --

12 MR. HELMS: Considering the legal

13 constraints -- I think everyone out there has their

14 own special thing that they would like to adjust, but

15 considering the legal constraints that we have to

16 work under, I would recommend, EPA, that you do one,

17 two, three, four.

18 MS. ROOKE: Thank you very much.

19 MR. SILVASI: I had -- I don't know if

20 it's a comment or a question. I just wanted to

21 clarify what you meant -- I think you said that our

22 proposal would discard the requirements of the

23 one-hour standard in areas that are already dirty.

24 Do you want to elaborate on that? The way I

25 understood our proposal, in an area that already has

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

88

1 an existing one-hour classification that's fairly

2 high under the one-hour standard, and it's going to

3 be -- nonattainment under the eight-hour standard

4 would have to retain those current one-hour

5 requirements. That's what I believe we say in that

6 proposal.

7 So I know we are proposing to revoke

8 the one-hour standard once we start implementing the

9 eight-hour standard, but under the Clean Air Act and

10 antibacksliding provisions, there is a requirement

11 that areas don't drop requirements. And if they have

12 outstanding requirements for the one-hour standard,

13 we do recognize that that's an issue and a tension in

14 our proposal, and we are soliciting comments on how

15 to deal with that, either to require that the

16 eight-hour planning be done earlier or that there be

17 some sort of down payment in emission reductions in

18 lieu of the one-hour requirements that may not have

19 been a -- planning requirements that may not have

20 been -- I just wanted to kind of clarify what -- if

21 you don't think that is strong enough to get at the

22 issue of trying to keep the momentum going.

23 MS. ROOKE: I will check with some

24 other people who are more knowledgeable about the

25 actual language and their interpretation of it than

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

89

1 myself. I am speaking as a citizen, and I just drove

2 in late last night. So I am not really prepared to

3 comment on that, but I will check into it and see

4 what their specific concerns were.

5 MR. SILVASI: Okay. And if it is

6 possible to kind of focus on those areas where we are

7 actually trying to get people's reactions to specific

8 options or ideas, alternatives that we have in there,

9 that would deal with this issue of the transition.

10 For us, it's certainly been a very difficult one to

11 deal with, how to do an adequate transition. So we

12 are not -- we are not reducing the momentum. We are

13 keeping up the momentum.

14 So if we -- but we know there are a

15 lot -- there may be other ways of dealing with this.

16 So if you have ideas, that would certainly be

17 helpful.

18 MS. ROOKE: Okay. Thank you. I

19 appreciate that.

20 MR. HELMS: And one of our -- our key

21 points in this new rule was to provide flexibility to

22 the planners to continue progress towards clean air,

23 as John talked about, and then no backsliding from

24 current from requirements. So look at that. Perhaps

25 we weren't clear enough. Perhaps there are ways we

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

90

1 could strengthen the rule. That's why we're here

2 today, to get your feedback.

3 MS. ROOKE: Okay.

4 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much for

5 coming out.

6 MS. ROOKE: Sure. Thank you.

7 MR. HELMS: Let's all take a deep

8 breath now. Is there anyone else that would like to

9 present testimony?

10 Okay. We will now move to Plan B.

11 Plan B is simply we have a number of speakers that

12 are scheduled for after lunch. We will adjourn --

13 temporarily adjourn the hearing. We will go off the

14 record. We will reconvene back here at 1:00 today.

15 I want to thank all of you that

16 testified and attended today. These were excellent

17 comments. Please give us something in writing, if

18 you wish, in addition by August 1. We love executive

19 summaries. We love key points. That will help us

20 adjust, modify and complete our rule by this

21 December.

22 Yes, sir.

23 MR. HELM: If we submit something in

24 writing, to whom do we send it and to what address?

25 MR. SILVASI: I have a copy of the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

91

1 Federal Register up here if you want to kind of take

2 down the address. I think the preferred way is to

3 submit them electronically, but there is an option

4 for mailing in comments too, as I understand. But I

5 have a copy of our proposal here with the details of

6 the address and so forth. If you want to come on up

7 during this break, we can certainly give that to you

8 or anyone else that needs that.

9 MR. HELMS: And if there is any

10 confusion, you go back and suddenly decide you want

11 to comment, of course, my name is Tom Helms. I am

12 with the US EPA in North Carolina. There is Tom

13 Diggs right there in the Dallas regional office. You

14 get it to Tom Helms or Tom Diggs. It will get into

15 the record.

16 Now, as you adjourn and go have coffee

17 or perhaps an early lunch -- withdraw everything that

18 I said on the record.

19 Katy Hubener. Did I pronounce that

20 close to right?

21 MS. HUBENER: You did great.

22 MR. HELMS: Thank you for coming. The

23 podium is yours

24 MS. HUBENER: Thank you very much. I

25 am Katy Hubener. I am the executive director of Blue

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

92

1 Skies Alliance. We are a Dallas-based clean air

2 group. I am delighted to be with you. Thank you,

3 Tom and Tom and John. I work very closely with Tom

4 Diggs. And again, I want to say thank you very much,

5 Tom, for helping us wade through this process. The

6 other day we had a conference call regarding it.

7 I wanted to talk to you specifically

8 about what's taking place in regards to the North

9 Texas Clean Air Plan, because that's our area of

10 focus. And let me just begin by saying that

11 residents in North Texas have lived too long with

12 dirty air. As the EPA is well aware, the region has

13 missed key clean air deadlines in '96 and again in

14 '99 and is currently not on track to reach attainment

15 by 2005 or even 2007.

16 The greatest gains for clean air in

17 North Texas coincided with the 1990 Clean Air Act

18 Amendment, and with those amendments, the EPA was

19 given the authority to implement policy through

20 Subpart 2, which offered more specific and measurable

21 emission reductions, as well as a designation

22 process.

23 Today the region is working on a

24 mid-course correction process to help the region

25 reach attainment with the one-hour standard. And

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

93

1 North Texas, Collin, Denton, Dallas, Ellis,

2 Henderson, Hood, Johnson, Parker and Tarrant Counties

3 all need -- or have requirements to violate the

4 eight-hour standard. They have been required to

5 participate in the Clean Air Plan for North Texas,

6 but yet the region is still not on track to reach

7 clean air by 2007.

8 It is our concern that the proposal

9 before us will cease the momentum that we need to

10 bring D/FW into compliance with clean air. What the

11 EPA has created with the eight-hour proposal is more

12 like a buffet of many options, which is good for an

13 all-you-can-eat buffet, but not good for commenting

14 on public policy.

15 Let me cite a specific concern for us

16 and North Texas, and that is Ellis County. I think

17 others have made some comments today too. Ellis

18 County's development patterns and trends show

19 increasing suburban and industrial growth in the

20 northern portion of the county nearest to Dallas and

21 Tarrant County. Ellis County was monitoring

22 nonattainment for the one-hour standard, but not

23 formally designated nonattainment or classified under

24 Subpart 2. And therefore, because it was not, it was

25 subject to less stringent controls and offset

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

94

1 requirements associated with clean air designations.

2 Ellis County is violating nonattainment

3 of the eight-hour standard based on 2000-2002 data

4 with a design value of .86 for the period.

5 EPA's proposal calls for areas that

6 have not previously been designated nonattainment for

7 the one-hour standard to be regulated under Subpart 1

8 of the act. So Ellis County is a problem.

9 Assuming that Ellis County does not

10 redesignate under the one-hour standard prior to

11 April 2004, which looks like it could be likely, then

12 Ellis County would likely receive a nonattainment

13 designation under the new site and be subject to the

14 requirements of Subpart 1 of the act. However, if

15 Ellis County were to be redesignated for the one-hour

16 standard prior to April 15th, 2004, then Ellis County

17 would be classified under the more stringent

18 requirement as Subpart 2. And it's designed value

19 means it would likely receive marginal classification

20 for the eight-hour standard.

21 Obviously, we want for this particular

22 county and all our outlying counties to be classified

23 under Subpart 2 because it requires more stringent

24 requirements.

25 EPA has also stated implementing the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

95

1 eight-hour standard -- that implementing the

2 eight-hour standard, that it would prefer to respect

3 the geographic integrity of the whole CMSA and not

4 split up designation county by county. However, the

5 agency has also in several places in the

6 implementation proposal and separate guidance

7 materials made public in 2000 suggestions that the

8 EPA will analyze situations on case-specifics and

9 will split up some CMSAs if requested to do so.

10 In North Texas, the TCEQ recently

11 recommended such a patchmeal approach to clean air,

12 in which it designated 10 counties and left out two.

13 One was just Rockwall, which is completely surrounded

14 by other counties that were submitted for designation

15 under the eight-hour standard. And the other is

16 Kaufman, which is an outlying county and should be

17 redesignated.

18 We hope that the agency will take this

19 into consideration and include an entire CMAS for

20 designation under the eight-hour standard.

21 We have not seen a concrete proposal

22 that would address situations such as Ellis County,

23 those that violated the one-hour standard and are in

24 violation of the -- are obviously in violation of the

25 eight-hour standard, but have not been designated as

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

96

1 such under the one hour. And we think that's

2 something that should be handled with this

3 rule-making.

4 It is a case-by-case specific in North

5 Texas that will leave us without clean air. We think

6 this patchmeal approach that's being proposal -- that

7 is being proposed is not going to be sufficient.

8 We expect -- and what we expect about

9 this will mean -- we expect that the EPA's proposal

10 would mean more of the same for Ellis County, the

11 continuation of a system that provides incentives for

12 sprawl-out of Dallas County. Likewise, we think the

13 same thing will happen for other industrial

14 facilities. They will decide a site in Rockwall or

15 Kaufman County, those that are designated with less

16 stringent requirements, or even go to some of those

17 outlying, including Parker, because it's my

18 understanding in reading the rules that they won't be

19 required to meet the Subpart 2 section, which is the

20 more stringent, the LAER versus the BACT, for

21 industrial sources.

22 EPA proposal states that where the

23 eight-hour nonattainment designation would be the

24 area's first ever nonattainment status, new and

25 modifying existing stationary sources would be

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

97

1 continued to be regulated under clean air or PSD

2 deterioration requirements. That means that these

3 sources will continue to be the subject, only to

4 BACT, best available control technologies, not the

5 better pollution controls such as LAER, lowest

6 achievable emission rates, and not subject to the

7 offset requirements of Subpart 2.

8 Dallas and Tarrant Counties, by

9 contrast, would be required and classified and

10 regulated under the more stringent requirements of

11 the Subpart 2 of the act and stationary sources

12 subject to LAER and offset requirements.

13 What we are talking about here is

14 economic equity. Those facilities that are located

15 inside the nonattainment should not solely be

16 responsible for cleaning up the air in Dallas County.

17 They have made significant reductions or are in the

18 process of doing so. We believe that all industrial

19 facilities, regardless of where they're built, if

20 they are in our 12-county CMSA, should have to

21 conform to the best available controls, which is

22 LAER.

23 In brief, EPA's proposal for Ellis

24 County would mean continued incentive for industrial

25 development out from Dallas and Tarrant Counties.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

98

1 There would be less stringent stationary source

2 requirements and mobile source requirements for areas

3 outside more urban Dallas areas, encouraging growth

4 and development away from the urban center. As a

5 result, we believe that air quality in Dallas/Fort

6 Worth CMSA is overall likely to worsen.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Tom?

9 MR. DIGGS: No questions.

10 MR. HELMS: No questions. We will look

11 forward -- someone mentioned Ellis County earlier. I

12 am not familiar with the details. We will presume

13 you will give us this and any additional comments.

14 MS. HUBENER: Sure. We will. Thanks.

15 We'll be in Virginia too.

16 MR. HELMS: Thank you.

17 Before we do the temporary adjournment,

18 is there anyone that would like to make a comment?

19 How many of you will be back with us at 1:00? Raise

20 your hands if you are not going to be back.

21 I would like at this time to thank you

22 for coming out this morning. We really appreciate

23 your time and your interest, and we will look forward

24 in a continued manner to working with you as we

25 finish our rule by this December.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

99

1 And if you have not signed in, please

2 sign in out there. We want to very much have a

3 record in the event there's a follow-up. For

4 example, we might e-mail you that the red text is now

5 on the Web sites. So to the extent that you have an

6 e-mail, please give us that as well.

7 We will adjourn, come back here at 1:00

8 today. Thank you very much. And we will go off the

9 record now.

10 (Lunch break had.)

11 MR. HELMS: I would like to reconvene

12 our public hearing on the EPA's eight-hour ozone

13 implementation rule. I want to thank all of you who

14 have been hanging around since we adjourned this

15 morning. We will pick back up where we left off.

16 Let me remind you that this is an open

17 opportunity for any of you to present testimony. We

18 welcome it. There will be a record of this public

19 hearing. We will have it available about 30 days

20 from now. We have a court reporter here.

21 If you wish to talk, make a

22 presentation, make sure that you are registered

23 outside with our ladies from E.H. Pechan that are

24 keeping the sign-in sheets. You don't have to do

25 that beforehand. If you feel energized or would like

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

100

1 to come forward and right off-the-cuff make a

2 statement, we would love to have you do that. Just

3 afterwards when you leave, make sure you are

4 registered there.

5 We will limit any discussion. We will

6 ask you to limit it to 10 minutes. We would love to

7 have advanced materials that our court reporter could

8 read along with and place into the record.

9 I would like to introduce myself again.

10 I am Hearing Officer Tom Helms. I am with the US

11 Environmental Protection Agency in the Research

12 Triangle Department of North Carolina. John Silvasi,

13 out of our same office is here, and Tom Diggs is from

14 the air program staff and the Region 6 office in

15 Dallas.

16 I had someone ask me this morning, and

17 I promised I would follow up on it. They asked me,

18 do you have a resume; just who are you? We have not

19 seen you before. So I will give you a little

20 background while we are waiting to start up.

21 Hopefully it will suffice for the request that we

22 had, and then I will let John and Tom comment.

23 I am Tom Helms. I serve as the group

24 leader for the ozone policies and strategies group

25 within the Office of Air Quality Planning and

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

101

1 Standards in the Research Triangle Department of

2 North Carolina.

3 My job for many, many years has been to

4 develop policy related to attaining, achieving, if

5 you will, the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

6 Standard. First of all it was the Photochemical

7 Oxidant Standard in 1971 and 1972, and in 1979 EPA

8 revised it and made it specifically ozone, a

9 one-hour air quality standard. And then in '97, I

10 guess, we changed the standard and made it still

11 ozone, made it an eight-hour standard.

12 So I spent most of my career working

13 with states, EPA regional offices to develop the

14 so-called state implementation, or SIPs, plans to

15 achieve clean ozone-free healthy air.

16 John?

17 MR. SILVASI: John Silvasi. I work for

18 Tom Helms in the ozone policy and strategies

19 committee, Research Triangle Department. I have been

20 with EPA since 1971, so 31 years working primarily in

21 the state of limitation planning process.

22 I worked for about a year and a half

23 for the Philadelphia regional office. I worked for

24 about a year and a half on a temporary assignment for

25 the State of Pennsylvania working on their

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

102

1 implementation and planning process in the late '70s,

2 early '80s. I have been with Tom Helms for about 20

3 years, I guess, now. And in the last 15 of those, I

4 guess I have been working on ozone.

5 I hold a bachelor of science in

6 mechanical engineering from Drexler University,

7 Philadelphia, and a master of science in

8 environmental engineering also from Drexler

9 University.

10 MR. DIGGS: And my name is Tom Diggs,

11 and I am with the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, and

12 I am the chief over the air planning section. We

13 work with states in development of state air quality

14 plans in Texas, a lot on the ozone activities that

15 have taken place. I've worked in the state

16 implementation -- worked with EPA Region 6 since

17 1980.

18 I've worked in the permitting and

19 enforcement from about 1980 until about 1987. I've

20 worked in the state implementation plan since that

21 time. I have been involved with the states in Region

22 6 through the 1990 designations and the ozone plan

23 development that takes place.

24 I have got a bachelor's of science from

25 the Virginia Military Institute. And I came to Texas

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

103

1 in 1978 and went to the University of Texas at Austin

2 and got -- did my master's work in engineering at

3 that time.

4 And so where Tom and John are from

5 the -- looking at things from a national perspective,

6 I have been involved with the region and the -- and

7 working with states on the state implementation plan

8 development taking place, and I know in working

9 throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth and Region 6 and

10 stuff, I've work with many of you.

11 So thanks a lot for coming out today.

12 MR. HELMS: So I hope we did not put

13 you to sleep with that background, but a couple of

14 people did ask us, who in the world are you and why

15 are you here and that sort of stuff, and that's why

16 we gave you the background.

17 Now it is about time to get rolling, so

18 let's call on our next speaker, Dan Harrison. Dan?

19 MR. HARRISON: Thank you. My name is

20 Dan Harrison. I am a citizen of Dallas. I've lived

21 here just enough summers to have experienced what a

22 bad ozone day is. I am very familiar with bad air.

23 And it's obvious when the air is bad and they give

24 you the ozone warning, you can pretty much smell it

25 and taste it.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

104

1 I want to encourage the EPA today to

2 implement the eight-hour standard for air quality in

3 a way it achieves the goal for which it was

4 originally intended and does not weaken clean air

5 regulations already in place.

6 If I understand the purpose of the

7 eight-hour standard, it is to evaluate ozone levels

8 in the air in a way that takes into account longer

9 duration exposure to slightly lower levels than under

10 the current standard.

11 The idea is to require areas such as

12 Dallas/Fort Worth to set targets for reduced smog

13 levels based on a standard that considers the adverse

14 effects on those most sensitive to exposure to smog

15 for a longer duration.

16 The EPA should implement the standard

17 to apply as soon as possible. Any further delays

18 allow for developing implementation plans and

19 regulating pollution sources that will allow the air

20 to get dirtier. This implementation should not

21 result in weakening existing regulations. Pollution

22 from power plants and industrial sources must be

23 included in this eight-hour standard.

24 I ask that the EPA require the new

25 source review of these facilities to include the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

105

1 eight-hour standard. Deadline requirements for the

2 one-hour standard currently in effect should not be

3 thrown out as part of this new standard. Those areas

4 out of compliance with current guidelines are the

5 ones that need to move to restrict pollution most,

6 and the people in those areas, such as

7 Dallas/Fort Worth, are paying the highest price for

8 that lack of compliance.

9 Implement this new standard for the

10 benefit of the public health with little regard,

11 please, for the private profit.

12 The goal of this new standard should be

13 cleaner air, not affording polluters more time to put

14 off making the changes needed to reduce that

15 pollution.

16 The public expects the EPA to work for

17 us in regulating that pollution and cleaning up the

18 air, but we are not so concerned with what cost that

19 will be to the private industry or to power plants.

20 What we really want is cleaner air. And that should

21 be your main concern.

22 Thank you very much.

23 MR. HELMS: Thank you, Dan. Any

24 questions of Dan? Thank you.

25 Kyle Hancock. I understand you waited

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

106

1 patiently for us before lunch.

2 MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. My name is

3 Kyle Hancock. I live in Lewisville, Texas, and I am

4 33 years old. I have had asthma all my life. On the

5 ozone days in Dallas, it is noticeable. I can feel

6 it. It is a little harder to breathe on the real bad

7 days. And I don't have asthma as bad as some people,

8 but it's bad, and it doesn't need to get worse.

9 And what I am afraid of is that if we

10 go to the eight-hour ozone measurement period, that

11 the one-hour measurement period will be revoked

12 before we get the eight-hour time period implemented.

13 I am very concerned that the one-hour measurement

14 standard stays in place, and not only stays in place,

15 but is met before we go to the eight-hour period.

16 The Clean Air Act says that the

17 standards need to be met before you add new

18 standards. And my understanding is that the one-hour

19 measurements of ozone have not even been met by the

20 Dallas area.

21 I am also concerned about the counties

22 surrounding Dallas/Fort Worth, that they might be

23 exempt from the new standards. And I would like to

24 make sure that these surrounding counties also have

25 to meet the requirements; otherwise, the industry may

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

107

1 feel that they can just freely hop a county line, set

2 up shop in the neighboring county, and

3 Dallas/Fort Worth still suffers from the pollution of

4 the industry.

5 Just a note is that the comment period

6 is only from 8:00 to 5:00 today. I think we may have

7 had more turnout if we had extended the hours beyond

8 the working day. I know that last time there was a

9 comment period, it did extend until 10:00 at night

10 and several hundred people showed up.

11 Those are my comments.

12 MR. HELMS: Encourage the people that

13 could not come today to give us written comments.

14 MR. HANCOCK: Okay.

15 MR. HELMS: They will get equal weight.

16 Get them into us before August 1 and we will

17 summarize them, they will be right in the comment

18 document. So while they may not have had a chance to

19 do it in person, they will get the same weight as

20 your comments have today.

21 MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.

22 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Any questions,

23 fellows? Thank you very much for coming. Thank you

24 for your patience waiting through the lunchtime.

25 The next individual is Earl Burnam.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

108

1 Did I pronounce that right, Earl?

2 MR. BURNAM: Very good. I am Earl

3 Burnam, and I live on the west side of Fort Worth. I

4 have had some experience with a little bit of a

5 breathing problem that comes with old age, as my

6 doctor tells me. He really started off by saying

7 it's due to the polluted air. He recognized that it

8 has something to do with that.

9 And also -- so I am affected by that,

10 and I am also affected by the fact that I have lost

11 about three-fourths of my heart, and heart conditions

12 do cause problems in breathing. So I will give you a

13 little background on why I am interested.

14 I would like to thank you guys for

15 coming around and letting us talk to you. I have

16 some good friends in EPA, especially Mr. Diggs. I

17 appreciate -- I feel like that nothing should be

18 personal. I feel like everybody wants to do what

19 they can and are able to do and according to what

20 they are required to do. But I would like to go over

21 some things that I have jotted down in my statement.

22 I urge the EPA to establish the

23 requirements for the new, quote, eight-hour ozone

24 standards that would include emission controls with

25 schedules equivalent to those of the one-hour

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

109

1 standard. I am opposed to dropping the old one-hour

2 standard requirements and schedules before attainment

3 of the old standard is reached.

4 My concern is that critically needed

5 emission control measures would be delayed. I am

6 aware that the new eight-hour standard requirements

7 will eventually protect human health better than the

8 old one-hour standard, but in the meantime, we must

9 not allow further delay of control measures.

10 It is recognized that vehicular

11 emissions is the greatest contributory to ozone in

12 Dallas and the Fort Worth area. And we must continue

13 to address this problem, but we must also control all

14 contributors.

15 Industrial facilities must be required

16 to clean their emissions without loopholes that would

17 allow further delays. As the EPA recognizes,

18 transport of pollution from these plants is received

19 from faraway places, as well as nearby industrial

20 facilities. New air quality rules must not allow

21 these facilities to pollute more, but must force them

22 to clean up their emissions without further delay.

23 We must have requirements that will

24 work in a timely manner to protect human health and

25 also the health of our natural areas and parks by

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

110

1 reducing pollution from old, inefficient, coal and

2 all-fuel plants, including cement kilns that used

3 hazardous waste as fuel.

4 These are all primary sources of air

5 pollution affecting us locally as well everyone from

6 across the nation.

7 We are all aware of the extreme adverse

8 health effects due to polluted air. I won't go into

9 some of my detail on that on the record.

10 Although the value of human health

11 cannot be measured in financial terms, health care

12 costs can be. Health care costs are extremely high,

13 and they continue to increase at a fast-growing rate.

14 These health care costs for the individual must be

15 properly considered in any evaluation of the, quote,

16 cost/benefits for implementation of emission control

17 measures by industry.

18 I would like to point out the health

19 care costs have not normally in the past been

20 included in these cost benefit analyses, and I am

21 requesting that they would be.

22 I am concerned that the EPA's proposed

23 rules and schedules will substantially weaken clean

24 air protections already in place. The transition

25 from the one-hour ozone standard to the more

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

111

1 protective eight-hour standard must not allow delay

2 of implementation of emissions control measures that

3 would be required for meeting the one-hour standard.

4 Thank you.

5 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. Earl,

6 hold on. Questions? Thank you. We appreciate you

7 taking the time to come.

8 Diane -- and you're going to have to

9 help me here. Is it Castillo?

10 MS. CASTILLO: Castillo.

11 MR. HELMS: So I got it wrong?

12 Terrific. Diane, come forward. Thank you.

13 Unfortunately, I have been murdering a lot of names.

14 MS. CASTILLO: I would like to thank

15 you for taking the time to hear us today. I just

16 have a couple of words to say. I am a mother, and

17 that's my main drive in life. That's my main goal

18 for wanting to pursue an environmental studies

19 career. I don't want my child growing up in an

20 environment with particulate matter -- we're

21 weakening our air standards so that this particulate

22 matter can cause asthma and things like that.

23 I don't -- my whole family has had

24 breathing problems. We all live in the D/FW area in

25 and around these large companies that are allowing

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

112

1 other -- are allowed to pollute more and more every

2 year.

3 I feel that if we weaken the already

4 implemented standards, that it's not going to get

5 better. Health care is going to get more and more of

6 a priority, and we are not doing enough as it is.

7 So speaking from a mother's standpoint,

8 I would like this to stop, this -- and from also like

9 as far as the career choice, this is -- this is what

10 drives me. And I think that if we work together for

11 this, we can truly make a difference.

12 The EPA is here to protect us, not make

13 anything, you know, harder for us to live with. And

14 I truly think that they should make the standards

15 stronger instead of weakening them and reconsider the

16 proposal to weaken the eight-hour ozone standard.

17 MR. HELMS: Any questions? Comments?

18 MR. SILVASI: Just a clarifying

19 question. In what way do you think we're proposing

20 to weaken the eight-hour standard?

21 MS. CASTILLO: By lessening the

22 one-hour standards and --

23 MR. HELMS: Revoking the one-hour

24 standards?

25 MS. CASTILLO: Yes, revoking the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

113

1 one-hour standards, and basically allowing -- you

2 know, what I understand is allowing the biggest

3 polluters in Texas, anyway, to continue to pollute

4 more and reducing their regulations.

5 MR. SILVASI: Because we are -- our

6 goal in putting the proposal out was not to cause any

7 slacking off. The Clean Air Act has certain

8 requirements to require that what is already on the

9 books with regard to the one-hour standard to

10 continue to be kept on the books as we go to

11 implement the eight-hour standard.

12 The other thing is we do recognize that

13 we are -- we are going to be in this transition

14 period, and we are seeking comments on how to deal

15 with whether or not current requirements for the

16 one-hour standard -- planning requirements to add

17 more controls should be done on schedule for the

18 one-hour standard or whether that can be -- the

19 eight-hour planning process can be expedited.

20 And so we are actually seeking comments

21 on that. So if you have a chance to look at that

22 part of our proposal, we're seeking how to deal with

23 this transition, that would be helpful.

24 MS. CASTILLO: The technology is there.

25 What other --

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

114

1 MR. SILVASI: The question is what time

2 frame should the states be actually -- if they have a

3 requirement to develop a new plan for the one-hour

4 standard, even as we move ahead to the eight-hour

5 standard, should they put their time into that

6 one-hour standard now or should they be doing about

7 the same amount of work in looking ahead to the

8 eight-hour standard, which generally is going to be

9 more protective? If -- it's going to be more

10 protective of public health.

11 These are the kind -- if you have a

12 chance to submit like written comments and have a

13 chance to take a look at some of the questions we are

14 asking in here, seeking comments, if you have ideas

15 on what your preferences are, we would like to hear

16 about it.

17 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. HELMS: Thank you for taking the

19 time to come today. Joseph Grinnell. Did I get that

20 right?

21 MR. GRINNELL: Yeah.

22 MR. HELMS: Great. Come forward. The

23 podium is yours.

24 MR. GRINNELL: Well, I am just going to

25 make this short and sweet. I came here today, drove

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

115

1 50 miles, just to let you know I believe that this

2 proposal for implementing the eight-hour ozone

3 standard shouldn't delay clean air measures.

4 Industry must comply with -- for 10 years or so.

5 Personally, I think we have a

6 population -- we have a potential population problem,

7 as far as waiting 10 years or so to, you know,

8 implement regulations. By that time, you know, there

9 is going to be that much more demand. There is going

10 to be that much more pollution that our population

11 increasing will have caused.

12 And we are just -- I think it's a waste

13 of time. We should go ahead and make industry comply

14 with -- just implement the eight-hour ozone standard

15 as soon as possible. That's all I got to say.

16 MR. HELMS: Questions? Thanks for

17 coming. We appreciate it.

18 Jan Sanders?

19 MS. SANDERS: I am Jan Sanders. I

20 apologize for the quality of my voice. We've had

21 some bad air days recently, and it's had an effect on

22 my health.

23 I represent the Greater Dallas

24 Community of Churches. I am the chair of their

25 public policy ministry. I would like to read the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

116

1 fundamental principle on which they have declared an

2 interest in this hearing.

3 It is called the Stewardship of the

4 Creation. Our scriptures and our denominational

5 prayers refer to God as the Creator of all the

6 universe and all that is in it. And that we,

7 ourselves, as children of God, are called to be

8 stewards of this amazing creation. As stewards, we

9 recognize our responsibility to clean and protect the

10 water and the land that God has so graciously

11 bestowed upon us.

12 The Greater Dallas Community of

13 Churches is a network of Christian churches in the

14 North Texas area. It is in dialogue with interfaith

15 dialogue. It works against racism and violence and

16 war. They strive to do collectively what they cannot

17 do individually in their ministries. And certainly,

18 the protection of the air that we breathe is an

19 example of where we need to collectively speak and

20 work because we cannot clean the air above our little

21 house or our church.

22 The charge that Congress gave to

23 protect the air back at the passage at the Clean Air

24 Act was a tremendous celebration and breakthrough of

25 bipartisan negotiation. And it is the moving forward

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

117

1 of that mandate by our elected officials that we're

2 still here today.

3 It reminds me of when Brown versus

4 Board of Education said that segregated education was

5 in and of itself inequitable and in due time to

6 integrate our public schools, and in due time was

7 translated in many counties and many areas to be a

8 very long time. And indeed, in Dallas County, in the

9 Dallas public schools, it is just now out of the

10 federal court to have in all deliberate speed done

11 away with the vestiges of that kind of dual deal.

12 I feel the same way about the

13 implementation of clean air. And I look upon these

14 regs that are put out here as smoking mirrors; that

15 the term, frankly, very eloquently talk about you're

16 striving towards flexibility. And -- I am sorry

17 having breathed this bad air for this many years,

18 flexibility means loophole. And until you show me

19 something different, I am going to keep -- every time

20 you say flexibility, I am going to read loophole.

21 Some of you from Washington are not

22 familiar with Ellis County. People talk about Ellis

23 County, Ellis County. Come next Monday to a similar

24 hearing on a local level about the burning of toxic

25 wastes and tires in the kiln that is grandfathered by

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

118

1 our governor -- then governor, George W. Bush, to be

2 protected to continue to burn and pollute the air

3 that we breathe. It is still going on, this all

4 deliberate speed philosophy of trying to enforce the

5 cleaning up of our air.

6 I would like to end with the personal

7 story of my husband, who I love very dearly. He took

8 some modest exercise on May the 31st. He collapsed

9 or nearly collapsed a few days later. For your

10 knowledge, I know Tom Diggs knows this certainly,

11 that that was a purple day.

12 MR. DIGGS: Yes, ma'am.

13 MS. SANDERS: And for someone in good

14 health, yes, older, but does that mean we just write

15 off all the old people, don't breathe on those days?

16 What do you do? You don't have a choice.

17 I started to wear one of those SARS

18 masks today. And I thought, well, you know, there

19 might be too many scientists there. They know that

20 that would not protect me against breathing purple

21 air. And so that would just be a farce. I would be

22 playing into their game. All I would have to do is

23 put on a mask, but I can't do that.

24 So I urge to keep your eye on the

25 prize. Keep your eye on the public good, the

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

119

1 responsibility in our democratic processes to clean

2 our air so that we can breathe. Thank you.

3 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Thank you,

4 Ms. Sanders.

5 Bradley Adams. Come forward, Bradley.

6 The podium is yours.

7 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. My name is

8 Bradley Adams, and I am 18 years old. And in my 18

9 years of life, I have not once breathed a clean

10 breath of air.

11 Why is it that over 10 years when this

12 bill was passed it has taken -- companies have not

13 met the standards set by the Federal Government? Why

14 is it that they ask for postponements and longer

15 deadlines when they know that the Federal Government

16 has said that they must meet these standards? Every

17 year more people become sick and ill, children and

18 the elderly and healthy people that would live long

19 lives become sick.

20 Because of this bill, if you postpone

21 it, only more people will be sick and die. In low

22 income neighborhoods where they cannot afford medical

23 care, asthmatic children go without health care, and

24 they become only more ill.

25 The one-hour standard has been in place

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

120

1 for 10 years now and it's still not been met. Now

2 you say you want to change it to an eight-hour

3 standard without the one-hour standard being fully

4 met. Why is it that this one-hour standard cannot be

5 met over 10 years? Why is it that these companies

6 are asking for longer deadlines?

7 Maybe with the eight-hour standard --

8 if you made sure that these companies meet the

9 one-hour standard first and then you enact the

10 eight-hour standard, maybe companies will then be

11 able to meet that in a shorter time. And the

12 regulation that EPA set should be enforced much more

13 strongly.

14 Companies should not be allowed to get

15 away with this. The EPA should police these

16 companies more and not allow them to have deadlines.

17 If the EPA stated they must meet these deadlines by

18 this year or face stiff penalties, these companies

19 would meet the deadlines. But apparently, the EPA

20 does not care as much to allow this -- continues to

21 allow these companies to get away with almost murder

22 because they allow -- because they are causing people

23 to die and become sick people who can't afford health

24 care. Elderly, because of state laws, can't afford

25 health care.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

121

1 These laws are only going to make the

2 statesmen more money on Medicare, which will cost

3 everyone more. If you make these companies that

4 already have millions of dollars to sit lying around,

5 just say, make these deadlines or else we're fining

6 you a certain amount of money, these companies would

7 make sure that they met these deadlines much sooner

8 and at a much more economic cost. But apparently

9 that's not fair anymore. Thank you.

10 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Hold on a

11 second. Any comments or questions? Thank you so

12 much for taking the time to come out. I commend you

13 as an 18-year-old for coming forward. Thank you.

14 MR. ADAMS: My pleasure.

15 MR. HELMS: Have we heard from

16 Ms. Wyldon Fishman? Victoria Zudak?

17 Is there anyone else here who would

18 like to make a public statement, to give us public

19 comment? Yes, ma'am. Come forward. And since we

20 don't have your name, come right forward, give us all

21 the specifics for the record. Okay. Take your time

22 and relax. We have until 5:00.

23 MS. BEVING: You don't know who you

24 said that to, because a lot of these folks know me.

25 My name is Rita Beving, and I am with

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

122

1 the Dallas Sierra Club. And we have over 4,000 areas

2 in the -- in just our club alone. The Fort Worth

3 group has 1,700 members, and I see some folks from

4 that club.

5 I have been working in the

6 environmental community now for 15 years. In getting

7 ready for today, I am one of those pack-rats that

8 keeps old newspaper articles. And having been in

9 the -- as a volunteer advocate for some time and

10 working against one of the biggest polluters in the

11 Dallas/Fort Worth area, Texas Industries, and still

12 working on it, you come to see the same things into

13 play all the time when it comes to air rules. So in

14 going through my pack-rat pile of papers, I find this

15 article from the Dallas Morning News dated February

16 19th, 2001, written by Randy Lee Loftis.

17 It says, planned methods were lined on

18 emissions. And it has to do with companies just

19 moving over the four-county nonattainment line to get

20 by with more emissions. You know, that's just one of

21 the tactics we seem to see in Dallas.

22 Then I have this article just from the

23 other day from the Dallas Morning News in the

24 metropolitan section that says, North Texas makes

25 play for a clean air delay. God, I have heard that

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

123

1 before because I was there around when COG was

2 supposed to be considering our air SIP in the first

3 place.

4 It seems in the days when people want

5 to talk about killer Ds in Texas, I have my own

6 theory what D stands for. And it seems that another

7 party in this nation also has its own theory of what

8 D means. D means dodge. I will go over the county

9 line and abscond nonattainment air rules. I will ask

10 for delays, or in some cases with the Bush

11 administration, it could be outright destroy

12 environmental laws.

13 And you know, some of us are pretty

14 tired of it, you know. We have to stand back of our

15 congressmen like Phil Graham, like Jan Sanders and I

16 did years ago, who wanted to delay particular

17 standards be implemented. And we called the EPA to

18 let them know that they were proposing it that day

19 over at Central Expressway.

20 The public is tired of delay, dodge,

21 deny and destroy, and we want action. We are tired

22 of seeing standards put forward and not enforced, of

23 companies like the TXIs and the TXUs suing so they

24 don't have to abate things, why they be grandfathered

25 in internally on not obeying air rules or suing

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

124

1 states over not obeying air rules. And we are tired

2 of a four-county area like Dallas, Denton, Tarrant

3 Counties and Collin County that the citizens have to

4 pay now at least $39.00 to get their cars inspected

5 while other companies in the state have a free ticket

6 to write, namely Ellis County is one of those biggest

7 offenders.

8 And anybody in the EPA who looks at the

9 TCQ Web site will see that when you look at where the

10 ozone drift is coming from, mysteriously a lot of it

11 starts over by Ellis County, not to mention what Big

12 Brown attributes to it over on that side.

13 So it's time, before we roll back or

14 change things that are already starting to work, that

15 we give them the chance to work.

16 And I am sure someone has brought this

17 up to you already. When it comes to the one-hour

18 standard versus the eight-hour standard, let's talk

19 about New York. New York City, which has failed to

20 meet the one-hour standards by the deadline required

21 by the statute, would receive -- if it received a new

22 eight-hour classification, given yet another

23 extension to get cleaner air, the old deadline of

24 compliance under the one-hour standard would

25 disappear.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

125

1 We need to put teeth in our

2 environmental laws. We don't need to do another

3 thing, dilute them in something else. Let's enforce.

4 Let's make compliance stick. Let's make BACT mean

5 something in this nation and in this state.

6 So I encourage you to let the one-hour

7 standard work before you start changing it. Thank

8 you.

9 MR. HELMS: Questions? Comments?

10 Thank you very much. Would you be introducing any of

11 those articles into the record or copies of the

12 articles?

13 MS. BEVING: Since these are the only

14 copies I have, I would be happy to copy them and

15 introduce them.

16 MR. HELMS: Please do. Make copies of

17 them, Xerox copies, and then send them in before

18 August the 1st.

19 MS. BEVING: All right. Thank you so

20 much.

21 MR. HELMS: That will be great.

22 MS. BEVING: Thank you for your time.

23 MR. SILVASI: I had a follow-up

24 question to --

25 MS. BEVING: Okay.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

126

1 MR. SILVASI: You mentioned one article

2 dealt with a particular company moving out of the

3 Dallas one-hour nonattainment area just across the

4 line. Do you have information of other such -- has

5 there been any documentation that that has happened

6 to a very large extent?

7 MS. BEVING: We do have documentation,

8 including my colleagues back there. You will see

9 that -- and particularly when you look at Ellis

10 County, there are many industries moving over the

11 county line. And that's -- as a matter of fact,

12 since we are sitting here this afternoon, I am going

13 to be here sometime, I will hand you these articles.

14 It's very disconcerting, and Randy Lee Loftis of the

15 Dallas Morning News has documented this, where

16 companies will move a quarter of a mile over the

17 county line just to get by with this.

18 And it's what I call out in the public

19 and in the press, the ring around the collar

20 syndrome. I mean, how are we ever going to get in

21 attainment if industries are going to circle their

22 wagons around us, the public, and leave us stuck

23 cleaning up our cars, paying higher insurance costs,

24 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Well, they move

25 across the county line because they are out of

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

127

1 attainment.

2 So we would be happy -- I know

3 Ms. Hubener and I could provide you a list of some of

4 these companies that we feel have moved across the

5 county line or managed to make sure they escaped

6 attainment by moving over there.

7 MR. SILVASI: If you could supply that

8 to the record, that would be helpful.

9 MS. BEVING: All right. Thank you so

10 much.

11 MR. HELMS: Thank you.

12 Again, is there anyone else out there

13 who would like to make a public statement today? Let

14 me adjourn and we will field some questions. We are

15 going to go off the record now. We will remain here

16 until 5:00, as advertised, so that anyone else coming

17 in who wishes to make a statement, we will receive

18 that statement and will go into the record.

19 So we will now go off the record until

20 someone else comes in and would like to make a

21 statement. Having gone off the record, then we will

22 field questions that you might have as best we can.

23 We can guarantee you that we are not the answer

24 people, the know-all, the do-all, the end-all. We

25 will do our very best.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

128

1 So we are off the record from the

2 public hearing, and if you have a question --

3 (Recess taken.)

4 MR. HELMS: We will reconvene on this

5 public hearing on the eight-hour ozone implementation

6 rule. We have Ms. -- you missed my earlier session

7 when I guaranteed everybody I will mispronounce their

8 names. So let me try. Is it Wyldon --

9 MS. FISHMAN: Wyldon.

10 MR. HELMS: Wyldon Fishman.

11 MS. FISHMAN: Yes.

12 MR. HELMS: The podium is yours. Thank

13 you for coming.

14 MS. FISHMAN: Quick service. Good

15 afternoon. Wyldon King Fishman, 9015 Oakwind Court,

16 Dallas, Texas. Thank you for coming to the

17 Dallas/Fort Worth area to receive testimony from the

18 public about the air quality. I have one copy of

19 this for you. At the conclusion, I will be happy to

20 hand it in to you. And I have three points I will

21 make very briefly.

22 One, in August of 1997, my family

23 returned to Dallas after a 17-year absence. Upon

24 arriving, I began to see about the landscaping needs.

25 My husband dug three holes for banana palms. They

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

129

1 were placed on the ground with a root ball over the

2 hole. The moment I started shoveling the earth back

3 into the holes, I felt strangely out of breath.

4 Resting in the shade, holding onto the shovel against

5 the fence, I started to try again to fill in those

6 holes with the shovel. After spending 10 weeks at

7 farming and wilderness camps in Vermont with 350 kids

8 and 220 staff running a camp craft program, I could

9 only sit on the ground and slowly put one handful of

10 dirt into the hole or faint.

11 I found out about Dallas's dirty air.

12 Twice the air stank so bad that I called out Lone

13 Star Gas. The inspector said five other calls were

14 received at the moment mine came in, the stink of

15 natural gas was so strong.

16 And the Dallas Fire Department was

17 another call-out. That day was August 5th, one of

18 the two red days of that summer.

19 Two, I turned around and purchased 13

20 acres in Vermont for my retirement home.

21 Three, yesterday, Monday, June 16th,

22 the paper said it was a yellow alert day. Today's

23 paper says it turned out to be a high green. I need

24 to know far more accurately the changes in the ozone,

25 et cetera, so that I can go outside to exercise,

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

130

1 something America is supposed to be able to do, but

2 here in Dallas, it can be very unsafe to go outside

3 and exercise.

4 Who wants to move to Dallas if the air

5 is so bad? Did Boeing want to come here? Exercise

6 outdoors is unhealthy. Economically speaking, it is

7 a bad idea to allow high level of particles to be in

8 our air. Health-related issues are not only costing

9 individuals, corporations and our hospitals real

10 dollars, but compounding this is the international

11 problem of fires in Mexico.

12 Our ability to make electricity with

13 solar cells and sunlight for growing food is impacted

14 by this haze, another reduction in an investment. We

15 will see more of it in the future and need to think

16 about it now. Thank you for your time.

17 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Comments or

18 questions? Thank you for coming in.

19 Is there anyone else out there that

20 would like to provide us comments on our proposed

21 eight-hour implementation?

22 Okay. We will go off the record again.

23 We will be here until 5:00. Thank you very much. We

24 are off the record now.

25 (Recess taken.)

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

131

1 MR. HELMS: We will now go back on the

2 record for a follow-up comment. Come and state your

3 name and address, and then you will introduce your

4 information into the record.

5 MS. BEVING: Again, my name is Rita

6 Beving. I live at 14605 Dartmouth Court, Addison

7 Texas, 75001. And I just want to read an

8 accompanying addendum to the comment I made and want

9 to make a note out of this article that I referenced

10 from February 19th, 2001 of the Metropolitan Section

11 of the Dallas Morning News. The article is called

12 Plant Matches, The Line on Emissions.

13 And this is in reference to one of the

14 12 plants that this article talks about moving right

15 outside -- which proposed to move right outside the

16 county line. And the article starts out, by locating

17 about 330 yards farther north, a proposed power plant

18 could have helped to remove tons of smog-causing air

19 pollution. Instead as planned, the Ellis County

20 plant would add 482 tons of the emissions a year at a

21 time when the region is scrambling to cut all the

22 pollution it can.

23 The plant that it was referring to was

24 Evista State Power Plant, which was proposed at that

25 time. And in reference to this article, it says,

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

132

1 most industries make such offsets in other areas by

2 buying air credits. Houston is one of those areas

3 that do that. And that's what Evista State did do in

4 Houston so it could build a plant there. But unlike

5 Houston, this article mentions the Dallas/Fort Worth

6 area doesn't have that kind of heavy industry,

7 generating the credits needed for building in Dallas,

8 said the attorney for Evista State.

9 They could have built this plant in a

10 nonattainment area, but there are no credits

11 available, Mr. Burch, attorney for Evista State

12 quoted.

13 So that is part of the problem we are

14 dealing with this ring around the collar problem.

15 And in this article they name -- it says utilities

16 have built, expanded or advanced 11 power plants in

17 North Central Texas since 1995 in Dallas, Tarrant,

18 Fort Worth -- Dallas, Tarrant, Denton and Collin

19 County where air pollution controls are tightest.

20 There is only one in that four-county area.

21 And this lists -- Garland Power and

22 Light in Collin County was the only power plant under

23 construction that was finished. The other plants

24 that were proposed to go around the four-county area

25 was Tenasca Four, Texas Partners, which was to be

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

133

1 built in Cleburne and Johnson Counties, American

2 National Power, who is in Midlothian in Ellis County.

3 Then American National Power also proposed to expand

4 its operations in Midlothian in Ellis County.

5 Tracktadell in Ennis, Ellis County was another such

6 power plant. Garland Power and Light, we already

7 said was built in Collin County. AES was proposed

8 for Grandbury in Hood County.

9 Announced or proposed during the time

10 of this 2001 article was Cobisa, I hope I pronounced

11 it right, C-o-b-i-s-a, and Forney in Kaufman County,

12 Duke Energy in Kaufman County. K and Power,

13 Boonesville in Wise county, Tracktadell, which was

14 proposed near Bridgeport in Wise County and the final

15 one, Evista State proposed in Ferris in Ellis County.

16 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Will you

17 provide us Xerox copies of the articles for the

18 record?

19 MS. BEVING: As a matter of fact, I

20 will see if they can copy this for me.

21 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Is anyone else

22 present that would like to offer comments? Hold on a

23 second. We have Esther McElfish. Excuse me for

24 butchering your name. Come forward.

25 MS. MCELFISH: You are not the first,

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

134

1 nor the last. Mr. Silvasi, Mr. Helms, Mr. Diggs,

2 thank you very much. My name is Esther McElfish. I

3 am from Fort Worth, a long time native Texas resident

4 born and raised in Dallas, now living in Tarrant

5 County, very familiar with the air quality situation

6 or lack thereof.

7 I am a single parent and a mom of a

8 teen-age daughter, so I am going to speak to you on a

9 couple of different points.

10 I went a couple of weeks ago to get my

11 vehicle -- I actually have two -- to get them

12 inspected. And interestingly enough, no one said to

13 me, gee, Esther, you are a single mom. We know you

14 are working hard. We will give you a little tax

15 break. And, by the way, we might give you a little

16 extra time to do this because we know you're working

17 really hard and money is tight as a single parent.

18 It does not happen. And I think I share the thoughts

19 of many of the people here that you have heard from

20 and will hear from today.

21 We are willing to do our part. People

22 understand there is a commitment that must be made on

23 the part of all citizens; however, we deeply resent

24 having to carry the whole burden when we know that

25 there are many companies that should be carrying

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

135

1 their share of the burden. And quite frankly, when

2 they cried poor boy and say they cannot carry their

3 share of the burden, it doesn't fly. We are tired of

4 that. And they need to ante up as part of the cost

5 of doing business in the metroplex. We are losing

6 companies like Toyota and others because our air is

7 dirty.

8 And I think I share the thoughts of

9 many people that nobody says to us, you sure are a

10 nice person; we will give you a tax break and a

11 little extra time when you register your vehicles and

12 have those inspections. So that's my first point.

13 It's only fair play, and the grandfather plants need

14 to ante up.

15 The other part of that, it's the EPA's

16 responsibility to better educate the public. When I

17 turn on the evening news and I see they've upped the

18 rating to orange or red or worse than that, I

19 understand what that means and many of the people

20 understand here what that means, but your average

21 person doesn't get it. They might get that they

22 should mow their lawn later in the day. They might

23 get that they can't let Johnny and Susie out to play

24 during certain hours or if it's a senior citizen,

25 they are restricted. There is a great disconnect by

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

136

1 average citizens on what that means.

2 And I would like to see you step up the

3 educational process and let the public know exactly

4 what that's going to mean in terms of economic

5 consequences, job consequences. And if these

6 companies do not come in compliance -- all of us are

7 doing as much as we can possibly do.

8 If the compliance is not met, it can

9 mean huge job losses. People are terrified right now

10 with the economy that they may be next on the

11 chopping block, that one of us may be next, in terms

12 of losing our jobs. They don't get the connect at

13 all that if we don't come into compliance on our air

14 quality, that it could mean huge losses; not only not

15 new companies coming in, but it could mean

16 contractors not having work, roofers not having work.

17 This great boom on housing could come to a screeching

18 halt.

19 So I think it's up to the EPA to help.

20 And if it means educating the weather persons and the

21 news stations and having hard-core news stories that

22 say, this is what it means, we would like to see you

23 do that. We, as citizen activists,

24 environmentalists, do our part, but we are just

25 little ants compared to this problem, and we don't

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

137

1 have the budgets or the education opportunities that

2 you-all have.

3 I hope that you-all will do this and do

4 it in the summertime right now because this is when

5 people are more aware of what that means in terms of

6 air quality.

7 A couple of summers ago, unfortunately,

8 my air conditioning went out in my car in the

9 summertime. It was no picnic. Not only just bearing

10 up to the heat, but I got a bad taste of what the air

11 quality was like. When you have got to drive around

12 in the metroplex without AC and suck it in behind an

13 18-wheeler, you understand what this means. Not just

14 the immediate fumes, but what the air -- I was so

15 sick every day coming home, and the burning in my

16 eyes.

17 A lot of us don't even realize -- even

18 though we realize it in our yards or home, we do not

19 realize day-to-day what that means because we come

20 from an air-conditioned house to an air-conditioning

21 car to an air-conditioned building. That's what I

22 mean by the huge disconnect. A lot of people don't

23 get it because they are not exposed to that. For

24 those workers and people who are outside who have to

25 bear up to that every day, it's difficult.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

138

1 And the third point -- I actually am

2 going to add a different one, an extra one. My

3 daughter and I try to utilize public transportation

4 as much as possible. We've gone to more meetings

5 than I care to think of in terms of supporting TRA,

6 the Trinity Rail Express. And my daughter serves on

7 the teen board for the library and is an advisor to

8 the team and has been one of the people working on

9 encouraging programs, for instance, for all the 9th

10 graders this year to receive free passes for all --

11 to encourage them to start utilizing public

12 transportation.

13 And I think stepping up the educational

14 program, being as supportive as you can through EPA,

15 seeing that we have regional dollars for public

16 transportation is important.

17 I am a self-employed contractor. I

18 would love to use public transportation in my

19 business, but I don't go from Point A to Point B

20 every day. And I think that's the situation with a

21 lot of folks. We have a lot of distribution

22 businesses, a lot of people in sales and marketing,

23 and unfortunately, we rely on our cars for

24 transportation to go to our appointments.

25 However, whenever I can and my

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

139

1 daughter, if we are going to Dallas and she's going

2 to a concert with her friends or if we are going over

3 to see my elderly mother in Dallas or we are going to

4 visit friends, we use public transportation. We use

5 the TRA and likewise try and encourage people to do

6 so.

7 So I think we need better educational

8 programs and support of dollars so that they can

9 better educate the public. I have a lot of friends

10 in the same position where they would love to utilize

11 it, but they don't see how they can possibly do it in

12 their work, even some of their environmental meetings

13 where we all try and get together. Have you ever

14 tried, people in Duncanville, Dallas, North Dallas,

15 Denton, Arlington and Fort Worth, to a meeting?

16 Public transportation, it just doesn't work.

17 So stepping up the program to let

18 people know how they can better utilize it,

19 encouraging teenagers instead of people having to buy

20 a second car, helping them understand how they can

21 use public transportation for people that can utilize

22 that for short-term runs or for back and forth to

23 Dallas, it makes a lot of sense.

24 I just say, get the word out. That's

25 the best thing you can do. Thank you.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

140

1 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Questions?

2 Thank you for taking the time to come in today.

3 Anyone else wish to make a statement?

4 MR. HARJO: I will let you work on that

5 introduction, Tom.

6 MR. HELMS: Let me try you, Henry.

7 Henry Harjo.

8 MR. HARJO: Harjo, yes.

9 MR. HELMS: That's the southern

10 pronunciation.

11 MR. HARJO: Yes. I'm from Kialegee. I

12 am the environmental director. One of the things I

13 would like to mention is the communication. Even

14 ongoing -- the environmental director, I didn't hear

15 about this meeting until, I guess, it was late last

16 week -- late last week when my assistant was getting

17 ready to plan to come down to Dallas anyway.

18 I am also on the RTOC, which is the

19 Regional Tribal Operational Committee for Region 6.

20 I am on the committee. And at the last regional

21 committee, we asked someone from EPA to come down and

22 to discuss the eight-hour ozone because we were just

23 kind of up in the air about it. So they came down

24 and said, well -- they said, it's basically a

25 transition from one-hour to eight-hour, supposed to

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

141

1 be better for the health and that none of the tribal

2 lands should be affected except Tulsa. And Tulsa is

3 the northern part of the Scovian nation, which has my

4 family on it also. And I see where Dallas --

5 metropolitan Dallas, Houston, LA, New York and Tulsa

6 is thrown in the mix.

7 So that's why I am here, to get a

8 little bit more information about this and to, you

9 know, just kind of make comments there.

10 I used to live in Tulsa and the air

11 was -- you know, we had the ozone days. It was

12 pretty -- it was definitely different than anyplace I

13 ever lived. I knew I had to make a stand. I knew I

14 had to do something, so I moved. I moved south, 60

15 miles away so I wouldn't have to be in that.

16 Well, it appears that through cousins

17 and relatives and friends, I will probably have to

18 look at this anyway. That's why I am here today.

19 And the -- as tribal member, I know

20 that, you know, like I say, we don't have the issues

21 of the one-hour -- everyone knows where Wetumka,

22 Oklahoma is, right? It's just southeast and west of

23 Naweka (phonetic). We are about 60 miles south of

24 Tulsa and straight -- if you start 60 miles and 90

25 miles east of Henrietta -- does anyone know

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

142

1 Henrietta? Okay. We got some people. I am from

2 Oklahoma. I didn't want to mention that earlier

3 because of the introduction.

4 From there, we are about 32 miles kind

5 of meandering down kind of south and west of there,

6 but we are looking into this. We are down here -- we

7 will be speaking with Dick Thomas, the air guy from

8 Region 6, to see if we can start an air program to go

9 up and look at some of the sources. I know it's

10 probably -- ODEQ has already looked at some of that,

11 but we have got some elders up there. We have got

12 some kids up there. We have got some tribal members

13 that we want to get a better handle on this. Thank

14 you very much.

15 MR. HELMS: Thank you. Commend you for

16 coming in today and sharing with us. One question I

17 have. Are you familiar with the interaction that we

18 have with the National Tribal -- do you know Bill

19 Grantham?

20 MR. HARJO: I don't know Bill Grantham,

21 but I know a Laura McKelvey. I attended some

22 training with Laura. Do you guys know a little place

23 down there called Fort Bragg?

24 MR. HELMS: Been there.

25 MR. HARJO: Eighty-two Airborne, that's

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

143

1 where I was. I'm a little familiar with where you

2 guys are also. Probably we are looking at the area I

3 am with, RTOC. There's been some talk that I may be

4 getting on a national. So get on the

5 national --

6 MR. HELMS: Feel free to touch base

7 with Laura McKelvey. We have spent a lot of time --

8 MR. HARJO: That girl may still be mad

9 at me then. I tease a lot of people a lot of times.

10 MR. HELMS: She's real nice. Thank you

11 very much.

12 MR. HARJO: Okay. All right. Thank

13 you very much.

14 MR. HELMS: Anyone else wish to make a

15 statement?

16 We are going to go off the record then.

17 Again, thank you for staying with us. We will be

18 around till 5:00. We will be happy to stay with you.

19 We will be happy to let you go to sleep or whatever.

20 Thanks again.

21 (Recess taken.)

22 MR. HELMS: It's -- looking at the

23 clock, it's 4:54 by my clock, so we formally close

24 the hearing. I want to thank everybody for attending

25 and for your comments.

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

144

1 This hearing is adjourned.

2 (End of Proceedings.)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799

145

1 STATE OF TEXAS **

2 COUNTY OF DALLAS **

3 I, CHARIS M. HENDRICK, Certified

4 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,

5 reported in shorthand the proceedings given at the

6 time and place set forth in the caption hereof, and

7 that the above and foregoing pages contain a full,

8 true, and correct transcript of said hearing, to the

9 best of my ability.

10

11

12

13 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE

14 on this 7th day of July, 2003.

15

16

17 _____________________________

CHARIS M. HENDRICK, CSR # 3469

18 Certification Expires: 12-31-04

7015 Mumford

19 Dallas, Texas 75252

20

21

22

23

24

25

BRADFORD COURT REPORTING

(972) 931-2799