1

_ _ _ _ _ _ 2 3 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA's PROPOSED REVISIONS 5 TO THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 6 FOR PARTICULATE MATTER 7 8 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ 10 11 12 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 13 TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012 14 15 16

_ _ _ _ _ _ 17 18 19 20 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. COURT REPORTERS 21 (800) 288-3376 www.depo.com 22 REPORTED BY: CAROL ANGIOLILLO, RPR 23 FILE NO.: A6067DD 24 25

### 2 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ 2 3 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA's PROPOSED REVISIONS 5 TO THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 6 FOR PARTICULATE MATTER 7 8 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ 10 11 12 13 14 Public Hearing held in Room 2A of the 15 William J. Green Federal Building, 600 Arch Street, 16 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, commencing at 9:15 a.m., 17 Tuesday, July 17, 2012, before Carol J. Angiolillo, 18 Registered Professional Reporter, Notary Public and 19 Certified LiveNote Reporter. 20 21 22 23 24 25

### 3 1 EPA PANEL 2 3 4 5 MICHAEL KOERBER, CHAIRMAN 6 Associate Director for Policy for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 7 8 9 DONNA MASTRO 10 Acting Associate Director of the Air Protection Division with EPA's Region 3 Office in Philadelphia 11 12 STEVEN SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE 13 With EPA's Office of General Counsel 14 15 16 BETH HASSETT-SIPPLE 17 With EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' Health and Environmental Impacts Division 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

### 4 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Tuesday, July 17, 2012 3 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ 5MR. KOERBER: Good morning. Good 6 morning and thank you for attending the 7 Environment Protection Agency's public 8 hearing on the proposed rule for particulate 9 matter. 10 I recognize that many of you 11 traveled quite a distance to be here, and I 12 appreciate your efforts. My name is Mike 13 Koerber, and I'm Associate Director for 14 Policy for EPA's Office of Air Quality 15 Planning and Standards. I will be chairing 16 today's hearing. 17 We are here today to listen to 18 your comments on EPA's proposed revisions to 19 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 20 or NAAQS, for particulate matter. 21As a reminder, this hearing is an 22 opportunity for the public to comment on 23 EPA's proposed rule. The panel members may 24 answer questions that seek to clarify what we 25 have proposed, but the purpose of this

### 5 1 hearing is to listen to your comments, not to 2 discuss or debate the proposal. 3 Before I move to the comment 4period, I would like to briefly describe the 5 proposed rule that is the subject of today's 6 hearing. This proposal was published in the 7 Federal Register on June 29th. 8 An extensive body of scientific 9 evidence shows that exposure to particulate 10 matter causes premature death and is linked 11 to a variety of significant health problems, 12 such as increased hospital admissions and 13 emergency department visits, for 14 cardiovascular and respiratory problems, 15 including non-fatal heart attacks. 16 Exposure to particulate matter 17 also is linked to the development of chronic 18 respiratory disease. 19 With regard to welfare effects, 20 there is longstanding science characterizing 21 the contribution of particulate matter, 22 especially fine particles, to visibility 23 impairment. 24In addition, there is scientific 25 evidence that particulate matter is linked to

### 6 1 a variety of non-visibility welfare effects, 2 including ecological effects, effects on 3 materials and climate impacts. 4The current particulate matter 5 NAAQS include standards for fine and coarse 6 particles. The standards for fine particles, 7 also known as PM2.5, generally refers to 8 particles which are less than or equal to 2.5 9 micrometers in diameter. 10 The standards for coarse 11 particles, also known as PM10, generally 12 refers to particles less than or equal to 10 13 micrometers in diameter. The PM10 standards 14provide protection against effects from 15 particles smaller than 10 micrometers in 16 diameter, but larger than PM2.5. 17 The EPA is proposing to revise the 18 current suite of fine particle standards to 19 provide increased protection of public health 20 and welfare. In doing so, the Agency is 21 responding to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 22 the District of Columbia Circuit remands of 23 the primary annual PM2.5 standard and the 24 secondary PM2.5 standards following 25 litigation of the 2006 final rule. The

### 7 1 Agency also is proposing to retain the 2 current coarse particle standards. 3 We are asking for public comments 4 on all aspects of the proposed standards. 5With respect to the primary 6 standards to protect public health, EPA 7 proposes to lower the level of the annual 8 PM2.5 standard from the current level of 15 9 micrograms per cubic meter to a level within 10 a range of 12 to 13 micrograms per cubic 11meter, retain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 12 level at 35 micrograms per cubic meter, and 13 retain the current 24-hour PM10 standard 14 level at 150 micrograms per cubic meter. 15With respect to the secondary 16 standards to protect public welfare, EPA 17 proposes to set a separate fine particle 18 standard to address PM-related visibility 19 impairment, primarily in urban areas; and 20 retain the current secondary standards 21 for PM2.5 and PM10 to continue to provide 22 protection for other non-visibility welfare 23 effects. 24The proposal also addresses 25 several issues related to the proposed

### 8 1 standards, including updating the air quality 2 index for PM2.5 to be consistent with the 3 primary PM2.5 standards, updating the PM2.5 4monitoring requirements, including adding a 5 requirement that a small number of PM2.5 6 monitors be relocated to measure fine 7 particles near heavily traveled roads; 8 grandfathering preconstruction permitting 9 applications; and specifying an approach for 10 implementing the PSD program, particularly 11 for the proposed secondary standard for 12 PM2.5. 13 The proposed rule also provides 14 background information and describes our 15 current perspectives on implementation issues 16 related to the proposed NAAQS revisions. 17 Additional information on the 18 proposed rule can be found in the facts 19 sheets available in the registration area. 20 Now, let me turn to today's 21 hearing. This hearing is one of two public 22 hearings we're holding to hear public 23 comments on the proposal. We will also be 24 holding a hearing on July 19th in 25 Sacramento, California.

### 9 1We will prepare a written 2 transcript of each hearing. The transcripts 3 will be available as part of the official 4 record for this rule. 5The hearing record will be kept 6 open for 30 days after completion of the 7 public hearings to provide an opportunity for 8 submission of rebuttal comments and 9 supplementary information. 10 Commenters can also provide such 11 information to EPA in their written comments 12 on the proposed rule itself. We will be 13 accepting written comments for the proposed 14 rule until August 31st. We have a handout 15 available in the registration area with 16 detailed information about how to submit 17 written comments. 18 At this time I would like to 19 outline how today's hearing will work. I 20 will call the scheduled speakers to the 21microphone in pairs. When it is your turn to 22 speak, please state your name and your 23 affiliation. It would help our court 24 reporter if you also spell your name. 25In order to be fair to everyone,

### 10 1 we are asking that you limit your testimony 2 to five minutes each, and to remain at the 3 microphone until both speakers in a pair have 4 finished. After you finish your testimony, a 5 panel member may ask clarifying questions. 6 As I mentioned, we are 7 transcribing today's hearing, and each 8 speaker's oral testimony will become part of 9 the official record. If you have any 10 additional written comments, references or 11 data to support your testimony, please be 12 sure to give a copy of these materials to our 13 staff at the registration table. We will 14 submit that material into the docket for you. 15We have a timekeeping system 16 consisting of green, yellow and red lights. 17 When you begin speaking, the green light will 18 come on. You will have five minutes to 19 speak. The yellow light will signal that you 20 will have two minutes left to speak. We will 21 ask that you stop speaking when the red light 22 comes on. 23 We plan to stay until 9:00 p.m. so 24 that everyone has an opportunity to comment. 25 If you would like to testify but have not yet

### 11 1 registered to do so, please sign up at the 2 registration table. 3 For those who have already 4 registered to speak, we have tried to 5 accommodate your requests for specific time 6 slots. 7 We ask for your patience as we 8 proceed through the list. We may need to 9 make some minor adjustments as the day 10 progresses. 11Now, I'd like to introduce the EPA 12 representatives on our panel. 13 Donna Mastro is the Acting 14Associate Director of the Air Protection 15 Division with EPA's Region 3 office in 16 Philadelphia. Steven Silverman is with EPA's 17 Office of General Counsel. And Beth 18 Hassett-Sipple is with EPA's Office of Air 19 Quality Planning and Standard's Health and 20 Environmental Impacts Division. 21I would like to thank you all 22 again for participating today. Let's get 23 started. 24I'd like to call to the microphone 25 our first two speakers, Howard Feldman and

### 12 1 Paul Billings. 2 Howard, you're up first. 3 MR. FELDMAN: I thought I asked 4 for the second slot. 5MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: The first 6 person who registered didn't show up this 7 morning. 8 MR. FELDMAN: Okay. Good morning. 9 Thank you very much. I'm Howard J. Feldman, 10 Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs 11 at the American Petroleum Institute. 12 Thank you for the opportunity to 13 present API's views on the proposed PM 14 standards. 15API represents more than 500 oil 16 and natural gas companies, leaders of a 17 technologically-driven industry that supplies 18 most of America's energy, supports 19 9.2 million U.S. jobs and 7.7 percent of the 20 U.S. economy, and delivers more than $86 21million a day in revenue to the federal 22 government. 23 The industry has invested over 24 $200 billion since 1990 towards improving 25 environmental performance of its products,

### 13 1 facilities and operations. 2 In the year 2009 alone, more than 3 $12 billion was spent implementing new 4 technologies, creating cleaner fuels and 5 funding ongoing environmental initiatives. 6 Recently, as you know, EPA has 7 proposed to establish new PM standards and 8 tighten some of the existing standards to 9 unprecedented levels. Today I am commenting 10 on the proposed fine PM standards, or PM2.5 11 standards. 12 First, today you will undoubtedly 13 hear many speakers express doom and gloom 14 regarding current air quality and assert that 15 these standards need to be tightened to 16 extreme levels. 17 I think we all empathize with the 18 desire for clean air that will be expressed 19 numerous times today. I am encouraged by the 20 progress our nation has made in reducing fine 21 particle emissions in our skies. The 22 concentration of PM2.5 in the nation's air 23 has declined by 24 percent between 2001 and 24 2010. 25The U.S. Oil and Gas Industry has

### 14 1 significantly contributed to these 2 improvements by developing and manufacturing 3 ultra-clean fuels that can be used in new, 4 very low emission diesel and gasoline 5 engines. 6 More good news is that the 7 improvements will continue. States will 8 continue to implement their plans to meet the 9 current standards. 10 Furthermore, when announcing this 11 proposal, EPA stated that it issued a number 12 of rules already that will continue to make 13 significant strides toward reducing fine PM 14 standards in the years ahead. These future 15 improvements are independent of whether any 16 action is taken to change these standards. 17 Back to this proposed rule. This 18 is the culmination of a multi-year process to 19 look at the science and determine if any 20 compelling new science has been uncovered 21 that warrants a change in the existing air 22 quality standard. 23 When the PM standards were last 24 reviewed in 2006, EPA indicated it had 25 already reviewed thousands of studies. After

### 15 1 looking at that extensive information, the 2 Administrator still made the policy decision 3 not to change the annual primary PM2.5 4 standard due to the uncertainty in the 5 science. 6 That brings us to the latest 7 proposal. This time the EPA states that its 8 review included 300 new epi-studies, and many 9 of those allegedly reported adverse health 10 effects, even in areas that currently meet 11 the current PM2.5 standards. But it's also 12 true that many did not. 13 EPA has not proven a cause and 14 effect between PM2.5 below the current 15 standards and health effects. It has failed 16 to adequately address confounding factors. 17 It has assumed rather than provide the 18 evidence for a linear relationship between 19 pollution levels and health effects. 20 So the question is whether the new 21 science compels a change in the existing air 22 quality standards. 23 Dr. Goodman of Gradient will 24 answer these questions in detail in her 25 testimony this morning.

### 16 1In summary, after careful review 2 of the science, she's determined that the 3 studies relied on by EPA for this proposal do 4 not compel lowering of the PM2.5 annual 5 standard. 6 Also, note that proposed EPA 7 policy changes will also likely result in 8 reduced compliance with the existing 9 standards. For example, EPA has proposed to 10 require monitoring PM at roadside for 11 comparison to the lower annual PM standard. 12 This could lead to an additional 13 30 to 100 percent stringency in the standard, 14 and this policy change alone would 15 substantially increase non-attainment, even 16 if the PM standards were reaffirmed at their 17 present levels. 18 Of course, tightening these 19 standards would lead to additional 20 non-attainment areas during the coming 21 decade, even though air quality progress will 22 continue without changing these standards. 23 These additional non-attainment areas will 24 stymie job and business growth when the 25 economy is still struggling to recover.

### 17 1There is real concern regarding 2 how many industries and consumers could be 3 affected if the standard were to be lowered. 4And it's well documented, Unemployment brings 5 with it a whole separate set of adverse 6 impacts on public health. 7 In conclusion, there is no need to 8 move the goal posts now before we attain the 9 current standards. The Administrator should 10 make the policy decisions to reaffirm the 11 current standards, as there is no proven 12 cause and effect between PM2.5 levels below 13 the current standards and health effects. 14Taken as a whole, the studies cut 15 in different directions when it comes to 16 making a case for lowering the standards. 17 And EPA has assumed rather than provided 18 evidence for a linear relationship between 19 pollution levels below the current standards 20 and health effects. 21Thank you again for the 22 opportunity to provide this testimony. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 24Do any of the panel members have 25 clarifying questions?

### 18 1MR. SILVERMAN: Just a few things. 2 You actually don't need to answer. I'd just 3 advise you, though, that when you submit 4 written comments to us, when you say that the 5 2006 standards, the Administrator determined 6 to keep the standard in place, I hoped you 7 addressed the DC Circuit Remand that found 8 that explanation inadequate. 9 And second, I hope in your 10 comments you address that CASAC also found 11 that the current standards were inadequate 12 under the legal standard. 13 And I do want to say one thing to 14 clarify. Your points about the potential 15 effects of the rule, I want to make very 16 clear, EPA is legally obligated not to 17 consider such factors. The Supreme Court has 18 held that, the D.C. Court has held that 19 repeatedly. 20 So I want to make clear that while 21 we will listen to the statements, we will not 22 be basing decisions on them. 23 MR. FELDMAN: We will address all 24 of those things in our comments assuredly. 25MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you.

### 19 1MR. KOERBER: Are there other 2 clarifying questions? 3 Mr. Feldman, you cited a couple of 4 numbers in your testimony, a 24 percent 5 decline in PM2.5 concentrations since 2001, 6 and also with regard to the near-roadway 7 monitoring, a 30 to 100 percent stringency 8 change in the standard. If you could provide 9 references for those in your written 10 comments, that would be helpful. 11Thank you. 12 MR. FELDMAN: Certainly. 13 MR. KOERBER: Let's move on. 14Mr. Paul Billings. 15MR. BILLINGS: Good morning. I'm 16 Paul Billings, Vice-President of National 17 Policy and Advocacy for the American Lung 18 Association. 19 The American Lung Association is 20 pleased to support more protective health 21 standards of 11 micrograms per cubic meter 22 for particulate matter annually, and 25 23 micrograms per cubic meter for 24 hours. 24In my brief testimony, I would 25 like to make four points: One, the public

### 20 1 has a right to know when the air is dirty, 2 when air pollution may harm their health. 3 Two, the law is clear, standards must be set 4 at levels requisite to protect public health 5 with an adequate margin of safety. Three, 6 EPA and state and local air agencies must be 7 focused on meeting health protective 8 standards. Fourth, and most important, the 9 reason why standards exist is because air 10 pollution kills. 11Yes, thousands of people die 12 prematurely because ambient air pollution in 13 the United States is too high. 14The public has a right to know 15 about the quality of the air they breathe. 16 The science is robust, 10,000 studies. These 17 studies show that particulate matter, 18 microscopic specks of soot, metals, acid, 19 dirt, pollen, molds and aerosols are tiny 20 enough to inhale and lodge deep in the lungs, 21 cause serious damage including asthma 22 attacks, heart attacks and strokes, damage to 23 lung tissue and airways, increased hospital 24 visits, and can even kill. 25Those greatest at risk are

### 21 1 children, seniors, people with chronic lung 2 disease, heart disease, diabetes, and those 3 living in poverty. 4After extensive peer review, the 5 science shows that particle pollution harms 6 the public well below the levels currently 7 deemed safe. 8 In 2009, the U.S. District Court 9 for the District of Columbia ruled the EPA 10 failed to adequately protect public health 11 from particulate matter in its 2006 12 standards. 13 Maintaining the status quo 14 standards of 15 and 35, is not acceptable. 15It is critical that EPA expand 16 their roadside monitoring program. The 17 science clearly shows that traffic-generated 18 air pollution increases risk to public 19 health. 20 We commend EPA's proposal begin a 21 program of roadside monitoring of PM2.5 22 pollution, but urge EPA to expand a network 23 to protect the health of millions of 24Americans who live in high traffic areas. 25Without adequate monitoring,

### 22 1 communities will not know the real extent of 2 the burden this source places on public 3 health. The roadside monitors will also help 4 communities know whether the steps they're 5 taking to clean particulate matter are 6 actually working. 7 Second, the Clean Air Act requires 8 strong protective standards. In 2001, the 9 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards must 11 be based solely on the protection of public 12 health and not on the consideration of costs. 13 This makes sense. Standards tell 14 us when the air is dirty, and costs are fully 15 considered in developing cleanup strategies 16 and timelines to meet those standards. 17 Third, EPA and the states must be 18 developing cleanup plans to meet protective 19 standards. Over the past 15 years a number 20 of major national and regional cleanup 21 programs have been adopted to address 22 pollution from cars, diesel engines, 23 ocean-going vessels as well as power plants. 24 These programs improve the air and save 25 lives.

### 23 1However, many pollution cleanup 2 programs remain at risk in the courts. We 3 may learn within the hour on the Cross State 4Air Pollution Rule, or in Congress, 5 especially the House of Representatives with 6 its insatiable appetite to weaken cleaner 7 health protections. 8 There are specific measures 9 pending to block, weaken or delay numerous 10 measures, including the cruise industry's 11 effort to water down the cleanup of 12 ocean-going vessels. Standards will make 13 sure that everyone is protected and provide 14 the backstop protection families need from 15 the foul balls in Washington. 16 Finally, and most important, air 17 pollution kills. Last year we released a 18 report with our colleagues at Earthjustice 19 and the Clean Air Task Force that used 20 computer modeling to estimate the benefits of 21much cleaner, healthier air. That report 22 called "Sick of Soot," found that if the 23 nation cleaned up particle pollution enough 24 to meet the annual standard of 11 micrograms 25 per cubic meter and a 24-hour standard of 25

### 24 1micrograms per cubic meter, we could prevent 2 the premature deaths of 35,700 people each 3 year. 4The analysis showed that more than 5 1.4 million asthma attacks could be avoided. 6 For Philadelphia, more than 1,500 deaths 7 could be avoided each year. 8 In summary, the American Lung 9 Association believes that current standards 10 allow far too much particulate pollution in 11 the air. To help protect the health of all 12 Americans, the Lung Association urges the EPA 13 to adopt much stronger, more protective fine 14particle standards, and recommends an annual 15 standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter, 16 and a 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per 17 cubic meter. 18 Please, set standards that truly 19 protect public health. 20 Thank you very much. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 22 Clarifying questions from the 23 panel? 24MR. SILVERMAN: The D.C. Circuit. 25 And I did want to say one more thing to

### 25 1 Mr. Feldman. I do work on mobile source 2 fuels and the desulfurization of diesel 3 fueling. And what API and others have 4 undertaken has been really remarkable. And 5 we're very appreciative. 6 Anyway, thank you for 7 desulfurizing diesel. 8 MR. BILLINGS: I did it all 9 myself. Thanks to the EPA for putting the 10 rules in place that force desulfurization. I 11 work on those rules and it was very 12 important. And we dragged API along kicking 13 and screaming. 14MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Just one 15 note, when you submit your written comments 16 in support of the alternative standards that 17 you're supporting, the 1125, the more 18 specific you can be as far as translating the 19 scientific information into those standard 20 levels, the more helpful those comments will 21 be. 22 MR. BILLINGS: We certainly will 23 file detailed technical comments and cite the 24 studies and information that will help you 25make that decision.

### 26 1MR. KOERBER: One more for 2 Mr. Billings. 3 You referenced a report, "Sick of 4 Soot," if you could submit a copy of that 5 with your written comments. 6 MR. BILLINGS: I certainly will. 7 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you. 8 I'd like to call Kevin Stewart and 9 Julie Goodman. 10 MR. STEWART: Good morning. I 11 thank the hearing panel for your work. I am 12 Kevin Stewart, and I serve as Director of 13 Environmental Health for the American Lung 14Association of the Mid-Atlantic. 15I'm representing not only the 16 3 million people in our four-state service 17 area who suffer from chronic lung disease, 18 but also the tens of millions more who desire 19 to breathe clean air and so protect their 20 good health. 21Our oldest predecessor agency was 22 founded just blocks from here in 1892 to 23 fight tuberculosis. We are now dedicated to 24 our broader mission of saving lives by 25 preventing lung disease and promoting lung

### 27 1 health. 2 Particle pollution is our nation's 3 most dangerous air pollutant causing heart 4 attacks, strokes, and potentially lung 5 cancer. 6 Each year it causes millions of 7 days lost from work or school, well over a 8 million cases of exacerbated asthma, and tens 9 of thousands of premature deaths. Simply, 10 particle pollution worsens and causes disease 11 in real people. It results in death for far 12 too many. 13 Populations at increased risk from 14particle pollution include infants, children, 15 teens and the elderly, persons with chronic 16 lung and heart disease and diabetes, as well 17 as people living in poverty or who work or 18 are active outdoors. 19 While we estimate that more than 20 half of the entire population is described by 21 at least one of these categories, every one 22 of these millions is a real person, not a 23 nameless statistic. Every one of these 24people is a family member, a neighbor, a 25 co-worker, a friend, perhaps yourself.

### 28 1The American Lung Association has 2 been on record for years that the current 3 particle pollution standard is inadequate to 4protect public health, let alone that it 5 contained the margin of safety the law 6 requires. And, therefore, the American Lung 7 Association and other medical and health 8 groups all support strengthening the annual 9 standard to at most 11 micrograms per cubic 10 meter, and making the 24-hour standard 11 stronger by setting it at no more than 25 12 micrograms per cubic meter. 13 We estimate that if the EPA 14 strengthens the current annual and daily fine 15 particle standards to the levels that we 16 recommend, then every year, considering our 17 service area of Delaware, New Jersey, 18 Pennsylvania and West Virginia alone, they 19 would prevent on the order of 5,000 premature 20 deaths, 350 heart attacks, 3,500 21 hospitalizations and emergency department 22 visits, 4,500 cases of acute bronchitis, 23 200,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 24 400,000 days of missed work or school every 25 year.

### 29 1Opponents of improving air quality 2 standards complain of purported undue costs 3 to the economy. Yet not only does history 4 show no evidence that setting strong 5 pollution standards hurts jobs for the 6 economy as a whole, but rather that failure 7 to clean up air pollution imposes all sorts 8 of costs on the economy in death, disease, 9 disability, absenteeism and lost work and 10 productivity. 11Far from being a job killer, 12 improving air quality is actually a great 13 bargain with benefits exceeding cleanup costs 14 typically by a factor on the order of 30 to 15 1 . 16 Again, in our service area alone, 17 the estimated health-related costs of 18 particle pollution are on the order of 19 $40 billion every year. We see these costs 20 all the time reflected in our medical bills 21 and insurance premiums, in the costs of goods 22 and services, and to be sure in the economy, 23 as those higher costs affect the ability of 24 employers to create jobs. 25Yet, somehow despite the annual

### 30 1 toll to life and health and despite the 2 extremely good investment in keeping the air 3 clean, the EPA's proposed particle pollution 4 standards, though a clear improvement, fall 5 short on what is necessary to protect public 6 health. 7 The law requires that these 8 standards be based on the best available 9 science, that they uniformly protect the 10 public health, including that of sensitive 11 groups, and that they provide an adequate 12 margin of safety. 13 And, therefore, the American Lung 14Association of the Mid-Atlantic urges the 15 administration to issue strong final 16 standards for fine particle pollution that 17 comply with the law. 18 In particular, we appeal to EPA 19 Administrator Jackson to do the following: 20 Adopt an annual PM2.5 standard no less 21 stringent than 11 micrograms per cubic meter; 22 adopt a 24-hour average PM2.5 standard no 23 less stringent than 25 micrograms per cubic 24meter, with a 99th percentile form; ensure 25 protection for all exposed populations,

### 31 1 rejecting averaging a reading among monitors 2 and rejecting exemption for any industrial 3 sector. 4And our recommendation to EPA is 5 simple: Follow the science and set the 6 standards that put us on the path to clean 7 air for everyone. Carry out your public 8 trust to protect the public health. The 9 public has a right to know the truth about 10 the quality of the air they are breathing. 11 The standards should tell people that truth. 12 The law demands it. 13 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, 14 Mr. Stewart. 15Questions from the panel? 16 MR. SILVERMAN: Just one question. 17 I notice you weren't speaking at all and 18 neither did Mr. Billings about either of 19 these proposed standards for coarse 20 particulate or the secondary standards. 21Is ALA planning to take positions 22 on those? 23 MR. STEWART: I will defer to our 24 national office on the technical report that 25 we will submit on that.

### 32 1MR. SILVERMAN: Okay. We are 2 interested in hearing what your views are. 3 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: One question: 4 You are recommending a change to the form of 5 the 24-hour PM2.5 primary standard from a 98 6 to a 99th percentile form? 7 If you would please provide the 8 rationale for that proposed recommendation, 9 that would be helpful. 10 MR. STEWART: Right. The simple 11 statement of the rationale is that it's more 12 protective to public health. And I think so 13 often in the discussion of the 24-hour 14 standard, the essential aspect of the form of 15 the standard is not being discussed, and I 16 think it's important that we do so. 17 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Thank you. 18 MR. KOERBER: Mr. Stewart, one 19 final question. You cited in your testimony 20 a benefit to cost ratio of 30 to one. If you 21 could provide references for that in your 22 written comments, that would appreciated. 23 MR. STEWART: That's from the 24 EPA's own analysis showing a range of from 3 25 times to 90 times as much.

### 33 1MR. KOERBER: If you could provide 2 that in your written comments, we'd 3 appreciate that. 4MR. STEWART: I will make a note 5 of that. 6 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 7 Ms. Goodman. 8 DR. GOODMAN: Thank you for the 9 opportunity to speak today. I am Dr. Julie 10 Goodman, an epidemiologist and 11 board-certified toxicologist at Gradient, an 12 environmental consulting firm in Cambridge, 13 Massachusetts. I also teach a graduate level 14 epidemiology class at the Harvard School of 15 Public Health. 16 I received funding from the 17 American Petroleum Institute to travel here 18 today, but I am speaking on my own behalf. 19 Based on my expertise in air 20 pollution science, I conclude that EPA's 21 rationale for lowering the PM2.5 annual 22 standard to a level between 12 and 13 23 micrograms per cubic meter were not based on 24 a scientifically sound approach. 25The EPA stated that the body of

### 34 1 scientific evidence, which includes 2 epidemiology, toxicology and mechanistic 3 data, is consistent and together supports 4 lowering the standard to protect against 5 potential PM-related health effects. Over 6 the next few minutes, I will discuss three 7 reasons why this is not the case. 8 First, even though EPA asserted 9 that these data all factor into the overall 10 conclusions in the proposed rule, it is 11 evidence that EPA based its conclusions 12 almost solely on the epidemiology data. 13 Aside from being an unbalanced approach, 14 these studies are not informative for PM 15 levels below the current standards. 16 Second, despite evidence to the 17 contrary, EPA assumed that PM has no 18 threshold or level below which it is not 19 likely to affect human health. This 20 assumption biases the way epidemiology data 21 are analyzed, making risks appear higher. 22 Third, EPA arbitrarily selected a 23 proposed annual PM standard that is "just 24 below" average concentrations reported in a 25 select few epidemiology studies. This is a

### 35 1 non-scientific method, and these particular 2 studies are no more definitive than other 3 studies that don't show effects at these 4 levels. 5As for my first point, EPA 6 incorrectly concluded that the new 7 epidemiology studies provide stronger 8 evidence of associations between both 9 long-term and short-term PM2.5 exposure and 10 mortality. Like the studies evaluated in the 11 prior review of the NAAQS, issues with these 12 studies include confounding by co-pollutants 13 and other factors, heterogeneity in PM 14 concentration and composition, exposure 15measurement error and the statistical models. 16 Even disregarding these 17 limitations, the epidemiology data, as a 18 whole, are inconsistent both within and among 19 studies, with some analyses suggesting 20 increased risks for some health effects and 21 others reporting no effects at average annual 22 levels below and above the current PM 23 standard. 24Taken together, this indicates 25 that the epidemiology data are not sufficient

### 36 1 to support lowering the standards. 2 With regard to my second point, 3 EPA incorrectly concluded that "toxicological 4 studies provide supportive evidence that the 5 cardiovascular morbidity effects observed in 6 long-term exposure epidemiological studies 7 are biologically plausible and coherent with 8 studies of cardiovascular-related mortality." 9 This is simply not the case. 10 Animal studies do not consistently find 11 effects on potential markers of 12 cardiovascular disease, even at exposures 13 that far exceed ambient levels. 14Overall, experimental exposure 15 studies in both animals and humans 16 demonstrate that inhaling PM2.5 only affects 17 human health at very high doses that 18 overwhelm natural defense mechanisms. 19 That is, the body's natural 20 defenses can effectively deal with a certain 21 level of PM, indicating there is an exposure 22 level below which PM is not likely to cause 23 effects. 24Also, the effects of observed high 25 exposure levels are mild and reversible,

### 37 1 which is not consistent with the more severe 2 effects reported in the epidemiology studies 3 on which the EPA relies. This is true not 4 only for cardiovascular effects, but 5 respiratory effects as well. 6 My third and final point is in 7 regard to the way in which EPA selected the 8 proposed levels of standards. In the policy 9 assessment, the EPA assessed whether there is 10 a PM concentration at which there is an 11 "unacceptable degree of uncertainty," and 12 "the possibility that an effects threshold 13 may exist becomes more likely." 14EPA provided three studies that 15 indicated a high degree of uncertainty at PM 16 levels below the current annual standard. 17 EPA concluded, however, that the results did 18 not suggest a potential threshold, but 19 rather, "the comparative lack of air quality 20 data at lower PM2.5 concentrations." 21Choosing a standard just below 22 average concentrations reported in a select 23 few epidemiology studies is not justified 24 when the science suggests an unacceptable 25 degree of uncertainty.

### 38 1In conclusion, EPA did not fully 2 consider the whole body of evidence, and 3 relied almost solely on epidemiology studies. 4 EPA also did not fully consider the evidence 5 that PM health effects have a threshold. 6 Finally, EPA did not use a 7 scientifically appropriate method to select 8 the level of the standard. 9 EPA should consider the issues 10 with the epidemiology studies and that the 11 epidemiology, toxicity, and mechanistic data 12 are not coherent for PM exposures below the 13 current standard. 14Also, the rationale for the 15 proposed standard is arbitrary and not based 16 on sound science. 17 Overall, the available scientific 18 data do not support lowering the annual PM 19 standard. 20 Thank you. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 22 Clarifying questions from the 23 panel? 24MR. SILVERMAN: Just the same 25 comment I made to Mr. Feldman, please be sure

### 39 1 in your written comments to address CASAC's 2 views on all of these matters. 3 When you mention toxicologic 4 evidence and -- I'm not going to get this 5 completely right -- but the body's natural 6 defenses would be overwhelmed only at high 7 concentrations, are you talking about acute 8 effects? 9 DR. GOODMAN: Well, I'm talking 10 about -- yes, these studies that look at the 11 high doses. Essentially, they all find -- 12 excuse me -- I think that the effects on 13 these toxicology studies can be applied to 14 the effects noted in the epidemiology studies 15 and they're not. 16 MR. SILVERMAN: So you think the 17 toxicologic evidence you're speaking of 18 applies to both the long-term and short-term 19 effects? 20 DR. GOODMAN: I do. 21MR. SILVERMAN: Okay. And you'll 22 explain that as well, I take it? 23 DR. GOODMAN: Yes. 24MR. KOERBER: Other questions? 25Thank you. I'd like to call Tony

### 40 1 Payton and Joseph Otis Minott. 2 Mr. Payton. 3 MR. PAYTON: Thank you to the 4panelists. My name is Tony Payton, Jr. I am 5 a Pennsylvania State Representative. I work 6 in the 179th District here in Philadelphia. 7 And I'll be very brief. 8 As the co-chair of the Asthma 9 Caucus in the House and an asthma sufferer 10 all of my life, I would implore the panel to 11 enact some of the strongest standards that 12 we've seen to protect our most vulnerable 13 populations, like many of those that I 14 represent, you know, including asthma 15 sufferers, young children, the elderly and 16 low income population that have historically 17 been bombarded with lower air quality than 18 other areas. 19 So I would just ask you guys to 20 consider those folks in your deliberations as 21 you consider these new standards and enact 22 some very strict standards, because the 23 cleaner the air, the better for everyone. 24Thank you. 25MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir.

### 41 1Any clarifying questions from the 2 panel? 3 Thank you. 4MR. KOERBER: Mr. Minott. 5MR. MINOTT: Thank you. 6 Good morning. My name is Joe 7 Minott, and I'm the Executive Director of the 8 Clean Air Council. On behalf of the Council 9 and its 8,000 members throughout Pennsylvania 10 and Delaware, I welcome you to Philadelphia. 11 Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to 12 testify today. 13 The Clean Air Council is a 14 non-profit environmental organization 15 headquartered in Philadelphia. For more than 16 40 years the Council has fought to improve 17 air quality across Pennsylvania and Delaware. 18 The Council's mission is to protect 19 everyone's right to breathe clean air. 20 Just for the record, I'm also a 21 sufferer of lung disease, though I have never 22 smoked in my life. I'm also the father of an 23 asthmatic. 24It is particularly fitting that 25 EPA is holding this hearing in both

### 42 1 Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. 2 The Council is working with 3 Philadelphia area residents that live and 4 work near major transportation centers, such 5 as ports. Day after day these neighborhoods 6 are overwhelmed by the impact of diesel 7 emissions from port equipment and trucks 8 coming in and out of the ports. These 9 residents know the devastating impact 10 particulate emission is having on their 11 health and quality of life. 12 Similarly, residents throughout 13 Pennsylvania who live above the Marcellus 14 Shale are assaulted daily from the 15 uncontrolled diesel emissions from equipment 16 used to extract and process natural gas. 17 Your decision today will directly 18 impact these Philadelphians and these 19 Pennsylvanians. 20 The science is really clear. Fine 21 particulate is a killer. It wreaks havoc on 22 public health. It causes incredible 23 suffering. It costs billions of dollars in 24 healthcare costs. It promotes disease, 25 disability, and a loss of productively.

### 43 1The EPA has a unique opportunity 2 today to address the devastation caused by 3 this pollutant. I applaud EPA's decision to 4 tighten the fine particulate standard. 5The current EPA proposal to lower 6 the annual average to 12 to 13 micrograms per 7 cubic meter will save the lives of hundreds 8 of people. It will create 2.3 to 5.9 billion 9 in health benefits. 10 But I think we all know that EPA's 11 proposed annual standard of 12 to 13 12 micrograms per cubic meter will not meet 13 EPA's statutory duty of setting the National 14Ambient Air Quality Standards at a level that 15 protects public health with an adequate 16 margin of safety. 17 EPA should instead adopt an annual 18 standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter 19 combined with a 24-hour standard of 25 20 micrograms per cubic meter. Science clearly 21 supports the tighter standards. 22 Environmental health groups like 23 the Clean Air Council demand the tighter 24 standards on behalf of our members. 25Certainly, the neighborhoods near

### 44 1 transportation hubs and those residents in 2 shale country have a right to expect that EPA 3 will follow the science and adopt the tighter 4yearly and 24-hour standards. 5Finally, it is not enough to 6 simply adopt the tighter annual standards of 7 11 micrograms per cubic meter and the 24-hour 8 standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 9 How and where EPA chooses to measure the new 10 standard is critically important in truly 11 protecting public health. 12 PM concentrations near highways or 13 near transportation hubs or near natural gas 14 drilling and processing sites will be much 15 higher than the PM concentrations measured by 16 monitors not located near such locations. 17 The monitors need to be in close proximity to 18 where particulate pollution is at its 19 highest; otherwise, the new ambient health 20 standards will not, in fact, be protective of 21 public health. 22 This is because large populations 23 of people live in close proximity to sources 24 of PM emissions. This holds true whether 25 this particulate matter is being emitted in a

### 45 1more rural area, such as shale territory, or 2 in a densely populated urban area, such as 3 near a port. 4I particularly want to thank the 5 EPA General Counsel for reminding all of us, 6 including the representative from the oil 7 industry, that in setting the ambient air 8 quality standards, EPA may not consider cost. 9 This is meant to be a health study. 10 Finally, I humbly suggest that a 11 federal building with a high and sometimes 12 intimating security may not be a welcoming 13 environment for community members that wish 14 to testify, and that's something you might 15 want to consider in future public hearings. 16 The Council reserves the right to 17 submit more comprehensive comments at a later 18 time. 19 Thank you very much. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, 21 Mr. Minott. And thank you for your comments 22 on the venue. We appreciate that feedback. 23 Clarifying questions from the 24panel? 25MR. SILVERMAN: It's not even

### 46 1 hospitable to panel members. 2 MS. MASTRO: Can you clarify what 3 you believe the sources of PM in shale 4 country are? 5MR. MINOTT: As someone that works 6 a lot on Marcellus Shale, you know that 7 almost every piece of equipment from coming 8 in to creating the pad, to the drilling, to 9 the processing of the gas, through the 10 compressing -- all of it is, or a lot of it 11 is from diesel equipment. And it's not as if 12 you only have one and then that's it. 13 In order for the gas to be 14properly extracted and processed, you have a 15 whole bunch of these sort of minor sources, 16 all emitting a fair amount of particulate 17 matter. And that's the concern that the 18 residents have. 19 MS. MASTRO: You're focused on the 20 diesel? 21MR. MINOTT: I'm focused on the 22 diesel, yes. 23 MR. KOERBER: Any other questions? 24MR. SILVERMAN: Do you have a 25 position on the coarse particle standards?

### 47 1MR. MINOTT: We're still waiting 2 for the American Lung Association to tell me 3 what that should be. 4Thank you. 5MR. KOERBER: Mr. Minott and 6 Mr. Payton, thank you. 7 I'd like to call Adam Garber and 8 David Heinold. 9 Mr. Garber. 10 MR. GARBER: Good morning. And 11 thank you for the opportunity to testify 12 today on this critically important issue of 13 particulate matter air pollution, also called 14 "soot" pollution. 15My name is Adam Garber and I'm the 16 Field Director for PennEnvironment. 17 PennEnvironment is a statewide, 18 citizen-funded environmental advocacy 19 organization with about 100,000 members and 20 activists across the Commonwealth, who I'm 21 speaking on behalf of today. 22 On their behalf, I really applaud 23 the EPA for moving forward to protect our 24 health by strengthening the current National 25 Ambient Air Quality Standards for soot

### 48 1 pollution, and urge the Agency to move 2 forward with finalizing the strongest 3 possible standards this year. 4Specifically, PennEnvironment 5 calls on the EPA to set an annual standard of 6 11 micrograms per cubic meter for fine 7 particulate particle pollution, and a daily 8 standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 9 Numerous scientific studies, as 10 already pointed out today, have found that 11 soot pollution poses a serious threat to 12 public health. And, in fact, soot pollution 13 is the deadliest of the common air 14pollutants. 15The main reason soot pollution is 16 so dangerous is because the particles that 17 make up the pollution are small and are able 18 to lodge deep in our lungs where they can 19 cause serious damage. 20 This pollution which is emitted by 21 diesel vehicles, as Joe Minott recently 22 noted, coal-fired power plants and several 23 other sources, is linked to a variety of 24 cardiovascular and respiratory health 25 problems, including asthma, heart attacks,

### 49 1 strokes and chronic respiratory disease. And 2 it's blamed for hundreds of thousands of 3 premature deaths every year. 4In Pennsylvania, respiratory 5 problems such as these are especially high in 6 the Pittsburgh area, which is ranked sixth in 7 the nation in terms of both long-term and 8 short-term particle pollution by the American 9 Lung Association. And Philadelphia and 10 Harrisburg are not far behind, ranking 10th 11 for long-term particle pollution and 17th 12 for short-term particle pollution, 13 respectively. 14It's also worth noting that as 15 diesel pollution spreads across the state 16 with gas drilling and other types of 17 pollution, that other areas could be impacted 18 by this type of air pollution. 19 This problem is particularly acute 20 for those who are most vulnerable among us. 21 Children, senior citizens, and those who 22 suffer from respiratory problems, such as 23 myself, are at a heightened risk of being 24 sickened by soot. 25That's bad news for all of us, but

### 50 1 especially for the hundreds of thousands of 2 people in the state with asthma, which it 3 comes to about 10 percent of our population. 4Soot pollution is not just a 5 problem for health, it's also a really big 6 problem for our environment. Most notably, 7 soot pollution contributes to haze that hangs 8 over many of the country's most scenic park 9 and wilderness areas. This haze spoils 10 amazing vistas and threatens the health of 11 families relaxing in these areas. 12 Thankfully, we have the technology 13 today to drastically reduce levels of soot 14pollution. We can make buses than run 15 cleaner. We can install proven pollution 16 control technologies on power plants. But to 17 ensure that these and other steps forward 18 actually happen, we need these air quality 19 standards in place that reflect what the 20 latest science tells us about the dangers of 21 soot. 22 That's why we applaud the EPA for 23 working to strengthen the current soot 24pollution standards and urge you to implement 25 them as soon as possible.

### 51 1Thank you again for the 2 opportunity to testify today. 3 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, 4 Mr. Garber. 5Clarifying questions? 6 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Adam, you 7 mentioned that you support standards for 8 providing protection to haze or PM visibility 9 impairments. 10 Do you have any specific comments 11 on the proposed distinct standard for 12 secondary? 13 MR. GARBER: We will submit them 14 in our full comments. 15MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Great, 16 appreciate it. 17 MR. KOERBER: Mr. Heinold. 18 MR. HEINOLD: Thank you. 19 Good morning. My name is David 20 Heinold. I'm with AECOM. 21I received support today from the 22 American Petroleum Institute to share my 23 comments on Urban Visibility Secondary 24 Standard. 25EPA's proposed secondary national

### 52 1 air quality standard for visibility would 2 establish a daily average light extinction 3 limit for the stated purpose to improve 4 visibility, primarily in urban areas. 5Our review of the selected form 6 and level of the standard, and EPA's studies 7 leading up to the proposed rule, indicates 8 that neither the form nor the proposed levels 9 are sufficiently justified. And there are 10 minimal air quality benefits beyond the 11 current primary 24-hour standard. 12 Yet if promulgated, the secondary 13 visibility standard will require states to 14 develop implementation plans, and emission 15 sources may be required to demonstrate 16 compliance. 17 Moreover, EPA has not established 18 that a singular extinction-based standard is 19 most appropriate to cover the variation of 20 factors that actually affect urban visibility 21 and related public welfare. 22 In addition, the analysis that EPA 23 has developed to support its surrogate policy 24 indicates that attainment of the proposed 25 primary PM2.5 standards is generally

### 53 1 protective of the proposed derived light 2 extinction-based secondary standard. 3 And this finding questions the 4 need for a separate urban-focused visibility 5 standard in lieu of setting the secondary 6 standard equal to the primary standard. 7 Here are a few of the several 8 technical issues which have not been 9 adequately addressed by EPA, which provides 10 support for EPA not moving forward with the 11 proposed secondary standard for urban 12 visibility. 13 I note that I previously raised 14 some of these issues in public comments to 15 CASAC, and through comments to EPA submitted 16 previously by API. 17 Issue one: Urban visibility is 18 highly complex and cannot be uniquely related 19 to a single parameter, such as a point 20 measurement of reconstructed light 21 extinction, especially at a single wavelength 22 that is derived from speciated PM2.5 23 measurements. 24Evidence of this complexity is 25 found in the wide variability of the results

### 54 1 of the perceived welfare effects among the 2 urban-based visibility preference studies 3 that have been conducted. 4Issue two: An urban visibility 5 standard based only on particle effects is 6 incomplete because it does not address sky 7 discoloration characteristics of urban 8 vistas, such as caused by other pollutants 9 such as nitrogen dioxide. Given that urban 10 visibility is multi-wavelength and the 11 function of both particles and gases, it's 12 questionable to establish a secondary 13 standard based only on particulate extinction 14 at a single wavelength. 15Issue 3: EPA proposes not to 16 measure light extinction directly, but to 17 apply the old improved equation that was 18 initially developed to convert speciated PM 19 24-hour particulate matter mass measures in 20 pristine Class I areas in to light 21 extinction. There are many uncertainties 22 with converting particulate matter mass into 23 extinction, including the effects of relative 24 humidity. 25For urban areas the extinction

### 55 1 equation should be modified for a different 2 mix of particles, and also include nitrogen 3 dioxide and then be extensively tested. 4Issue four: EPA's extinction 5 calculation method has much more inherent 6 uncertainty than other criteria of pollutants 7 than other Federal Reference Methods. 8 Indirect measurements of extinction would be 9 a much more accurate way of estimating 10 extinction than using the IMPROVE equation, 11 especially when only monthly values of 12 speciation humidity are used as proposed. 13 Issue 5: Based on an analysis of 14measurement data, EPA proposes that 15 compliance with the primary daily PM 2.5 16 NAAQS implies compliance with the proposed 17 secondary PM2.5 NAAQS. This raises the 18 question that if this is really true, then is 19 a secondary standard really necessary to be 20 promulgating the standard? 21Issue six: It's well known that 22 there's a large complexity of modeling PM2.5. 23 And even after 15 years, EPA has not 24 developed the long-awaited PM2.5 modeling 25 guidance.

### 56 1But given the difficulty that EPA 2 has encountered in developing procedures to 3 model PM2.5, the prospects of EPA providing 4 suitable modeling procedures to address the 5 secondary extinction-based particulate 6 standard seem rather remote. 7 And finally I'd like to note that 8 details of comments that reflect these issues 9 will be submitted to the docket. 10 Thank you. 11MR. KOERBER: Thank you, 12 Mr. Heinold. 13 Clarifying questions? 14I just had one. You stated that 15 the visibility equation should be modified. 16 If you could provide specific recommendations 17 along those lines in your written comments, 18 that would be appreciated. 19 MR. HEINOLD: We will do so. 20 Thank you. 21MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you. 22 I'd like to call David Hartley and 23 Deborah Shprentz. 24Mr. Hartley. 25MR. HARTLEY: Thank you. I'd like

### 57 1 to thank the panel for having us all here 2 today. 3 My name is David Hartley, and I'm 4 going into my third year of law school here 5 in Philadelphia. 6 On the first day of my 7 environmental law class, we learned that the 8 EPA is legally bound to set the NAAQS 9 according to a health-based standard. We 10 read a Supreme Court case where Justice 11 Scalia, a Justice not known for his tree 12 hugging, said that the EPA could not consider 13 costs, even if they wanted to when setting 14 the NAAQS. 15So my question is: Why set the 16 fine particulate matter annual average at 12 17 to 13 micrograms per cubic meter when by the 18 EPA's own analysis an 11 microgram average 19 would save thousands of more lives. 20 I have before me the regulatory 21 impact analysis the EPA did along with the 22 fine particulate matter rule-making process. 23 The studies the EPA relies on showed that a 24 12 to 13 microgram standard would save 25 anywhere from 11 to 730 premature deaths; 410

### 58 1 to 24,000 incidences of exacerbated asthma in 2 children; and 1,800 to 44,000 lost workdays 3 due to particulate matter caused health 4 effects. Those numbers are impressive, and I 5 wonder why the EPA has dragged their feet to 6 implement this new standard? 7 But then I look at what the 8 Regulatory Impact Analysis says for 11 9 microgram annual standard for fine 10 particulate matter, and I'm shocked that the 11 EPA would not be rushing to implement it. 12 By reducing the annual limit one 13 more microgram, 1,100 to 2,900 premature 14 deaths would be avoided, 89,000 instances of 15 exacerbated asthma in children would be 16 avoided, and a 170,000 lost workdays would be 17 restored. These are all increases of a 18 factor of four or better. These numbers 19 become even higher when the daily limit is 20 set to a lower 24 micrograms per cubic meter 21 standard. 22 If the EPA was solely concerned 23 with health, this is clearly the standard to 24pick. 25The first time I looked at this, I

### 59 1 could not figure out why the EPA would not 2 implement the 11 microgram standard. But 3 then I remembered that there are those 4 lobbying EPA that are concerned with 5 industry's bottom line. 6 The estimated cost of a switch to 7 an 11 microgram standard is $270 million. 8 That's a drop in the bucket considering this 9 amount of spread to large industries all 10 across the country. 11The State of Pennsylvania gives 12 out tax breaks to single corporations larger 13 than this. Plus the estimated value of the 14 health benefits outstrip this cost 30 to 80 15 times over. 16 But still, industry has worked to 17 reframe the paradigm of progress by focusing 18 on what is being left behind, in this case, 19 the profit margin. 20 But the idea of progress should 21 not be about what we're leaving behind. It 22 is about where society is going. 23 So I ask the EPA to implement a 24 true health-based standard and reclaim the 25 idea of progress as a forward-looking idea

### 60 1 once again. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 4Clarifying questions? 5MR. SILVERMAN: Who is your 6 environmental law professor? 7 MR. HARTLEY: Professor Amy 8 Sinden. 9 MR. SILVERMAN: Good. Good job. 10 MR. KOERBER: Ms. Shprentz. 11MS. SHPRENTZ: Good morning. 12 I'm Deborah Shprentz, and I want 13 to thank you for the opportunity to testify 14 today in support of stronger air quality 15 standards for particulate matter. 16 PM is the most lethal of air 17 pollutants. For many years I've closely 18 followed the review of the NAAQS for the 19 American Lung Association. 20 Back in 1997 when EPA first set 21 air quality standards for fine particles, the 22 Agency had about two major long-term studies 23 and several dozen short-term studies upon 24 which to base the standards. 25At that time, as you know, there

### 61 1 was controversy about the key long-term 2 studies, the Harvard Six Cities Study and the 3 American Cancer Society Cohort Study, as well 4 as much industry criticism of the short-term 5 studies. 6 Litigation over the standards went 7 all the way to the Supreme Court, which 8 unanimously upheld the standards and 9 conclusively established that the NAAQS are 10 health-based standards that must protect 11 public health with an adequate margin of 12 safety. 13 An extensive scientific research 14program was launched after the '97 standards 15 guided by the Committee of the National 16 Academy of Sciences. Federal research funds 17 of half-a-billion dollars were dedicated to 18 the 10-year research effort. 19 Multi-disciplinary centers were 20 established at five major American 21 universities. 22 Over that time, the Six Cities and 23 the ACS studies were independently reviewed, 24 audited, validated and replicated, upholding 25 the original finding. The short-term studies

### 62 1 were also reviewed by the Health Effects 2 Institute and industry-EPA partnership. 3 Since '97, 10,000 new scientific 4 studies have been published as a result of 5 this massive research effort. Yet the annual 6 average PM2.5 standard set in 1997 is the 7 same standard in effect today. 8 However, today, we have a much 9 more robust understanding of the breadth and 10 seriousness of the harms that fine particles 11 pose to human health. 12 EPA's comprehensive and thoroughly 13 vetted scientific assessment concludes that 14 breathing fine particles over the long term 15 is causally related to premature death and to 16 heart disease, and is likely the cause of 17 lung disease. 18 Just last month the World Health 19 Organization announced its finding that 20 diesel particulate, a key component of PM2.5, 21 is a known human carcinogen. It follows that 22 the roadside monitoring program that EPA is 23 proposing is critically important. But it 24must be strengthened and expanded, expedited 25 and supplemented by modeling.

### 63 1Today we know that fine 2 particulate matter shortens lives by six 3 months or more, causes heart attacks and 4 strokes, and impedes the development of 5 children's lungs. 6 Today, the follow-up period on the 7 seminal cohort studies has been extended by 8 15 more years. The air has gotten cleaner, 9 but we're finding that the risks of premature 10 deaths persists even at lower concentrations. 11Today we have long-term cohort 12 studies from the Women's Health Initiative, 13 the Medicare studies, the Nurses' Health 14 study, the California Children's Health 15 study, and the Cystic Fibrosis study. 16 The key issue is how to interpret 17 these studies for standard-setting purposes. 18 EPA needs to look beyond the mean or average 19 concentration in these studies. Like the 20 Bell curve, it follows that adverse effects 21 were experienced at concentrations both above 22 and below the mean. 23 The bulk of the health effects 24 reported in these studies occurred when the 25 air quality concentrations were within one

### 64 1 standard deviation of the mean. 2 So, looking at concentration, one 3 standard deviation below the mean provides an 4 objective benchmark to guide standard 5 setting. 6 We recommend that to protect 7 public health, including the health of 8 sensitive populations such as children, the 9 elderly, people with heart and lung disease, 10 and diabetes, EPA must strengthen the annual 11 average PM2.5 standard to a level of 11 12 micrograms per cubic meter or below. 13 Further, to protect against daily 14peak concentrations, EPA must lower the 15 24-hour standard at least to a level of 25 16 micrograms per cubic meter. 17 To do less would fail to meet the 18 health protection mandate of the Clean Air 19 Act. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 21Clarifying questions from the 22 panel? 23 MR. SILVERMAN: In your comments I 24 hope you address our discussion of 25 distributional statistics which deals with

### 65 1 some of the issues we talked about, about 2 statistical approaches. 3 I don't mean to put you on the 4 spot, but I'm curious if ALA yet has a 5 position on the secondary standard or the 6 coarse particle standard? 7 MS. SHPRENTZ: Well, we don't get 8 into the secondary standard. We're focusing 9 on the health standard, of course. And we 10 are putting a lot of focus on the fine 11 particle standards. 12 But I will comment that with 13 respect to the coarse particle standard, you 14 know, the standard of 150 micrograms over a 15 24-hour average, that was set back in, I 16 believe, 1979. It's way out of date. It's 17 totally inadequate to protect public health. 18 Of those 10,000 research studies 19 that I mentioned, probably 9,500 of them 20 looked at PM10 as the indicator pollutant. 21 And the science assessment and the proposal 22 really don't address those PM10 health 23 studies. They're looking solely at the PM10 24minus 2.5 health studies, which are much more 25 limited.

### 66 1So, we think that the record that 2 EPA has built with respect to the coarse 3 particle standard is inadequate because it 4 failed to examine those PM10 health studies, 5 which I think are relevant to the 6 establishment of the PM10 standard. 7 MS. MASTRO: I just had a question 8 about Atmospherix. 9 MS. SHPRENTZ: Yes, that's the 10 consulting firm that I represent. 11MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Deborah, just 12 one point of clarification. The PM10 13 standard was set originally in 1987; and 14 then PM2.5 originally was set in '97. I 15 think you mentioned '79. 16 MR. SILVERMAN: Actually, it 17 was -- although the standard is the same, it 18 was rejustified on independent grounds in 19 2006. 20 MS. SHPRENTZ: Thank you. 21MR. KOERBER: I have one final 22 question. With regard to the near-roadway 23 monitoring, you suggested supplementing that 24 with modeling? If you have any thoughts and 25 ideas that you could provide in your written

### 67 1 comments, that would be appreciated. 2 MS. SHPRENTZ: Well, yeah. I 3 mean, EPA is proposing, I think, to move 52 4monitors to -- we think this is a great step 5 forward, but 52 monitors, we're looking at an 6 enormous country here, and that can't 7 possibly adequately capture all of the 8 potential accedences of the standard. 9 And we know that resources are 10 limited. We'd love to see the monitoring 11 program greatly expanded in the roadside 12 environment. But given resource constraints, 13 I think it's incumbent upon EPA to also look 14 at modeling in order to predict where these 15 accedences will occur. 16 And there's precedence for that in 17 the recently revised NAAQS for sulfur 18 dioxide. 19 MR. KOERBER: Great, thank you. 20 Address that in your written comments, too, 21 please. 22 MR. SILVERMAN: And I'd just like 23 to one clarifying thing. Of course, the 24 issues of implementation was, they are part 25 of the NAAQS itself, though?

### 68 1MS. SHPRENTZ: Yes. 2 MR. KOERBER: Thank you both. 3 I'd like to call Thomas Woo and 4 Carolyn Auwaerter -- Thomas Huynh, my 5 apologies. 6 MR. HUYNH: Good morning. My name 7 is Thomas Huynh. I'm testifying today on 8 behalf of NACAA, the National Association of 9 Clean Air Agencies, for which I serve as on 10 the Board of Directors. I am also Director 11 of Philadelphia and Air Management Services 12 Program. 13 NACAA is the national, 14 non-partisan, non-profit association of air 15 pollution control agencies in 45 states, the 16 District of Columbia, four territories, and 17 116 local air pollution control agencies. 18 This testimony is based on our preliminary 19 review of EPA's PM NAAQS proposal, and 20 focuses on just a few key topics. 21Primary PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA's 22 proposal to tighten the primary 23 annual PM2.5 standard to a level in the range 24 of 12 to 13 micrograms per cubic meter and 25 retain the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard are

### 69 1 appropriate and consistent with the 2 recommendations of CASAC, the Agency's 3 congressionally chartered body of independent 4 scientific advisors. NACAA supports these 5 proposals. 6 In a September 10, 2010, letter to 7 the EPA Administrator, CASAC supported the 8 EPA staff's conclusion that currently 9 available information clearly calls into 10 question the adequacy of the current 11 standards, and noted that the primary PM2.5 12 standard levels under consideration by the 13 Agency are supported by epidemiological and 14 toxicological evidence and by the risk and 15 air quality information compiled in EPA's 16 various PM assessment documents. 17 Second, that NACAA supports EPA's 18 proposal to co-locate PM2.5 near-roadway 19 monitors at sites measuring NO2and CO. This 20 is consistent with CASAC's recommendations to 21 develop the near-roadway network with a 22 multi-pollutant focus and to include 23 the PM2.5 on the list of pollutants that 24 should be measured. 25However, in order to ensure the

### 70 1 best possible measurement of 2 near-roadway PM2.5 concentrations, NACAA asks 3 that the state and local agencies be given 4 flexibility to identify alternative site 5 location on a case-by-case basis, where there 6 is scientific justification for doing so. 7 We will be providing feedback on 8 specific aspects of the 9 proposed PM2.5 near-roadway network in our 10 written comments. We also support EPA's 11 efforts to phase-in implementation of 12 near-roadway monitoring requirements. A 13 phased approach is in line with CASAC's 14 recommendation that the near-roadway network 15 be implemented in stages. 16 NACAA continues to stress that 17 monitoring requirements must be fully funded, 18 including staffing, as well as operation and 19 maintenance costs. New monitoring mandates 20 must be supported by appropriate increases in 21 federal funding. Implementing a 22 multi-pollutant near-roadway monitoring 23 network requires the purchase of new 24 equipment and installation of new sites, 25 relocation of monitors, and additional staff

### 71 1 and operation and maintenance costs at a time 2 when state and local agencies are already 3 struggling with budget and staffing 4 shortfalls. 5It is also important to note that 6 the relocation of existing monitors does 7 result in additional costs to state and local 8 agencies, as it requires the use of 9 additional staff, time and resources. These 10 costs must be fully funded. 11NACAA also continues to encourage 12 EPA to work with state and local agencies to 13 address a number of complicated 14 implementation issues that are raised by the 15 near-roadway monitoring network and 16 non-attainment area designations. 17 The Clean Air Act requires states 18 to address and reduce emissions in order to 19 achieve attainment. And the focus of the 20 emission control effort is within a 21 non-attainment area; typically, a CBSA or 22 county. 23 In a near-roadway, 24 ultra-microscale environment, however, one 25 issue that arises is what control measures

### 72 1 for state and local agencies to pay when 2 beyond federally required motor vehicle fleet 3 standards that are beyond our control. 4Third, setting NAAQS and 5 implementing them are independent issues and 6 must remain so. 7 However, whatever decision EPA 8 makes on the level and form of PM NAAQS will 9 have a profound impact on the work of state 10 and local air pollution agencies. 11EPA must recognize this, and not 12 in setting the NAAQS, but by requesting 13 sufficient funds for state and local air 14 agencies to carry out work associated with 15meeting the new NAAQS, providing sufficient 16 infrastructure, involving state and local 17 agencies and from the outset in developing 18 implementation rules and guidance and issuing 19 rules and guidance in a timely manner. 20 It is imperative that EPA work in 21 close partnership with state and local 22 agencies to address implementation issues and 23 achieve the ultimate goal of public health 24protection. 25It's also important that any

### 73 1 potential economic impacts of a more 2 stringent PM2.5 standard to be taken into 3 consideration during implementation. 4In conclusion, NACAA looks forward 5 to providing more comprehensive comments on 6 this important proposal by the close of EPA's 7 public comment period. 8 Thank you for this opportunity to 9 testify. 10 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 11Clarifying questions? 12 Ms. Auwaerter. 13 MS. AUWAERTER: Hi. My name is 14 Carolyn Auwaerter, and I'm testifying on 15 behalf of Greenpeace, as well as our 770,000 16 members nationwide. I'm also here as a 17 Philadelphia resident and an asthma sufferer. 18 I grew up in the Philadelphia 19 suburbs out in Chester County. And from 20 kindergarten on, I loved to play soccer. 21And when I was 14 years old, 22 during the fall season, I had a cough that I 23 couldn't shake. And so my mom took me to the 24 doctor's office. I assumed I had maybe a 25 really bad sinus infection, possibly

### 74 1 bronchitis. 2 But the doctor, after listening to 3 my description of the issues and listening to 4my lungs said, I think you have asthma. 5Like anyone who receives 6 surprisingly bad news, I didn't believe it. 7 And I also didn't believe it because I 8 thought all asthma sufferers wheezed. 9 But once I saw an asthma and 10 allergy specialist, he confirmed that there 11 are many people out there like me, who have 12 uncontrollable coughing, coughing that comes 13 so fast and so hard that sometimes it's hard 14 to take a breath between when the next one 15 starts to wrack your lungs. 16 Working with a specialist we came 17 up with a treatment plan for me. The first 18 thing that we did was work to find a mix of 19 medication that would work to control my 20 symptoms. 21So, over the years I've used 22 inhalers, pills, even a nebulizer at one 23 point. 24The second thing that we did was 25 work to identify my triggers. And,

### 75 1 unfortunately, one of those triggers was 2 heavy exercise. But what that meant was that 3 20 minutes before practice started, I took my 4 inhaler so that I was preemptively giving the 5medicine time to start working. 6 The triggers is something that 7 really concerns me about particulate matter, 8 because this is something that often you 9 can't see in the air, it's invisible to the 10 eye, and so you don't know that when you go 11 outside that day for practice that it could 12 be worse. 13 Certainly, there are air quality 14 warnings that go out, but not everyone sees 15 those. And certainly as a child who loved to 16 be outside, you couldn't tell me that I was 17 going to miss soccer practice. 18 The other thing that I think is 19 really important about regulating particulate 20 matter is that I, as an individual, could 21 control things about playing soccer, making 22 sure I had my inhaler on hand. But I wasn't 23 able to go to the power plant seven miles 24 from my childhood home and ask that they burn 25 a little less coal that day because I wanted

### 76 1 to do some extra practice with my dad in my 2 back yard. 3 And so that's why I think it's so 4 important that you make the strongest 5 standard possible with a margin of safety. 6 This is really about people's health. And, 7 in fact, I was quite privileged in that I had 8 health insurance and that my parents were 9 able to pay for the twice-a-year visit to the 10 specialist, and more if I was having issues, 11 as well as the daily medication copays. 12 And there are many people who 13 don't have the kinds of financial resources 14 to control and keep their asthma and other 15 respiratory diseases in check. 16 And so I ask that you think of the 17 millions of people across the country who 18 have it much worse than I do when you create 19 your standard. 20 Thank you. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 22 Questions from the panel? 23 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: As part of 24 the proposal, in addition to proposing to 25 revise the fine particle health-based

### 77 1 standards, we're also proposing to revise the 2 air quality index consistent with the 3 proposed standards. 4So if you have any thoughts or can 5 provide additional comments on the proposed 6 changes to the subindex for the air quality 7 index for PM2.5, that would be helpful. 8 MS. AUWAERTER: We'll make sure 9 that we have that in our written comments. 10 MR. KOERBER: Thank you both. 11I'd like to call Katie Feeney and 12 Gretchen Alfonso. 13 Ms. Feeney. 14MS. FEENEY: Hi, I'm Katie Feeney. 15 I live at 246 Wilder Street in South 16 Philadelphia. I actually live right by I-95. 17 I hope you'll indulge me, I don't 18 have copies, I'm going to speak mostly from 19 the heart today. 20 Mostly about how I love 21 Philadelphia; it's a wonderful place to live. 22 I love living here, but living here has 23 become increasingly treacherous to my health. 24I spoke at the EPA's carbon rule 25 hearing recently because every time I walk

### 78 1 outside I feel it's becoming more difficult 2 to breathe. I've never had that problem in 3 my life. I've never felt that chest 4 tightness from ozone until I moved here. 5I'm from Erie, Pennsylvania. They 6 have their share of bad air quality as well. 7 I spoke there because I'm very 8 concerned with how ozone will impact my 9 health. I spoke at the EPA's mercury hearing 10 last year because an event, I had my hair 11 tested by Sierra Club and found out that I'm 12 nearly twice over the state's amount of 13 mercury that should be in your blood, or what 14 EPA states, I'm double that amount nearly. 15I spoke out, and I'm here today 16 speaking out at this hearing on particulate 17 matter because I live in Philadelphia. And I 18 know that short-term exposure to particulates 19 can kill us. 20 As I mentioned, I live below 21 Interstate 95, which is a pretty busy road. 22 I don't know if you've ever been on it. 23 I come to these hearings because, 24 in short, my only hope for my health right 25 now is EPA. I mean, my only hope really is

### 79 1 that you all will act on the science and not 2 on politics, as so many others are doing 3 right now in this national debate where we're 4 not acknowledging that pollution is hurting 5 us, hurting our kids, hurting our health 6 every day. 7 I mean, I really encourage EPA to 8 be forthright, to keep on introducing these 9 standards that are made for people like me 10 who live in cities where we want it to be 11 green and have a low carbon footprint, but 12 then are the most subjected to air pollution 13 in our communities. 14I hope that you will follow the 15 science, because the science is so clear, 16 that soot kills and we need protection from 17 it. It's pretty simple. 18 And I'd just like to close by 19 saying that API can spend all their money to 20 fly people in to speak against this rule. 21 And citizens like myself will spend our money 22 on asthma inhalers, doctor's visits, 23 medication, nebulizers and more to deal with 24 the air quality that we are living with right 25 now. We all deserve to breathe clean air.

### 80 1So I thank the EPA for being here, 2 for taking my comments and others. And I 3 urge you to ensure the strongest 4 rule possible on this issue. 5Thank you. 6 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 7 Questions? 8 Ms. Alfonso. 9 MS. ALFONSO: My name is Gretchen 10 Alfonso. I live at 240 Sigel Street, here in 11 Philadelphia. 12 I'm also the Pennsylvania field 13 organizer for the Moms Clean Air Force, but 14 I'm also mother to two small children. Reny 15 is 3; Fiona is 15 months. 16 This is what happens. This is too 17 important to me, it makes me really 18 emotional. 19 Just about two years ago we made a 20 choice to move here to Philadelphia from 21 Memphis, Tennessee to be closer to my family. 22 We sold our car, pared down our household 23 goods so that we could try to live in a small 24 carbon imprint. 25The decision to live in South

### 81 1 Philadelphia has given our family a wealth of 2 experiences. But that time is in question, 3 was that a good decision because it's taken a 4 toll on our family's physical well-being. 5My youngest has suffered breathing 6 difficulties. She's had nebulizer 7 treatments. She's been on an inhaler before 8 she was even one year old. 9 My husband, I frequently talk 10 about how our lungs are so tight after just 11 4 miles biking to work. We aren't the only 12 ones that are noticing that air pollution is 13 having an effect on our small children. 14The American Academy of Pediatrics 15 now recognizes ambient air pollution as a 16 serious problem here in the United States and 17 worldwide. Numerous studies are finding that 18 negative health effects result from air 19 pollution at levels that we once thought were 20 safe. 21Not only is there a direct link 22 between air pollution and respiratory 23 symptoms, but recently the AAP also found 24 links between outdoor air pollution and 25 pre-term birth, pre-term deaths, infant

### 82 1mortality and the development of asthma. 2 Soot or fine particulate matter is 3 so small that its very nature makes it one of 4 the most dangerous forms of pollution. It is 5 easily inhaled and enters into the blood 6 stream where it can lead to heart attack, 7 stroke, asthma, and most seriously affect 8 pregnant women and young children. 9 Young children like Reny and Fiona 10 are especially susceptible to soot as they 11 breathe more rapidly and inhale more 12 particulate matter. 13 For my family and many others who 14 live in the working class neighborhood of 15 Pennsport in South Philadelphia, we breathe 16 in the pollution every day that flows in from 17 the busy I-95, which borders our 18 neighborhood. 19 For my daughter who suffers from 20 Philadelphia's poor air quality, my son who 21 loves, and at three needs to play outside, my 22 husband rides his bike to work, and for 23 myself and every other Pennsylvania mom who 24 tries her best to put her health and her 25 family first, I applaud the Environmental

### 83 1 Protection Agency for finally stepping up for 2 the health of our children, and for 3 strengthening the particulate matter standard 4 as laid out in The Clean Air Act. 5I'm also submitting, along with my 6 comments today, the comments of 9,217 other 7 moms who have submitted comments in support 8 of this rule since the public comment period 9 was opened just over a month ago. 10 We will also be outside with a 11 Stroller Brigade starting at 12:30 in support 12 of this new rule. Pennsylvania moms 13 congratulate the EPA for stepping up and 14 enacting new standards. 15Thank you. 16 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 17 Clarifying questions? 18 Your organization, Moms Clean Air 19 Force; is that correct? 20 MS. ALFONSO: Yes. 21MR. KOERBER: Can you describe 22 that briefly? 23 MS. ALFONSO: We are a non-profit. 24 We are less than a year old. We have almost 25 90,000 members across the country, and 8,000

### 84 1 who live here in Pennsylvania. 2 We're a brand-new group fighting 3 for our children's health. 4MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 5I'd like to call Reverend Douglas 6 Hunt and Nancy Clark. 7 Reverend Hunt. 8 REVEREND HUNT: Good morning. I'm 9 Reverend Douglas Hunt. I'm ordained clergy 10 in the United Church of Christ, and I'm also 11 a board member of the Pennsylvania affiliate 12 of Interfaith Power and Light, a national 13 organization representing over 30,000 14 congregations of all faiths through 39 state 15 affiliates throughout the country. 16 Interfaith Power and Light is a 17 religious response to climate change and the 18 cause of climate change. 19 I want to thank the Environmental 20 Protection Agency for this opportunity to 21 express my support for the changes you have 22 proposed in the strongest possible terms, and 23 to tell you why, from my faith and my 24personal perspective, these changes are so 25 important and are, in fact, a moral

### 85 1 imperative. 2 Having grown up in the midwest in 3 the '40s and '50s, I got to know particulates 4 in the air pretty well. I also learned to 5 hate it, not because of the terrible impact 6 it has on people's health and the rest of 7 God's creation, I didn't know, and most 8 people didn't know about them. 9 I got to hate it because it got 10 all over and into everything. And my mother 11must have spent a good part of her life 12 cleaning it off of the windowsills and the 13 floors and everywhere. 14Today, this is a matter of 15 justice. People who, like myself, am 16 privileged to live mostly in areas where the 17 air is filtered in one way or another, and 18 that soot and that particulate are not 19 present, don't have to cope with that, at 20 least on our windowsills. 21And the other reason I hated it is 22 when she cleaned, I, when I got old enough, 23 also cleaned with her. My mother, who is now 24 91, is privileged in her own way to live in 25 Florida, where the breezes flow from the Gulf

### 86 1 of Mexico. I live in Pennsylvania, where the 2 breezes continue to blow from the midwest, 3 when the wind blows. 4We both, however, have asthma, as 5 a reminder of our days in the midwest. What 6 my mother and I didn't know at the time and 7 that I now understand is that this is a 8 spiritual and moral as well as a health and 9 scientific issue. 10 We didn't really know where most 11 of the particulates came from. We also 12 didn't know it would kill and debilitate and 13 in so many other ways make people's lives 14miserable, from a very early age. 15As you have heard from others, and 16 according to your own agency, thousands of 17 scientific studies have been provided, 18 convincing evidence that exposure to these 19 particulates connects directly to a variety 20 of health problems that you have heard and 21 will hear again and again connect to 22 premature deaths, especially heart and hung 23 disease, heart attacks, irritation of the 24 airways, coughing, difficulty breathing, 25 reduced lung function and increased asthma

### 87 1 attacks, just to name a few. 2 I, like the previous speaker, 3 lived in Tennessee for five years, in 4 Knoxville, Tennessee, which is known as one 5 of the asthma capitals in the world, thanks 6 to the Tennessee Valley Authority's 7 restructuring of coal-fired power plants 8 without scrubbers on them. 9 So we came to Philadelphia to have 10 it better. 11We know that soot kills. We know 12 that it pollutes our world. We know that it 13 affects those least able to protect 14 themselves, especially children, the elderly 15 and people living in poverty who cannot 16 afford to live in context where the air is 17 cleaned for them. 18 We have the capability to clean 19 this air, at least to make it a little 20 cleaner. And not to protect it, not to 21 protect our health is an outrage. 22 To not implement them, as you have 23 been asked not to do, because they would 24 reduce profit margins, primarily for 25 corporations for which these costs are not

### 88 1 even a round-off error on their annual profit 2 statements is immoral and unconscionable. 3 I, therefore, urge you to 4 implement these standards as quickly as 5 possible. 6 Thank you for the opportunity. 7 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 8 Five minutes on the dot. 9 REVEREND HUNT: I learned in 10 seminary that God leaves after 17 minutes, so 11 you do that with the sermon. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 13 Questions from the panel? 14MR. SILVERMAN: Not a question. 15 But I remember your group also presented 16 eloquent testimony on proposed standards for 17 motor vehicles for the 2025 carbon standards. 18 I found your statement also eloquent. 19 Thank you. 20 REVEREND HUNT: Thank you so much. 21MR. KOERBER: Ms. Clark. 22 MS. CLARK: Hello. I'm Nancy 23 Clark, N-A-N-C-Y, C-L-A-R-K, representing 24 today the American Forest and Paper 25 Association, and also the American Wood

### 89 1 Council. 2 The American Forest and Paper 3 Association is the national trade association 4 of the forest product industry representing 5 pulp, paper, packaging, and wood product 6 manufacturers and forest land owners. 7 The American Wood Council is the 8 voice of North American traditional and 9 engineered wood products. 10 AF&PA and AWC, the associations I 11 represent, are both disappointed that EPA did 12 not include the current standard as a formal 13 alternative in the proposed rule, and thereby 14 request comment on it as an option. 15There is significant uncertainty 16 in the science used to develop the revised PM 17 NAAQS standards, and we think EPA erred in 18 finding that the existing standard is 19 inadequate. 20 The economic impacts of a lower 21 standard at these levels are too great to 22 ignore the scientific uncertainty. 23 In the proposed rule, EPA states: 24 "A substantial amount of new research has 25 been conducted since the close of the science

### 90 1 assessment in the last review of the PM2.5 2 NAAQS, with important new information coming 3 from epidemiological studies in particular." 4AF&PA and AWA do not believe that 5 EPA actually considered all the new research 6 when it issued the proposed rule. 7 For example, one new study, "An 8 Approach to the Estimation of Chronic Air 9 Pollution Effects Using Spatio-Temporal 10 Information" -- this is from Greven, 11 Dominici, and Zeger, June 2011 -- and our 12 organizations are conducting further analysis 13 on this study to provide to EPA in comments 14 on it at the end of August. 15It examines 18.2 million Medicare 16 beneficiaries and accounts for lifestyle and 17 other environmental exposures, such as 18 smoking, stress, body mass index, 19 occupational exposures and indoor and outdoor 20 air quality. 21The study finds -- and I quote -- 22 "after adjusting for the association between 23 national trends in mortality and PM2.5, there 24 is no significant association between an 25 increase in the local yearly average PM2.5

### 91 1 concentration and the risk of dying in a 2 given month for the local Medicare 3 population." 4In addition, according to the 5 Health Effects Institute, which is an 6 organization supported both by industry and 7 EPA, the large majority of studies examining 8 the shape of the quantitative relationship 9 between air pollutant levels and acute 10 mortality data have relied on model-fit 11 criteria. 12 However, these criteria were not 13 developed to assess scientific theories of 14 cause and effect and are, therefore, 15 inappropriate for making firm conclusions on 16 the nature of the response function between 17 mortality and air pollution concentration. 18 Consequently, drawing a proposed 19 more stringent standard from these models is 20 also inappropriate. 21In contrast to EPA's conclusions, 22 the results of existing studies examining 23 thresholds in time series studies are 24 inconsistent. Some studies report a 25 log-linear relationship with no evidence for

### 92 1 a threshold, while other studies report the 2 existence of thresholds. 3 EPA does not cite in their review 4 of studies that report thresholds. The vast 5majority of EPA's claimed health benefits 6 come from reductions below these thresholds. 7 Finally, we are concerned EPA is 8 understating the impact of a tighter PM2.5 9 standard by saying only six counties will be 10 designated as non-attainment in 2020. 11First, states will be making 12 non-attainment designation required under the 13 Clean Air Act using 2009 to 2011 or perhaps 14 to 2010 to 2012 air quality data, which will 15 show dozens of counties exceeding the 16 proposed range. 17 It is not clear how EPA can claim 18 the resulting state implementation plans only 19 need to look at control measures in the six 20 counties or fully credit the emission 21 reductions that may be occurring from 22 existing regulations that might reduce PM. 23 As a result, businesses seeking 24 air quality permits to construct new projects 25 or modify existing plants anywhere in the

### 93 1 country may find it extremely difficult to 2 model compliance with the new PM2.5 NAAQS 3 under the PSD program, and will be forced to 4 look at pollution controls that may be 5 technically infeasible or cost prohibitive. 6 Thus, investments that could 7 create new jobs or maintain competitiveness 8 may be harmed by the tougher proposed limits. 9 So, in summary, we're recommending 10 that EPA properly evaluate the entire body of 11 science, not only that that was considered 12 during the CASAC process, and assess the 13 uncertainty around health effects of PM 14 exposure, reconsidering whether to retain the 15 current annual standard, and whether that's 16 sufficient to protect public health, given 17 the entire body of science. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 20 Clarifying questions? 21MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: You 22 identified some new studies, 2009-2011, and 23 I'll point out that the preamble to the 24proposed rule does indicate that the Agency 25 will be conducting a provisional science

### 94 1 assessment and looking at the new evidence 2 that has been published in the reviewed 3 literature. 4As much specificity that you can 5 provide for studies with specific citations, 6 that would be very helpful for us in doing a 7 provisional science assessment, as well as 8 the older studies that you mentioned with the 9 question of linearity, the log-linear 10 relationship. If you can provide specific 11 cites, that would help us. 12 MS. CLARK: Thank you. We will do 13 that. 14MR. KOERBER: Thank you both. 15I would like to call Mandy Warner 16 and Michael Craner. And Michael Craner. 17 Ms. Warner. 18 MS. WARNER: Thank you. 19 Good morning. My name is Mandy 20 Warner, and I'm a climate and air policy 21 specialist with Environmental Defense Fund, a 22 non-partisan environmental organization with 23 more than 750,000 members nationwide. 24EDF is dedicated to working 25 towards innovative, cost-effective solutions

### 95 1 to environmental problems, building on a 2 foundation of rigorous science, economics and 3 law. 4Particulate pollution or soot is 5 associated with serious adverse human health 6 impacts, including premature death, 7 cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks, 8 strokes and heart disease and respiratory 9 disease. 10 Consistent with the most recent 11 health science, we urge you to strengthen the 12 annual standard for fine particulate matter 13 to 11 micrograms per cubic meter, and 14 although EPA is proposing to maintain the 15 24-hour standard of 35 micrograms per cubic 16 meter, we recommend the 24-hour standard be 17 strengthened to 25 micrograms due to the 18 public health threat posed by short-term 19 exposure. 20 Particulate matter is also the 21main cause of reduced visibility and haze, 22 which harms the scenic vistas in our 23 treasured national parks, which about 24 280 million people visited in 2011. We must 25 protect these iconic natural areas for future

### 96 1 generations. 2 When compared to current air 3 quality, strengthening the nation's current 4 health standards for particulate pollution 5 could prevent as many as 35,700 premature 6 deaths, 2,350 heart attacks, and 23,000 7 visits to the hospital and emergency room 8 each year. 9 EPA's analysis found that 10 strengthening the annual standard to 11 11micrograms and a daily standard to just 30 12 micrograms would yield $14-36 billion in net 13 monetized annual health benefits. 14A study released this month as a 15 follow up to the Harvard Six Cities Study 16 reaffirmed the association of particulate 17 pollution exposure to increased risk of 18 premature mortality. The study found that 19 every increase of 10 micrograms per cubic 20 meter of fine particulate pollution was 21 associated with a 14 percent increased risk 22 of all-cause mortality, a 26 percent increase 23 in cardiovascular death, and a 37 percent 24 increase in lung cancer death. 25Emission reductions made here in

### 97 1 Pennsylvania, along with reductions made in 2 other states whose pollution travels into 3 Pennsylvania, will help improve air quality 4 ensuring healthier, longer lives. 5Pennsylvania stands to benefit 6 significantly from protective health-based 7 standards for particulate pollution. 8 Philadelphia is home to 32,000 9 children at risk from asthma, and more than 10 363,000 people at risk from heart disease. 11According to the American Lung 12 Association, two Pennsylvania metropolitan 13 areas ranked in the top 25 among cities most 14polluted by year-round particulate pollution. 15Additionally, the Philadelphia 16 metro area is ranked fourth among areas in 17 the country that will benefit the most from 18 the daily and annual particulate standards 19 EDF and other organizations are recommending, 20 with an estimated 1,550 lives saved every 21 year. 22 The public has been waiting long 23 enough for updated standards based on the 24 latest science. This proposal comes almost 25 three years after the D.C. Circuit Court

### 98 1 remanded the 2006 standards back to EPA to 2 correct the deficiencies identified by the 3 court. 4Every year of delay has resulted 5 in thousands of avoidable deaths, numerous 6 heart attacks, asthma attacks and other 7 health impacts. The Clean Air Scientific 8 Advisory Committee, EPA's independent science 9 advisors, unanimously concluded that the 10 current standards do not protect human 11 health. 12 The American Thoracic Society, the 13 American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 14 Medical Association, the American Public 15 Health Association and others have all called 16 for more protective particulate matter 17 standards. 18 We look forward to EPA finalizing 19 strong health protective standards this 20 December. 21Despite what some opponents may 22 say, strong particulate standards can be met. 23 Only 17 counties out of thousands across the 24 nation are projected by EPA to not meet a 25 strengthened standard of 11 micrograms in

### 99 1 2020. 2 As EPA notes, recently finalized 3 rules including the Cross-State Air Pollution 4 Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule for 5 power plants will help the states achieve the 6 updated standards. 7 Power companies are planning now 8 to meet federal and state clean air rules to 9 replace and modernize aging infrastructure, 10 and to respond to market conditions that are 11 driving investment in lower-emitting 12 resources. Ensuring timely promulgation of 13 these standards will further assist power 14 companies to making prudent, long-term 15 business decisions that protect the public 16 health and welfare. 17 EDF will be submitting further 18 detailed technical comments on the proposal. 19 Thank you for the opportunity to 20 testify. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 22 Clarifying questions? 23 MR. SILVERMAN: Will you be taking 24 a position on the coarse standard? 25MS. WARNER: We will probably

### 100 1 address that in our technical comments, yeah. 2 MR. KOERBER: Mr. Craner. 3 MR. CRANER: Hi. My name is 4 Michael Craner, and I have a few things to 5 say about soot. 6 Remember the scene in 101 7 Dalmatians where the Dalmatians disguised 8 themselves as black Labrador retrievers by 9 rolling around in the soot? Was I the only 10 one who thought that might be a little bit 11 unhealthy for the puppies? 12 I'm not a world-renowned expert in 13 global warming, so I can't personally vouch 14 for the apparently undeniable evidence that 15 soot, or black carbon as it's also known, is 16 driving our environment to a certain 17 disaster, from melting ice caps, highly 18 disgruntled polar bears, coastal flooding, 19 and runaway solar heat. 20 But I am the father of an 21 asthmatic, and I know from personal 22 experience and reading the research that tiny 23 particulate matter, especially the sub 2.5 24micron or sooty stuff can penetrate deep into 25 his lungs, into the narrow passages where

### 101 1 oxygen exchange takes place with the 2 circulatory system, and at least double his 3 asthmatic symptoms. 4I'm also the husband of a family 5 practice physician. And I asked my wife 6 about the medical impacts of fine particulate 7 pollution, or PM2.5 as it is known. Her 8 response was that fine particulate pollution 9 is linked to tens of thousands of deaths per 10 year. It affects, predominantly, the poor 11 and uninsured who live near the heavy 12 industry and major roadways where the 13 pollution is the worst. 14It is, therefore, tied to a 15 significant increase in emergency room visits 16 involving asthma attacks and cardiopulmonary 17 issues and, consequently, contributes to 18 skyrocketing ER costs that are passed on to 19 taxpayers. 20 Asthma, pulmonary and systemic 21 inflammation, debilitating emphysema, various 22 heart and circulatory illnesses, COPD, and 23 cancer are all preventable. In short, this 24 stuff is killing people. 25And I am an engineer, so I can

### 102 1 understand and appreciate the challenges that 2 stricter emission controls may place on our 3 industries. But my family and I have taken 4 aggressive steps to reduce our carbon 5 footprint, so I'm not sure I can empathize. 6 We've installed solar power and 7 generate more energy than we use, 8 contributing excess back to the grid to help 9 manage peak loads. 10 We replaced the heating and 11 cooling system in our home with a geothermal 12 system that squeezes some 300 percent 13 efficiency out of the energy we produce. 14And finally, we both drive 15 electric cars, eliminating direct carbon 16 emissions and achieving a carbon equivalent 17 of over a hundred miles per gallon per 18 vehicle. 19 So, if we can make these 20 adjustments to stop the nonsense, industry 21 can adjust their processes to reduce 22 particulate emissions incrementally to the 23 stricter levels proposed by the Sierra Club, 24 the American Lung Association, and other 25medical expert groups.

### 103 1Again, as an engineer, I am aware 2 of numerous practical and low-cost 3 modifications to power plants and large 4 diesel vehicles that could be easily made to 5meet these lower-emission requirements. The 6 costs are minuscule, relative to the cost of 7 lives and tax dollars wasted on lost 8 productivity and unnecessary emergency room 9 visits. These savings can be used to pay for 10 the replacement technologies that produce 11 zero black carbon and CO2, the number two and 12 number one leading greenhouse pollutants. 13 The soot we produce reaches other 14 country's across the wide oceans in less than 15 two days. Soot that other countries produce 16 reaches us in similar fashion. We are not 17 being good neighbors. And by not setting a 18 good example for other countries, how can we 19 expect them to reduce emissions that affect 20 us? 21Soot also hangs in the air as 22 brown clouds for years and has darkened the 23 skies in certain regions as much as 10 to 15 24percent, and it is getting worse. 25I don't know about you, but

### 104 1 borrowing a little from Dylan Thomas, I 2 intend to rage, rage against the dying of the 3 light. And I will not go gently into that 4 not-so-good night. 5Thank you. 6 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 7 Clarifying questions? Thank you 8 both. 9 I'd like to call Kathryn Hilton 10 and Albert Reingewirtz. Mr. Reingewirtz. 11MR. REINGEWIRTZ: Thank you. 12 My name is Albert Reingewirtz. I 13 am concerned about air pollution, like 14 everybody else, but even more, because I 15 really truly know what air pollution is. 16 I raised a family in the San 17 Fernando Valley in California. In the '70s, 18 I worked also in Pasadena. 19 When there was a heavy pollution 20 day at that time, the mountain behind 21 Pasadena you could not see. The air was so 22 dirty that you could not see the mountain. 23 Oftentimes, you could barely see 24 the tall building on the other side of the 25 state on Lake Street.

### 105 1When I arrived here five years 2 ago, I was certain the air here is fantastic. 3 I mean, I can breathe. When I left 4 California, I left from San Diego. The air 5 in San Diego is pretty good. It's very rare 6 to have air pollution because of the breeze 7 from the ocean. 8 Now, I hear people here suffering 9 from asthma and all kinds of things because 10 the air is polluted here. You know, the 11 air -- the polluted air, you cannot see 12 really -- usually. And here, I find out that 13 the air is also polluted. 14This is a worry. If you do not 15 take care of the air now, you will have air 16 like there was in California in the '70s, 17 that you cannot see, you cannot see the other 18 side of the street. 19 This is unbelievable that we allow 20 something like this to happen. The water 21 quality to the pollution in the air, please 22 allow me to say two words, maybe two minutes 23 about water quality, which is also pertaining 24 to the EPA. 25Recently, they're drilling in

### 106 1 Pennsylvania for gas. They do something 2 called fracking. The driller refuses to say 3 what they use to break the rock to get to the 4 gas. And because we think that the right of 5 companies, the right of driller, to a secret 6 way of doing things is way above the right of 7 people to have clean water. This is totally 8 crazy. 9 The same way we have right to 10 breathe clean air, we have the right to drink 11 clean water. 12 I leave in Hunterdon, 13 Pennsylvania. The water that comes to my 14 house leaves a residue, a red residue. 15 Anything that remains for a time in the water 16 becomes painted red. 17 I contacted the company that 18 supplies the water, called Aqua, and they 19 told me that water passes every test of the 20 EPA, and that's the way it is. And they gave 21me a sample of a product to clean the red. 22 It's called Red Out. The chutzpah of those 23 people. 24I lived in California. In 25 California, the water -- in southern

### 107 1 California, the water is supplied from the 2 Colorado River. The Colorado River is where 3 the toilets of half of America is emptied. 4And the water that I drank in California was 5 clean. You could not see the water, the 6 water didn't leave any residue. 7 If in California, they can clean 8 the water, certainly they can clean the water 9 from the clean water that comes out from the 10 rivers in Pennsylvania. 11This morning, knowing that I was 12 coming here, I made a search on the Internet 13 to find out what they did regarding the 14 accident during the drilling, for the 15 fracking. 16 Well, they make an investigation, 17 OSHA, together with the EPA, made an 18 investigation of the accident. Would you 19 believe that the investigation is totally 20 regarding the technicality if they follow the 21 rule, how do they have tanks out to the 22 release valve? Nothing about what was 23 released. 24Why? Because the right of the 25 driller to hide that process is much more

### 108 1 important than the people of Pennsylvania to 2 drink clean water, and not be killed by it. 3 It wouldn't be an accident if there is more 4pollution permitted by the driller. 5One day we will have to supply 6 bottled water for people to drink in all of 7 Pennsylvania. 8 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 9 Could you wrap it up, please? 10 MR. REINGEWIRTZ: I did wrap it 11 up. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 13 Questions from the panel? 14MR. REINGEWIRTZ: This is not my 15 wife, by the way. 16 MR. KOERBER: Any questions? 17 MS. MASTRO: Frack fluids are 18 disclosed in Pennsylvania. Do you want to 19 check with the Pennsylvania Department -- 20 MR. REINGEWIRTZ: Excuse me? 21MS. MASTRO: Fracking fluids in 22 Pennsylvania are disclosed. You can check 23 with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 24 Protection. 25MR. REINGEWIRTZ: I didn't

### 109 1 understand. 2 MR. KOERBER: Maybe she could at 3 the break give you more information about 4 that. Ms. Hilton. 5MS. HILTON: Thank you for your 6 time in accepting comments today. 7 I'm a resident of Pittsburgh, 8 Pennsylvania, and I have a full five minutes 9 of comments to give. 10 This is how I see it: Everything 11 the EPA is doing right now is reactionary. 12 And reactionary actions only lead to more 13 reactionary actions. 14We all know, whether we admit it 15 or not, that the fossil fuel industry is 16 costing us a lot. And it's far past the time 17 to admit that people are literally dying 18 because of the pollution created by our 19 electricity creation and other industries. 20 I know I'm probably not being 21 politically correct or diplomatic or 22 whatever, but the time for that was a decade 23 ago. Now it's time -- it's well past time to 24 do something immediately. 25And I realize it's difficult to

### 110 1 stand in the face of the polluters who have 2 seemingly unlimited funds attacking your 3 offices and opposing all regulations that you 4propose. I realize that the regulations take 5 time to enact. And I realize that the system 6 is set up to make things difficult. 7 I understand these things make 8 your lives hard, but let's take a step back 9 from that and realize that ultimately it's 10 ridiculously harder for the people who are 11 being affected by PM pollution every day. 12 When the EPA backs down from their 13 polluters, it makes us sick, brings premature 14 deaths, and keeps us from living to our 15 fullest extent. It's critical to the health 16 of every individual in this country that the 17 EPA sets very stringent standards protecting 18 our well-being. 19 Pennsylvania, Texas, California, 20 West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, New 21 Jersey, and so many other states are 22 critically affected by PM pollutions to an 23 extent, that in 2011 there were at least as 24many as 50 days in some where air was so 25 unhealthy there were critical advisories.

### 111 1 And I know this because I got that 2 information from your website on air quality. 3 And I understand the counter 4 argument for capitalism. They care about 5 profit margin, and the expensive new control 6 technologies. But where is their concern for 7 their customers, for their workers, and even 8 for their families? 9 I understand the counter arguments 10 from big businesses who want fewer 11 regulations and are adamantly opposed to 12 government agencies policing them. But, 13 seriously, they need it. 14Someone I know incredibly well, 15 you might call him my brother, works within a 16 dirty industry. He likes to tell me how that 17 town, county city and state governments alone 18 should have the control to set regulation for 19 industry. 20 In theory, this sounds like an 21 acceptable answer until you get to the root 22 of it. 23 Where I'm from, South Carolina, 24 the Department of Health and Environmental 25 Control has a dual role. Its job is to

### 112 1 promote businesses in South Carolina, ensure 2 that maximum achievable and best achievable 3 controlled technologies are met, where 4 fiscally realistic for the industry. 5Ultimately, this means that the 6 Department of Health and Environmental 7 Control in my home state is working to 8 promote industry over the health of citizens. 9 And this is the exact reason why 10 the EPA is a critical government entity who's 11 setting national standards, which states can 12 then choose to exceed. 13 It's the bottom line for our 14 health. And right now the bottom line is far 15 too low. 16 Today I'm here representing myself 17 and other youth who are concerned for our 18 future. In my hands -- well, actually I left 19 them in my chair -- I have 40 comments that I 20 collected from high school and college 21 students who are currently training to gain 22 the skills necessary to organize their 23 community and bring a voice to marginalize 24people who don't have the financial resources 25 to pay lobbyists to promote their interests

### 113 1 or the luxury of being able to take off time 2 from work to attend hearings like these. 3 These youth are learning to use 4 their voice, their power as individuals and 5 as a collective to make sure our needs as 6 people are fully met. Right now these 7 40-some-odd are training to stand just as I 8 am and say, This is enough, we need standards 9 and we're supporting you in that and hope 10 that this is something that you will do. 11And this is just one of five 12 trainings across the country that youth 13 affiliated with the organization I work with, 14 the Sierra Student Coalition, is having this 15 summer. And this is just one of many 16 organizations that hold trainings like this 17 for individuals so we can empower ourselves. 18 Unfortunately, these people, just 19 like so many others, don't have the resources 20 and the time to come to the only two hearings 21 that are being held. So I'm here as an 22 individual, as an employee of the Sierra 23 Student Coalition, as a youth, as an aunt, 24 and as a human being to tell you that I 25 support you setting new standards that are

### 114 1more stringent for PM emissions. 2 And, in fact, I urge you to do far 3 more in setting standards to protect our 4 health. It's time to quit coddling 5 industries that destruct everything they 6 touch. 7 And, again, thank you for allowing 8 me to speak today. 9 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, and thank 10 you for traveling here today. 11Questions from the panel? 12 Okay. Thank you. 13 I'd like to call Ashley McDonald 14 and Albert Accooe. 15Ms. McDonald. 16 MS. McDONALD: Good afternoon. My 17 name is Ashley McDonald. I'm Deputy 18 Environmental Counsel for the National 19 Cattlemen's Beef Association. The National 20 Cattlemen's Beef Association, or NCBA, is a 21 non-profit, producer-directed organization 22 representing the largest segment of the 23 nation's food and fiber industry. NCBA 24 represents tens of thousands of America's 25 farmers, ranchers and cattlemen who provide

### 115 1much of the nation's supply of food. 2 Our members are proud of their 3 tradition as stewards and conservators of 4America's lands and waters. Cattle producers 5 across the country would be adversely 6 affected if the EPA lowers the coarse PM 7 standard, especially those in the west, 8 southwest and midwest, and we urge the Agency 9 to retain the current standard as proposed. 10 Retention of the 24-hour standard 11 is justified, based on the vast uncertainties 12 in the scientific data on health effects and 13 the uncertainties surrounding the stringency 14 of a revised standard. 15PM10 in arid western regions is 16 made up primarily of mechanically-generated 17 crustal material, including fugitive dust. 18 The coarse PM emitted from cattle operations 19 is fugitive particulate matter or fugitive 20 dust, which is the result of windblown dust 21 and cattle movements. 22 Because rural coarse PM is largely 23 a natural phenomenon, it is extremely 24 difficult to ensure compliance with the 25 standard in dry arid regions where coarse PM

### 116 1 predominates despite use of best management 2 practices. 3 If the PM10 NAAQS is further 4 reduced, it will be virtually impossible for 5 current agricultural facilities, including 6 feedlot operations, to demonstrate 7 compliance. 8 NCBA believes regulations designed 9 to protect the public health can only be 10 achieved when they are based on solid 11 scientific foundation. Over the past 30-plus 12 years, many experienced medical and public 13 health experts in respiratory disease, 14 epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical 15 treatment have noted that coarse PM has never 16 been demonstrated to have adverse health 17 effects at ambient levels. 18 EPA acknowledges the health 19 effects evidence has not changed between the 20 2006 review and the current review. Most of 21 the studies cited in the Policy Assessment 22 and relied on by the Administrator are the 23 same as those cited in the 2006 review and 24 contain the same fatal flaws. 25These studies are confounded by

### 117 1 fine particulates and gaseous co-pollutants. 2 And those that do measure PM10 minus 2.5 do 3 not report statistically significant 4 association. 5Studies since 2006 do not address 6 the uncertainties of exposure error and 7 confounding of co-pollutants, and do not 8 provide new evidence that is suggestive of 9 coarse PM health effects. 10 In fact, both the Agency and CASAC 11 recognize the health effects data on 12 coarse PM to be weak, limited, and not enough 13 to even complete a quantitative risk 14 assessment. 15Additionally, there remains a 16 general consensus that PM from rural fugitive 17 dust sources presents a minimal health risk 18 in comparison to urban and industrial 19 coarse PM. 20 NCBA supports the Administrator's 21 conclusion that, "The available health 22 evidence and air quality information for PM10 23 at minus 2.5, taken together with 24 considerable uncertainties and limitations 25 associated with that information suggests

### 118 1 that the degree of public health protection 2 provided against short-term exposures to PM10 3 minus 2.5 does not need to be increased 4 beyond that provided by the current PM10 5 standard." 6 NCBA submits that the 7 uncertainties surrounding the extremely 8 limited body of scientific evidence is more 9 than enough to prevent the Agency from 10 lowering the standard. 11The scientific evidence simply 12 cannot support it. CASAC and industry, 13 alike, call for more research on many of 14 these subjects, which are efforts that NCBA 15 also supports. 16 NCBA supports EPA's proposal to 17 also retain the form of the coarse standard 18 instead of revising it to the 98th percentile 19 form coupled with a revised lower level. 20 CASAC, in its September 2010 letter to 21 Administrator Jackson notes that a change in 22 the form needs "further exploration" because 23 it could lead to changes in levels of 24 stringency across the country. 25NCBA actually looked into this.

### 119 1 According to a study done on behalf of the 2 NCBA and the Coarse Particulate Matter 3 Coalition by Dr. John Richards of Air Control 4 Techniques, a revised lower level coupled 5 with a revised form would have made the 6 standard more stringent in dry arid climates 7 in the U.S. where crustal material dominates 8 the PM10 concentration. 9 It may also lessen the stringency 10 of the standard in other more urban eastern 11 parts of the country. This means the 12 standard would be more stringent in those 13 areas of the country that EPA has suggested 14may need less protection, given the 15 predominance of rural coarse PM, and would be 16 less stringent in eastern urban areas which 17 primarily form the basis for the limited 18 health concerns with PM10. 19 Additionally, the study found "the 20 stringency of the Coarse PM NAAQS in the 21 immediate vicinity of agricultural and other 22 fugitive dust sources is much greater than is 23 indicated by analyses based only on widely 24 spaced agency-operated PM10 monitors." 25This is an ironic and irrational

### 120 1 result considering EPA and CASAC's 2 recognition that rural dust is of less of a 3 health concern than urban dust. 4In conclusion, I would like to 5 reiterate that NCBA supports the 6 Administrator's proposal with regard to 7 coarse PM. The scientific evidence at 8 present doesn't support a finding that the 9 PM10 standard should be revised and, 10 therefore, the Agency should retain the 11 current standard. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 13 Any clarifying questions from the 14panel? 15MR. SILVERMAN: A couple of 16 things. We heard from a representative from 17 ALA earlier today that the PM10 health 18 studies as well as the PM10 minus 2.5 studies 19 should be considered, so I will hope that 20 you'll address those in your comments. 21MS. McDONALD: We will, in much 22 more detail, yes. 23 MR. SILVERMAN: And you said that 24 the proposal rested largely on the same 25 studies as the 2006. I don't think that's

### 121 1 correct. I think there's actually 2 considerable additional information that may 3 support what we propose, but I think there's 4 quite a bit more than there was in 2006. 5MS. McDONALD: That statement is 6 also made considering the confounding of 7 those additional cities and some of the 8 limitations with those considerable studies. 9 MR. SILVERMAN: Right. But I 10 thought I heard you say the proposal rests on 11 essentially the same studies -- 12 MS. McDONALD: I believe they said 13 that in the assessment, that it largely rests 14 with the same studies from the last review. 15MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: I would just 16 urge you to go back and look both at the 17 Integrated Science Assessment, Policy 18 Assessment, as well as the discussion of the 19 health evidence for coarse particles in the 20 preamble. 21There are additional studies that 22 have been discussed along with the 23 uncertainties on the limitations of that 24 evidence in those various bodies, that the 25 evidence is expanded beyond the review, the

### 122 1 evidence considering the review in 2006. 2 MR. SILVERMAN: Right. For 3 example, there were no 10 minus 2.5 studies 4 at all in 2006. 5MS. McDONALD: Yeah, we understand 6 that there were additional studies 7 considered. And we'll address those. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. KOERBER: Mr. Accooe? 10 MR. ACCOOE: Hi. My name is 11 Albert Accooe, and I'm a member of the Sierra 12 Club. 13 For too long, climate, science and 14policy-making have focused almost exclusively 15 on emissions of carbon dioxide, most of which 16 come from burning fossil fuels. What is 17 more, carbon dioxide inconveniently remains 18 in the atmosphere for centuries. 19 No permanent solution to the 20 climate problem is feasible without tackling 21 carbon dioxide. 22 We should emphasize that carbon 23 dioxide is not the only warming pollutant. 24At least 40 percent of the current global 25 warming can be blamed on four other types of

### 123 1 pollutants -- dark soot particles called 2 black carbon, methane, lower atmospheric 3 ozone, and industrial gases such as 4 chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, 5 which are used as coolants in refrigerators. 6 Nearly all OF these pollutants have lifespans 7 of just a few weeks to a decade, much shorter 8 than carbon dioxide. 9 The soot is a dangerous mix of 10 metals, chemicals and acid gases left from 11 tiny particles and droplets in our air which 12 contribute to the regional haze. Coal-fired 13 power plants are the major sources of 14 emissions that form soot pollution. 15Other leading sources include 16 petroleum refineries, industrial processes, 17 and diesel exhaust. Emitting just one ton of 18 black carbon, for example, has the same 19 immediate effect on one as emitting 500 to 20 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide. 21Because the impact of these 22 short-lived pollutants on a climate are 23 severe and swift, limiting them could curb 24 warming quickly allowing more time for 25 serious efforts to reduce carbon dioxide.

### 124 1Unlike reducing carbon dioxide, 2 the main benefits of which arrive only after 3 decades of costly efforts, controlling these 4pollutants would actually serve the immediate 5 interests of developing countries where 6 pollutants, such as soot and ozone, damage 7 vital crops and cause respiratory and heart 8 diseases. 9 A few hundred-million tons of 10 crops are lost to smog every year. In India, 11 air pollutants have decreased the production 12 of rice by about 10 million tons a year, 13 compared with the annual output in the 1980s. 14Globally, the inhalation of soot 15 produced by cooking indoors already kills 16 about 2 million people each year, mostly 17 women and children living in extreme poverty. 18 And because soot is dark, it traps heat from 19 the sunlight and thus speeds melting when it 20 settles on mountain glaciers -- a direct 21 threat to drinking water supplies and 22 agricultural land that depend on glacier-fed 23 river systems. 24Even at very low levels, soot is 25 harmful to human health. Because of its

### 125 1 small size, it can be inhaled deeply into the 2 lungs and injure our blood stream where it is 3 transported to our body's other vital organs. 4According to the EPA, exposure to 5 soot can cause heart attacks, strokes, worsen 6 asthma, lung inflammation, cancer, 7 developmental and reproductive harm, even 8 premature death. 9 Those at higher risk of health 10 problems from soot include people with 11 preexisting lung or heart diseases, diabetes, 12 elderly, children, and people living in areas 13 of high traffic and industrial activities; 14 generally, those with lower incomes. 15Thank you. 16 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 17 Clarifying questions? 18 We're good. Thank you very much. 19 I'd like to call Cecil Corbin-Mark 20 and Terry McGuire. Ms. Corbin-Mark? 21MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: No. Actually, 22 I'm speaking on behalf of Cecil. 23 MR. KOERBER: Okay. And if you 24 could state your name. 25MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Dr. Jalonne

### 126 1 White-Newsome. 2 MR. KOERBER: Could you spell that 3 please for the court reporter? 4MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Sure. 5 J-A-L-O-N-N-E. And the last name is White, 6 W-H-I-T-E, hyphen, N-E-W-S-O-M-E. 7 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. You're 8 on first. 9 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Good morning. 10 Again, my name is Dr. Jalonne White-Newsome, 11 and I'm the environmental justice federal 12 policy analyst for WE ACT for Environmental 13 Justice, an environmental justice 14 organization based in Northern Manhattan. 15Thank you, again, for the 16 opportunity to be here and provide comments 17 on the proposed revisions. 18 Since 1988 WE ACT has worked to 19 fulfill its mission to build healthy 20 communities, by assuring that people of color 21 and/or low income participate meaningfully in 22 the creation of sound and fair environmental 23 health policies and practices. 24We serve communities of Northern 25 Manhattan where there are approximately

### 127 1 536,000 residents living in 7.25 square miles 2 of land; 23 percent of the families in our 3 neighborhood have had incomes below the 4poverty level in the last 12 months. The 5majority of our residents are people of 6 color, blacks and latinos. There are 30,000 7 children under the age of five, and over 8 60,000 residents that are 65 years and older. 9 With six bus depots, two sewage 10 treatment plants, four garbage truck depots 11 and one garbage marine transfer station 12 located in our communities, it is of utmost 13 importance that we support strict but 14 reasonable standards to help protect the 15 health of our residents. 16 The disproportionate impact of PM 17 pollution has been linked to increased 18 hospital admissions and premature death in 19 our communities, especially for older adults 20 and those that are low income. 21Studies we have conducted with the 22 Columbia Center for Children's Environmental 23 Health show that the burning of fossil fuels 24 and other pollution sources is associated 25 with multiple adverse health effects in

### 128 1 children, including fetal growth reduction, 2 developmental delays, reduced IQ, and other 3 behavioral disorders. 4Consequently, if we do not deal 5 with PM emissions in the short term through 6 stricter regulations, our children will be 7 living with long-term health effects that 8 will impact their overall quality of life for 9 the years to come. 10 So today we'd like to share with 11 you our comments on the Administrator's 12 proposed revisions. 13 WE ACT suggests adopting a 14 stronger standard to provide protection 15 against the health effects associated with 16 long and short-term PM2.5. A recent study 17 suggests that New York and other major areas 18 will see the largest share of estimated 19 excess PM2.5-related deaths. 20 Their analysis predicts, based on 21 2005 air quality standards, that by lowering 22 the annual PM2.5 mean to 10 micrograms per 23 cubic meter, 23,000 PM2.5-related mortalities 24 could be avoided nationwide. 25WE ACT recommends that the annual

### 129 1 standard for PM2.5 be lowered to a range of 2 12 to 11 micrograms per cubic meter. 3 Currently, 55 areas across the 4 U.S. are designated as non-attainment, for 5 either the annual or 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 6 We feel that the short-term standard must 7 also be lowered to reduce risk from 8 acute PM2.5 emissions. 9 Again, results from a recent study 10 suggests that nearly a 15 percent increase in 11 overall life expectancy could be attributable 12 to a decrease in PM2.5. 13 Therefore, WE ACT recommends 14 lowering the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 32 15micrograms per cubic meter to provide added 16 protection during high, daily peaks of PM2.5. 17 The rationale suggested for 18 maintaining the PM10 24-hour standard at 150 19 micrograms per cubic meter is, in our 20 opinion, a little bit insufficient. The 21 CASAC, along with the American Lung 22 Association, noted current research that 23 supports the existence of a causal 24 relationship between PM10 and morbidity and 25mortality.

### 130 1It was also stated in the ALA's 2 assessment, "If PM2.5 causes or is likely to 3 cause morbidity and mortality, then how 4 can PM10, which includes PM2.5, fail to 5 create as much harm?" 6 With this in mind, WE ACT 7 recommends that the 24-hour PM10 standard be 8 reduced to 75 micrograms per cubic meter. 9 First and foremost, we applaud the 10 EPA for realizing the importance of 11monitoring for co-pollutants, and the 12 proposed addition of PM2.5 monitors near 13 highways, traffic corridors and residential 14 areas. 15Because ethnic minorities and 16 lower income populations are more likely to 17 live near these sources, WE ACT supports the 18 addition of PM2.5 near-road monitors to their 19 existing network. 20 We would like you to also consider 21 two ideas as you finalize the implementation 22 strategy of the proposed rules: 23 Prioritization and racial disparities. 24By prioritization, we simply 25 suggest that certain areas are already

### 131 1 dealing with significant EJ concerns, and are 2 already in non-attainment, and we hope that 3 they will be afforded an expeditious 4 implementation process. 5Secondly, we want to re-emphasize 6 that despite the review from the assessment 7 team, a current study and review of 8 epidemiological evidence suggests that 9 Non-Hispanic blacks, especially those living 10 in urban areas, may be at increased 11 sensitivity for asthma outcomes from PM2.5 12 exposure. 13 There's no doubt that gender and 14 race are potential modifiers of this 15 association between PM-related morbidity and 16 mortality. 17 We applaud the EPA's work to 18 fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air 19 Act, and it is our hope that you will 20 strongly consider our suggested revisions. 21Thank you again for this 22 opportunity, and let us know if there's any 23 information that we can provide. 24MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 25Copies of the studies that you

### 132 1 cited, we'd appreciate receiving those in 2 your written comments. 3 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Sure. 4MR. KOERBER: Clarifying 5 questions? 6 MR. SILVERMAN: Not questions so 7 much, but things you might account for if 8 you're submitting written comments. 9 First, if we lower the annual 10 standard, that will have the effect of 11 lowering the distribution of 24-hour values 12 as well. That's one reason that we consider 13 these standards to be a suite and not really 14 to be considered in isolation. 15So, a standard 12, for example, 16 could very well achieve what you're looking 17 for in the 24-hour standard by just lowering 18 that total distribution. 19 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Okay. 20 MR. SILVERMAN: Also, on PM10 21 standards, remember, this is to control 22 solely coarse particulate, not all 23 components. So when you refer to a component 24 as PM2.5, which has known effects, remember 25 that this is just an indicator for something

### 133 1 that's not PM2.5; it's that other component. 2 It's not the most intuitive way to 3 deal with it, but it's not as important to 4 control PM10, it's just to control that 5 coarse component. 6 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Okay. 7 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: And just 8 building upon Steve's comments, the 9 Integrated Science Assessment and looking at 10 the causal relationship looked at the causal 11 relationship for PM10 minus 2.5, not PM10. 12 And they concluded that the evidence was 13 suggestive of a causal relationship with more 14mortality, cardiovascular effects, 15 respiratory effects. 16 So just to clarify that, it would 17 be helpful -- just to clarify the specific 18 alternative levels that your organization 19 supports, did you say 11 and 12 micrograms 20 per cubic meter for the annual PM2.5 21 standard? 22 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Yes, ma'am. 23 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: And then was 24 it 30 or 32 for the 24-hour standard? 25MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: It was 32.

### 134 1MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: So 11 and 12 2 and 32 is what you're working with. 3 Thank you for the clarification. 4MR. KOERBER: I just have one 5 process question. Is Mr. Corbin-Mark going 6 to be speaking or are you speaking on behalf 7 of him? 8 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: No. I'm 9 speaking on behalf of him -- oh, he'll speak 10 when I'm done. 11MR. KOERBER: Okay. Very good. 12 We'll call him up in the next group. Thanks. 13 Mr. McGuire. 14MR. McGUIRE: Good morning. My 15 name is Terry McGuire and I'm a 16 representative with the Sierra Club's Federal 17 Policy team. 18 I want to start by saying thank 19 you for the opportunity to speak today about 20 the EPA's recently proposed update to the 21 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 22 fine PM or soot. 23 As you probably may know, the 24 Sierra Club is the nation's oldest and 25 largest environmental organization with

### 135 1 chapters in all 50 states, the District of 2 Columbia and Puerto Rico. And today, on 3 behalf of our 1.4 million members, supporters 4 and activists, I am here today to voice our 5 strong support for tighter protections that 6 will more effectively guard American families 7 against dangerous soot pollution. 8 An overwhelming body of scientific 9 evidence tells us that soot is one of the 10 deadliest and most dangerous air pollutants, 11 and also that the existing standards are not 12 strong enough and that too many people are 13 breathing dirty air. 14So, while Sierra Club is pleased 15 that EPA has proposed new limits on fine PM, 16 we would respectfully urge you to strengthen 17 the standards beyond what you have proposed. 18 We urge an annual standard of 11 micrograms 19 per cubic meter, and a daily standard of 25 20 micrograms per cubic meter. 21We know that soot is a 22 particularly dangerous and pervasive 23 pollutant that affects communities from coast 24 to coast. A result of emissions from sources 25 such as coal-fired power plants, petroleum

### 136 1 refineries and vehicle exhaust, soot 2 particles can travel long distances to harm 3 families hundreds or even thousands of miles 4 away. 5Because of their microscopic size, 6 soot particles can be easily inhaled and 7 lodge deeply in our lungs where they can then 8 travel into our blood streams. 9 According to EPA data, soot 10 exposure is linked to asthma attacks, heart 11 attacks, possibly cancer and reproductive 12 harm, and even premature death. So, to be 13 clear, we know that soot pollution is harmful 14 and it is deadly. 15We also know that certain 16 populations are more vulnerable to soot 17 pollution than others. In fact, the most 18 vulnerable Americans appear to bear the brunt 19 of the risk -- senior citizens, young 20 children and newborns, pregnant women, 21 diabetics, obese Americans, people of lower 22 socioeconomic status, and people with heart 23 or lung disease are all at a heightened risk 24 of adverse health effects. That's a pretty 25 large swath of the American public.

### 137 1So, for those most vulnerable and 2 for all of us, thank goodness for the Clean 3 Air Act. The Clean Air Act continues to be 4 one of the most successful laws ever passed 5 in this country. It cleans up our air, it 6 creates jobs doing so and, most importantly, 7 it saves lives. 8 It was -- and I personally think 9 this is an important part to remember -- a 10 bi-partisan effort. Republicans and 11 Democrats came together recognizing that 12 pollution does not discriminate between the 13 parties, and they came together to clean up 14 our air by giving the EPA the authority, the 15mandate, to set standards to protect us, 16 based on health and science. 17 A core tenet of the Clean Air Act 18 is the understanding that Americans have the 19 right to know if their air is safe to 20 breathe. We can certainly debate how we will 21 clean up our air and how we should best 22 protect our families, but we first and 23 foremost must establish what levels are safe 24 to breathe. Americans deserve to know that, 25 they deserve to know if their air is safe to

### 138 1 breathe, if their children and loved ones can 2 go outside and enjoy fresh air. 3 So, those standards, the National 4Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM and this 5 process are critically important. 6 The Sierra Club stands behind the 7 Clean Air Act, and we stand behind those that 8 uphold the Clean Air Act. We stand behind 9 EPA when it does the right thing and when it 10 values science and fact and puts those values 11 first and foremost. 12 We know that right now forces are 13 mounting to gut the Clean Air Act. Those 14 that seek to block this process, this 15 revision, are not just opposed to updating 16 fine PM standards, they are fundamentally 17 opposed to the very existence of EPA and to 18 this process and to the law at hand, to the 19 Clean Air Act that has saved so many hundreds 20 of thousands of American lives. 21Unfortunately, we continue to see 22 that some have deemed corporate dollars more 23 important that constituent health. And there 24 is a concerted effort to scale back 25 protection and to block EPA from doing its

### 139 1 job of safeguarding our air and our water. 2 We know, thankfully, that Americans reject 3 those misguided efforts. 4Poll after poll demonstrates that 5 Americans of every political strife support 6 letting EPA do its job of holding corporate 7 polluters accountable and cleaning up our air 8 and water. 9 So, we strongly urge EPA to do its 10 job to set standards protective of human 11 health. We are counting on you to look at 12 the best and most recent data to set a health 13 standard that protects the most Americans, 14particularly our most vulnerable, from one of 15 the worst of the six criteria pollutants. 16 So, if you will allow me to recap, 17 we know that pollution is deadly, that too 18 many Americans needlessly die every year 19 because of dirty air. We know that those 20 with the least power and influence suffer the 21most. 22 We know that EPA has the 23 responsibility and authority to protect our 24 families. We know that Americans stand 25 solidly behind you and your efforts to clean

### 140 1 up our air. 2 And Sierra Club, in closing, 3 strongly urges you to stand with these 4American people and support a standard of 11 5micrograms per cubic meter and a daily 6 standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 7 I expect that we will submit 8 additional written technical comments on the 9 details of the proposed standard. And again, 10 I thank you for the opportunity to speak 11 today. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 13 Clarifying questions? 14Okay. Thank you both. 15I'd like to call Cecil Corbin-Mark 16 and Elizabeth McCardell. 17 Mr. Corbin-Mark, you're up first. 18 MR. CORBIN-MARK: Thanks. My name 19 is Cecil Corbin-Mark. I'm the Deputy 20 Director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice. 21WE ACT for Environmental Justice 22 is the host organization for a national 23 effort called the Environmental Justice 24 Leadership for Climate Change. 25And I'm going to be submitting

### 141 1 comments in time for the August 31st 2 deadline for that body. It's an organization 3 that has 40 environmental justice 4 organizations from 18 states and the District 5 of Columbia, across the country. 6 My substance of comments, as I 7 said, with regards to the proposals for 8 revisions to the standards will come in time 9 for the August 31st deadline. 10 But, procedurally, I just wanted 11 to address the issue of the time of notice. 12 The Federal Register around this comment was 13 published on June 29th, and these hearings 14 are being held on July 17th. 15And for those of us working on the 16 front lines of environmental justice in these 17 organizations, that turnaround time was 18 certainly not something sufficient for us to 19 be prepared to testify in person at the 20 hearings, although many of the organizations 21 did express a desire to do so. 22 So, just in terms of future 23 outreach, I would urge those of you working 24 on those rules to please add us to your list 25 so that we can be notified in a more timely

### 142 1 fashion. We actually found out about this by 2 accident from some of our allies in the major 3 green groups. And we think that's a pretty 4 significant failing, especially in EPA's role 5 as being protector of environmental justice. 6 So, I wanted to bring that to your 7 attention today. Again, our substantive 8 comments will be coming forth in time for the 9 deadline of August 31st. 10 You can know in advance, however, 11 that we are certainly supportive of 12 Administrator Lisa Jackson's efforts to 13 further protect public health in some of the 14most vulnerable communities represented by 15 the organizations that are part of the 16 Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on 17 Climate Change. 18 And we will more than likely be 19 submitting comments calling for actually more 20 protective standards, but certainly wanted to 21 acknowledge EPA's role and so forth in 22 protecting us from soot. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. I 24 appreciate your concerns about the 25 notification process.

### 143 1Would you be the appropriate 2 contact in the future or Ms. White-Newsome? 3 MR. CORBIN-MARK: We'll both leave 4 contact information and both of us can be 5 contacted. 6 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you 7 very much. 8 MR. SILVERMAN: We did post this 9 on the web at the moment of signing. And 10 also, one of the reason things are moving so 11 rapidly here is because we were sued and are 12 to be put on a very rapid schedule, so 13 everything is more truncated than it might 14 otherwise be. 15MR. CORBIN-MARK: You were sued 16 by? 17 MR. SILVERMAN: A number of 18 environmental groups. 19 MR. CORBIN-MARK: Oh, right. 20 We'll talk with them about that. 21MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: A point of 22 clarification, we were sued by environmental 23 groups, Earthjustice on behalf of the 24American Lung Association and National Parks 25 Conservation Association, as well as a group

### 144 1 of 11 states. 2 So we recognize that it's a very, 3 very quick schedule. And we're trying to do 4 the best we can to get information out. 5MR. CORBIN-MARK: Right. And 6 again, that's why I close with making my 7 comments of the appreciativeness of trying to 8 move forth with these standards to better 9 protect the American people's public health, 10 and in the process create jobs in doing so. 11But just bear in mind that there's 12 a great disparity between some of the 13 nation's leading environmental organizations 14 and some of the nation's most credible and 15 effective environmental justice 16 organizations. 17 We just do not have the capacity 18 to turn around and be as responsive. We had 19 the same issue with all of the MACT rules 20 that were coming down last year, towards the 21 end of last year, when comment period after 22 comment period were literally springing up, 23 you know, one month after the other. We are 24 not resourced to that level. 25MR. SILVERMAN: Pretty much every

### 145 1 one of those is under a deadline, also. 2 MR. CORBIN-MARK: I got you. 3 And to the point of the fact that 4 this was -- as a result of the lawsuit, I 5 think this was something that in our sort of 6 family dialogue of environmental 7 organizations that we will certainly raise, 8 and I will definitely bring that to the 9 table. 10 So, thank you for making me aware 11 of that particular reality. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 13 Ms. McCardell. 14MS. MCCARDELL: Good morning. My 15 name is Ms. Elizabeth McCardell. And I am a 16 member of the Sierra Club, but I'm here as a 17 private citizen. I'm a resident of 18 Philadelphia of this historic area. And I'm 19 here to give you the human experience of 20 having family members and friends that suffer 21 from lung disease and allergies and asthma. 22 And I just know how difficult it 23 is to go outside with my family and my 24 friends, go outside and not be able to 25 breathe in Philadelphia when the air quality

### 146 1 is bad. 2 I've had to take people to the 3 emergency ward, which is, as you know, it's 4 not a good use of healthcare dollars. We all 5 know we have a healthcare system that is in 6 need of fixing. And to use the emergency 7 ward because you go outside and you can't 8 breathe is very troublesome. 9 So, I'm just here to support 10 anything that the EPA can do to improve the 11 quality of our air and to help our citizens. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 14I'd like to call Christina Simeone 15 and Kevin Cromar. 16 Ms. Simeone, you're first. 17 MS. SIMEONE: Thank you very much. 18 My name is Christina Simeone. I'm 19 Director of the Penn Future Energy Center. 20 Citizens for Pennsylvania's future, Penn 21 Future, is a 501(c)(3) environmental advocacy 22 organization championing land, air, water and 23 energy into issues that impact Pennsylvania. 24We appreciate this opportunity to 25 provide comments on the proposed rule.

### 147 1According to the American Lung 2 Association, the Pittsburgh-New Castle 3 metropolitan area is the sixth dirtiest city 4 with respect to year-round and short-term 5 particle pollution. 6 And the Philadelphia-Camden7Vineland area ranks 10th and 22nd per 8 year-round and short-term PM pollution 9 respectively. 10 Penn Future believes EPA should 11 strengthen the NAAQS for particulate matter, 12 because scientific evidence has over13 whelmingly shown that current standards fail 14 to protect the health of millions of 15 Americans. 16 We support the annual standard of 17 11 micrograms per cubic meter, and the 18 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic 19 meter, in order to protect the public health 20 of those most at risk, such as children, 21 seniors, and people with respiratory and 22 cardiovascular impairment. 23 Penn Future also urges EPA to 24 strengthen portions of the proposed rule 25 which will unnecessarily prolong negative

### 148 1 human health outcomes in high exposure 2 communities. 3 Exposures to particulate matter 4 concentrations near highways can be from 50 5 percent to 100 percent higher than PM 6 concentrations measured at regional PM 7 monitors that are not located near a highway. 8 EPA estimates that 35 million 9 Americans reside within 100 meters of a 10 heavily traveled highway. HEI estimates that 11 45 percent of the population in large 12 metropolitan areas reside within 500 meters 13 of a major highway. 14In this proposal, EPA is for the 15 first time requiring that at least one 16 monitor in a core-based statistic located 17 area with more than one million people be 18 located near a highway. 19 In the proposal EPA has 20 acknowledged that highway PM2.5 emissions 21 pose a significant health threat to millions 22 of Americans living near highways. 23 However, EPA has created barriers 24 to effectively monitoring and measuring this 25 pollution, which will lead to inadequate

### 149 1 control strategies and negative health 2 outcomes that could have been avoided. 3 Furthermore, despite EPA making a 4 connection between PM2.5 from highway traffic 5 and negative human health outcomes 6 experienced by nearby communities, the 7 proposal will delay any action to protect 8 these communities for at last 11 years and 9 maybe more. Residents of exposed communities 10 must make it clear to EPA that this 11 prescription for inaction is unacceptable. 12 There are three major concerns of 13 the EPA's proposal. First, metropolitan 14 statistical areas, which is less than one 15million people, can have large, 16 heavily-traveled highways where communities 17 next to the highway will be at risk. 18 The size of the community is not 19 relevant to determining whether the community 20 is at risk from highway emissions. The risk 21 factors are linked to traffic load. The 22 proposal should focus on traffic as the 23 primary source of the risk, not population 24 size. 25Second, the one monitor required

### 150 1 in a CBSA may not actually be located near 2 the receptor with highest highway impact, 3 which could lead to inadequate control 4 strategies being developed. 5The proposed rule recognizes that 6 monitors should be located in accordance with 7 EPA citing guidelines -- Part 58, Appendix 8 E -- that requires PM monitors to be located 9 within 5 to 15 meters of the right of way. 10 However, the rule also requires 11 collocation within O2 monitors, which are 12 required to be within 50 meters of a highway. 13 Many areas would be non-attainment 14 for PM2.5 using the right-of-way guidelines, 15 but attainment if the new PM monitors are 16 collocated within an O2 monitor. 17 PM monitors should be located 18 within 5 to 15 meters of the right of way, 19 and, if applicable, existing and O2 monitors 20 should be moved to collocate with the PM 21monitors. 22 Third, the data from a new highway 23 oriented monitor will not be used to design 24 and implement control strategies for 11 to 13 25 years. EPA is proposing to delay

### 151 1 installation of monitors until 2015, and then 2 not allow data from the monitors to be used 3 for air quality planning purposes until three 4years of data have been collected, around 5 2018. 6 If EPA stays on schedule for 7 implementation of the revised NAAQS, 8 designation of non-attainment areas by the 9 states will be required in 2013 and final 10 designations will be completed by 2014. 11That means data from 12 highway-oriented monitors will not be 13 available to designate areas as 14 non-attainment based on emissions from 15 highways. 16 If designations are finalized in 17 2014, this will be due in 2017. 18 Therefore, SIP will not be 19 required to address highway impacts because 20 data from the highway monitors showing 21 incremental effects of highway emissions will 22 not be deemed complete before 2018. There 23 will be no obligation to use the data from 24 highway monitors to revise SIP until EPA: 25 One, next revises the NAAQS, which may be

### 152 1 2017; two, makes new designations, which 2 could be maybe 2019; and, therefore, triggers 3 the SIP clock again, which will require 4 control strategies to be submitted in 2022, 5 with implementation not required before 2025. 6 If EPA does not revise the NAAQS 7 in 2017, then no new designations will be 8 made, and no new SIPs will be required. 9 This current proposal may be the 10 last opportunity to protect an entire 11 generation of children who will grown up in 12 the shadow of heavily trafficked highways. 13 The failure of the current 14proposal to protect communities near highways 15 can be avoided by either citing the monitors 16 during 2013, so that three years of data can 17 be available before the next SIPs are 18 submitted to EPA, or EPA can required 19 supplemental modeling as part of the SIP 20 development process to demonstrate that 21 attainment strategies will be sufficient to 22 require highway emissions the level of the 23 NAAQS in the communities next to highways. 24In 2010, EPA has required highway 25 emissions modeling to determine if emissions

### 153 1 from Newark's expanded highways will cause 2 NAAQS violations. The same modeling could be 3 performed for a SIP as well as to demonstrate 4 that emissions from existing highways will 5 not cause NAAQS violations after the 6 attainment deadline. 7 On closing, EPA should finalize 8 the most stringent PM standards necessary to 9 protect human health and should design and 10 implement the proposed rule in a manner that 11 will protect high-exposure communities. 12 On a personal note, about seven 13 years ago I started playing soccer; hence, my 14most recent injury to this foot. I never had 15 asthma as a child. But after seven years of 16 playing soccer in Philadelphia, I was last 17 year diagnosed with exercise-induced asthma, 18 and now have a very difficult time, 19 especially in the summer, playing outdoors. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 21Clarifying questions? 22 I just had one. You said that in 23 terms of the near-roadway monitoring 24 requirement, that the size of the community 25 was not relevant, but the traffic load was a

### 154 1more relevant factor? If you have any 2 specific comments on that, you could include 3 that in your written comments, and that would 4 be appreciated. 5Thank you. 6 Mr. Cromar. 7 DR. CROMAR: Good morning. My 8 name is Dr. Kevin Cromar. I'm a junior 9 faculty member in the Department of 10 Environmental Medicine at the New York 11 University School of Medicine. 12 The Department of Environmental 13 Medicine NYU started in 1947. It's one of 14 the first programs of its kind in the 15 country, and it continues to be a leader in 16 research, education and public outreach in 17 the environmental science field. 18 I'd like to note that I have no 19 financial accomplishments to disclose, and I 20 am grateful for the opportunity to testify 21 today. 22 My own expertise is in air 23 pollution epidemiology. I personally conduct 24 research, both in exposure assessment and 25 human health effects of PM2.5. And there are

### 155 1 three main points I'd like to address today. 2 The first is the non-mortality of 3 PM2.5-associated health effects justify your 4 vision of the annual standard. 5Second, that PM2.5-associated 6 mortality health effects have been observed 7 at long-term annual averages below 10 8 micrograms per meter cubic. 9 And third, briefly discuss 10 considerations for a newly-proposed roadside 11monitoring for PM2.5. 12 First, with regards to the 13 non-mortality of PM2.5 health effects. For 14 example, individuals with asthma, especially 15 children, are especially sensitive to the 16 health effects of PM2.5. 17 Those not familiar with asthma, a 18 working definition we use in research is 19 severe asthma includes having four or more 20 asthma attacks at least per year, having 21 sleep disturbed for one or more nights per 22 week, or an episode of wheezing severe enough 23 to limit speech to only one or two words at a 24 time between breaths. 25Other definitions of severe asthma

### 156 1 include visiting the emergency department or 2 being hospitalized for asthma in the past 3 year. 4These definitions took on more 5meaning for me when I became a father. It's 6 a tragic disease, and it's something we 7 should be concerned with. 8 In regards to the environmental 9 epidemiology of severe asthma, many studies 10 have demonstrated that the risk of 11 respiratory hospital admissions and even ICU 12 admissions are associated with elevated PM2.5 13 concentrations. 14I found this in my own research 15 where increased risk of asthma hospital 16 admissions among children in New York City 17 were significantly associated with PM2.5 at 18 three year average annual concentrations of 19 13.5 micrograms per meter cubed. 20 The second point I'd like to 21 address is that PM2.5 mortality effects have 22 been observed at long-term annual 23 concentrations below 10 micrograms per meter 24 cubed. I'd like to submit for the record the 25 results of a recently published study in the

### 157 1 May 2012 edition of Environmental Health 2 Perspectives. It's a Canadian study of the 3 association of long-term PM2.5 exposures on 4mortality. And they show significant effects 5 with a long-term mean annual concentration of 6 8.7 micrograms per meter cubed. 7 While current PM2.5 concentrations 8 in the U.S. do not allow for studies of 9 long-term PM effects of concentrations this 10 low, it's clear that mortality effects occur 11 at annual concentrations much lower than the 12 current standard. 13 Finally, I'd like to briefly 14 address the proposal to require a small 15 number of PM2.5 monitors to be relocated -- 16 to be collocated with measurements of other 17 pollutants in a near-road environment. 18 There's been much discussion on 19 this; there continues to be much discussion 20 on it. The only point I'd really like to 21make on it is I would strongly encourage that 22 current monitors that will be relocated to 23 roadside locations continue to be operated 24 for at least one year concurrently to allow 25 for adequate comparison of roadside and

### 158 1 non-roadside measurements. 2 This wasn't done when PM10 3 monitoring was switched to PM2.5 monitoring, 4 and that was a mistake that led to losing a 5 lot of good research on PM10 that we couldn't 6 then apply to PM2.5. 7 So, I strongly encourage that any 8 relocated monitors continue to be operated 9 for at least a year concurrently. 10 I just want to emphasize it's a 11 great process to all be here in Philadelphia 12 expressing our comments. I thank those who 13 came today, and I thank the EPA for their 14 great work. 15MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 16 Clarifying questions? 17 MR. SILVERMAN: I just want to 18 make sure you I heard you correctly. 19 The Canadian study that you 20 mentioned, that was a long-term mean? 21DR. CROMAR: Yes. They looked at 22 many years. A long-term mean of 8.7 was the 23 average for the study. And that's 24 Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2012. 25MR. KOERBER: Thank you,

### 159 1 Dr. Cromar. 2 Ms. Simeone, thank you. 3 I'd like to call Joy Bergey and 4Alex Bond. 5Ms. Bergey. 6 MS. BERGEY: Welcome to 7 Philadelphia. EPA, thanks for coming up. I 8 think it's great that you're here. 9 My name is Joy Bergey, and I speak 10 in my role as Executive Director of the 11 Center for the Celebration of Creation. The 12 center is a multi-faith program affiliated 13 with Chestnut Hill United Church here in 14 Philadelphia. The center works with 15 congregations and individuals across the 16 country to address problems of environmental 17 injustice. 18 We applaud President Obama and 19 Secretary Jackson for proposing this much 20 needed rule. We urge that it be implemented 21 quickly and, in fact, we urge that it be 22 strengthened. 23 Science has shown clearly the 24 results of uncontrolled soot pollution: 25 Early deaths from heart attacks, stroke,

### 160 1 heart disease. And our best minds tell us 2 that soot is likely causing respiratory harm, 3 certain cancers, and perhaps developmental 4 and reproductive harm as well. 5Every major faith tradition calls 6 on its followers to protect those at the 7 margins of society who cannot defend 8 themselves: The young, the old, the sick, 9 the poor. And it is exactly those persons 10 who are disproportionately harmed by soot, 11 because it is more difficult for them to get 12 out of harm's way. 13 Thus, we urge the EPA to 14 strengthen the proposed rule, following the 15 recommendations of the American Lung 16 Association. 17 Our children deserve clean air so 18 that they can play outside without risking 19 asthma attacks. And our soccer players, too. 20 Our elders deserve clean air so that they can 21 live their full years in good health. 22 The ways that we generate our 23 power in this country to light and cool our 24 buildings and to move our vehicles are 25 unnecessarily generating soot and causing

### 161 1 damage to God's people. 2 At one time we simply didn't 3 understand the consequences of our actions as 4 we burned dirty fuels with abandon. But now 5 we know better. And we have the knowledge 6 and the technology to avoid this damage. 7 We understand that this pollution 8 is causing harm to God's people. So morality 9 compels us to require a change moving 10 forward. And we're glad that this rule does 11 this. 12 This is why the faith community 13 cares deeply about this country's energy 14policies, such as this rule. 15The Center for the Celebration, on 16 whose behalf I speak today, is an interfaith 17 organization. First of all, I am a 18 Christian, so I'll quote Saint Paul who tells 19 us repeatedly in the New Testament that all 20 people belong to God. Our little babies in 21 their mama's arms belong to God. The poor 22 who have difficulty avoiding dirty air belong 23 to God. Our chronically disabled elders 24 belong to God. 25The rule on which we comment today

### 162 1moves us towards better-protecting the sacred 2 and irreplaceable gift of creation, which 3 comes from and belongs to God. We need this 4 rule and morality compels that we make it 5 stronger. 6 Thank you. 7 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 8 Questions from the panel? 9 Mr. Bond. 10 MR. BOND: Thank you. Good 11morning. 12 I'm Alex Bond, the Director of Air 13 Quality at the National Mining Association. 14NMA represents the producers of most of 15 America's coal, metals, industrial and 16 agricultural minerals. 17 The EPA's proposed NAAQS for fine 18 and coarse particulate matter are of critical 19 importance to mining operations across the 20 United States, since PM2.5 standards impact 21 electrical generation from coal-fueled power 22 plants and PM10 impacts rural mining 23 operations, especially in western states. 24My comments today highlight not 25 only the potential impacts on mining

### 163 1 operations from EPA's proposal, but also the 2 scientific uncertainties inherent in EPA's 3 proposal to retain the current 150 microgram 4 level for coarse PM, the unnecessary nature 5 of the proposed secondary visibility 6 standard, and potentially significant 7 implementation issues that arise from faulty 8 assumptions made by EPA in proposing to lower 9 the PM2.5 standards to the 12 to 13 microgram 10 range. 11The proposed standard has a direct 12 impact on mining operations across the U.S. 13 First, tighter PM2.5 standards could have 14 significant impact by reducing the amount of 15 electrical generation from existing 16 coal-fueled power plants. 17 Further, the increased costs 18 associated with restrictive and expensive 19 permit requirements in non-attainment areas 20 will likely bar the construction of new 21 coal-fueled generation, which will aggravate 22 the potential electrical grid reliability 23 issues, likely to result from compliance with 24 EPA's upcoming suite of power plant 25 regulations.

### 164 1Further, designation of the 2 non-attainment area for PM2.5 has immediate 3 and potentially severe consequences for local 4 jurisdictions in the form of straining 5 already thin local resources while 6 simultaneously driving away manufacturing and 7 investment. 8 Stricter PM10 standards will have 9 significant impacts on mines in rural western 10 regions. PM10 in the west is made up 11 primarily of crustal material, including 12 fugitive dust. The mining industry employs 13 best management practices to reduce fugitive 14 dust. 15However, because rural coarse PM 16 is largely a natural phenomenon, it is 17 extremely difficult to ensure compliance with 18 the standard in dry, arid regions where 19 coarse PM predominates, despite the use of 20 these BMP's. 21These areas would have little hope 22 of demonstrating compliance given the natural 23 occurrence of both high winds and low 24 rainfall, and thus be designated as 25 non-attainment.

### 165 1A non-attainment designation would 2 have devastating impacts on mining operations 3 in western regions by likely forcing the 4 reduction in mining activities, which would 5 have significant negative economic impacts, 6 including the loss of high-paying jobs, 7 corporate income taxes, royalties, severance 8 taxes and other revenues generated directly 9 and indirectly by mining activities. 10 As such, NMA urges EPA to 11 reconsider its decision to tighten the fine 12 PM standard and to retain the overly 13 stringent coarse PM standard, given the 14 impacts on non-attainment on mining 15 operations and local jurisdictions. 16 The significant scientific 17 uncertainties underpinning EPA's proposal do 18 not support the proposed standards. While 19 NMA appreciates EPA's decision to retain the 20 current PM10 standard at the current 150 21microgram level, the weight of the science 22 used by EPA in the proposal does not support 23 a PM10 standard at the current level, much 24 less a more stringent standard. 25Many, but not all, of the studies

### 166 1 cited in the EPA's Integrated Science 2 Assessment and the Policy Assessments, and we 3 can only assume these were relied upon by the 4Administrator in issuing the proposed rule, 5 are the same as those cited in 2006 that 6 contain many of the same flaws. 7 These studies draw conclusions 8 about PM10 and 2.5 based on models that are 9 confounded by fine particles and gaseous 10 co-pollutants. 11The uncertainty inherent in the 12 epidemiologic studies of coarse PM health 13 effects, coupled with a lack of robust human 14 exposure studies, led EPA to forego a 15 quantitative risk assessment as part of this 16 NAAQS review. 17 If the data are too uncertain to 18 provide the basis for a risk assessment, they 19 should not continue to form the foundation of 20 the PM10 NAAQS. 21The proposed secondary visibility 22 standard for urban visibility degradation is 23 complex, poorly understood and poor policy. 24 EPA has proposed a novel urban visibility 25 standard. Deciviews are a highly complex

### 167 1measurement statistic and it could be highly 2 variable from city to city, depending on 3 meteorological conditions. 4Until such time as the EPA 5 conducts a robust scientific assessment of 6 the impacts of pollution controls on 7 deciviews, we urge the EPA to withdraw the 8 proposed study as a matter of policy. 9 Finally, EPA's faulty assumptions 10 in proposing to lower the PM2.5 standard from 11 15 to 12 or 13, gives rise to potentially 12 significant implementation issues. The 13 Agency also states there will be few 14 implementation issues arising from the 15 proposed rule, saying that either of its 16 proposed levels will have a de minimis impact 17 on expanding non-attainment areas nationwide. 18 However, EPA assumes that there 19 will be full and on-time compliance with both 20 CSAPR and the Utility MACT, despite the 21 knowledge that each rule is currently 22 undergoing court challenges as to their 23 legality. 24Should either rule be less than 25 fully implemented, EPA's entire analysis in

### 168 1 the proposed rule would be rendered moot, and 2 the potential impacts could then be 3 enormous -- in stark contrast to the 4 statements made by EPA on proposal. 5The situation could have been 6 prevented if EPA had heeded NMA's counsel and 7 provided the public with a comprehensive 8 analysis of the cumulative costs associated 9 with its now-numerous completed, pending and 10 expected rule-making. Failure to do so 11 could, in this case, lead to extraordinary 12 high costs, a scenario the Agency has 13 completely failed to consider. 14In closing, I urge EPA to 15 reconsider several parts of the proposed PM 16 NAAQS. NMA will be submitting more detailed 17 written comments by the comment deadline. 18 And I thank you very much for your 19 time today. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, Mr. Bond. 21Comments, questions? 22 Thank you both. 23 We have five more speakers lined 24 up before lunch. So hang in there. We've 25 got just a few more to get through and then

### 169 1 we'll take a lunch break. 2 I'd like to call Molly Rauch and 3 Cherie Eichholz. 4MR. KOERBER: Ms. Rauch, you're up 5 first. 6 MS. RAUCH: Thank you. 7 My name is Molly Rauch. I'm 8 speaking to you today as a member of Mom's 9 Clean Air Force, a national organization of 10 over 90,000 dedicated parents committed to 11 clean air and healthy kids. 12 My three children are 9, 6 and 4, 13 and we live in Washington D.C. I also hold a 14master's degree in public health. 15To start, I want to thank you for 16 recognizing that the current fine particle 17 pollution standards are inadequate to protect 18 public health. I appreciate and support your 19 proposal to lower the annual standard, and I 20 also support your proposal to add 21 near-roadway monitors to our national air 22 monitoring system. 23 Last year, I developed respiratory 24 symptoms and was prescribed an inhaler, this 25 inhaler actually. My doctor told me that my

### 170 1 wheezing could be exacerbated by air 2 pollution, and that I should stay inside on 3 days with poor air quality. 4Suddenly, I was a vulnerable 5 person, someone more susceptible to the 6 health effects of air pollution. 7 I also learned that my children 8 were vulnerable people, too -- just by virtue 9 of them being children. Each and every day 10 the lungs of my children and all children are 11 growing and changing. Their developing lungs 12 and bodies are prone to damage from fine 13 particle pollution, some of which is 14 irreversible. 15As a mother, I urge you to take 16 even stronger action than the proposed 17 standards to protect me and my children and 18 all children from the health effects of 19 inhaling these tiny particles. 20 First, I urge you to strengthen 21 the annual PM2.5 standard to 11 micrograms 22 per cubic meter. 23 Thousands of studies have 24 established the relationship between fine 25 particle pollution exposure and a range of

### 171 1 serious health effects from premature 2 mortality to heart attacks, to respiratory 3 effects, such as bronchitis and asthma. 4 Current science also suggests a causal 5 relationship, between long-term PM2.5 6 exposure and low birth weight, as well as 7 infant mortality from respiratory causes. 8 These reproductive and developmental effects 9 are especially troubling to me as a mother. 10 As EPA noted in the proposed rule, 11 some of these studies found adverse effects 12 on birth outcomes as annual average levels of 13 as low as 12 micrograms per square meter. 14And as we just heard, there is also an 15 emerging body of scientific evidence showing 16 damage at lower levels, even lower levels. 17 Because EPA is required under the 18 Clean Air Act to protect health with an 19 adequate margin of safety, and because there 20 is no known threshold below which it is safe 21 to inhale fine particles, I urge you to 22 follow the most protective recommendation of 23 your 2011 Policy Assessment and adopt an 24 average annual standard of 11 micrograms per 25 square meter.

### 172 1This is consistent with the most 2 recent scientific evidence, and the 3 recommendations of many health professionals, 4 including the American Lung Association. 5This stronger annual standard 6 should be combined with a lower 24-hour 7 standard than that in the current proposal, 8 25 micrograms per square meter instead of 9 retaining the current 24-hour standard of 35 10 micrograms per square meter. These more 11 protective standards would, according to an 12 analysis by the American Lung Association, 13 significantly improve our nation's health. 14Compared with current air quality, 15 these protective standards would prevent 16 36,000 premature deaths every year, more than 17 2,000 heart attacks, and 23,000 visits to the 18 hospital and ER each year. 19 Finally, I urge you to speed up 20 your requirement for the citing of 21 near-roadway PM2.5 monitors. Our nation's 22 current ambient air quality monitoring system 23 consists of hundreds of monitors in all 24 states. However, they do not adequately 25 capture the increased particle pollution that

### 173 1many researchers have documented near heavily 2 traveled roadways. 3 EPA estimates that 35 million 4Americans live within 100 meters of a heavily 5 trafficked highway. And traffic is one of 6 the largest sources of fine particle 7 pollution. 8 I fully support your proposal to 9 locate at least one air monitor near a 10 highway in the most populated areas of our 11 nation. And I thank you for that proposal. 12 However, because of the lax 13 timeline laid out in the proposed standard, 14 as we've heard, any action based on the data 15 collected by these relocated monitors would 16 be delayed for more than a decade. This is a 17 recipe for long delay and it's unacceptable. 18 A decade or more is just too long to wait 19 when we have the bodies of our children on 20 the line. 21I urge you to require that the 52 22 near-roadway PM2.5 monitors be installed in 23 2013, instead of waiting until 2015 as your 24proposed rule recommends. This timeline 25 would allow for the requisite three years of

### 174 1 data to be collected before the next state 2 implementation plans are due to EPA, 3 presumably in 2017. 4We urgently need to begin the 5 long-awaited process of collecting crucial 6 national data on soot exposure near highways. 7 Do not wait until 2015 to install these 8 important new monitors. 9 I want to thank you very much for 10 the opportunity to comment today. 11MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 12 Clarifying questions? Okay. 13 Ms. Eichholz? 14MS. EICHHOLZ: Thank you. 15My name is Cherie Eichholz. I'm 16 the Executive Director of Philadelphia 17 Physicians for Social Responsibility. 18 Physicians for Social 19 Responsibility is a national non-profit 20 organization representing over 32,000 21 physicians, nurses and other healthcare 22 professionals. 23 Our Philadelphia chapter 24 represents the medical and public health 25 community and advocates policies aimed at

### 175 1 preventing violence and addressing the 2 threats posed by toxic and hazardous 3 chemicals, which are regularly introduced 4 into our environment. 5I am a long-time advocate of 6 supporting health policies that protect the 7 environment. I've organized nurses and 8 doctors to increase awareness of chemical 9 exposure, and have helped introduce measures 10 aimed at protecting healthcare workers and 11 patients in medical facilities. 12 Today I am here to express my 13 concerns and those of my PSR colleagues from 14 central Pennsylvania regarding particle 15 pollution, also known as soot. As a new 16 resident of the City of Philadelphia, I am 17 especially concerned because Philadelphia is 18 ranked at tenth for the highest year-round 19 levels of particle pollution. 20 Philadelphia is downwind of power 21 plants and pollution sources that are but a 22 few miles away. 23 As someone who has a partner with 24 chronic asthma, I'm acutely aware of the 25 health hazards associated with particle air

### 176 1 pollution, and how it causes asthma attacks, 2 heart attacks and strokes. 3 My partner Frank's days begin with 4 the morning session that includes the use of 5 four different inhalers, followed by half an 6 hour or more of hacking, coughing and 7 gagging. And then throughout the day, the 8 effects of the asthma come and go, frequently 9 depending on where we are. 10 Frank occasionally finds it 11 extremely difficult to simply breathe. And 12 his asthma is frequently triggered by 13 seemingly innocuous changes in the 14 environment. 15As his partner, as I watch him gag 16 and choke and gasp for air, I am personally 17 aware of the effects this disease can have on 18 just one individual. 19 It is simply not right that he and 20 millions of other Americans are at risk by 21 living, working and breathing the air in this 22 region. The EPA needs to do more to 23 guarantee clean air for everyone and 24 strengthen PM standards to protect the health 25 of millions of Americans as the Clear Air Act

### 177 1 requires. 2 Medical evidence published in 3 peer-reviewed literature has shown the 4 expanded list of health hazards associated 5 with particle pollution. This list includes 6 cardiovascular risks, significantly 7 contributing to heart attacks, strokes, heart 8 failure, and heart arrhythmia. 9 Deaths in the U.S. attributed 10 to PM2.5 were associated with a variety of 11 diseases, including cancer of the trachea, 12 bronchus and lungs, cardiopulmonary disease 13 among adults, and acute respiratory 14 infections in children. 15The current 24-hour PM2.5 standard 16 is 35 micrograms per cubic meter. And the 17 annual average is set at 15 micrograms per 18 cubic meter. The current annual standard has 19 been in place since 1997 and is long overdue 20 for the proposed reduction, as research 21 indicates both annual and daily standards are 22 not tight enough. 23 There is a direct correlation with 24morbidity and PM exposure. And the impact to 25 tighten PM standards would reduce premature

### 178 1 deaths annually in some of the largest 2 metropolitan areas in the country. 3 The City of Philadelphia is one of 4 the metropolitan areas that is projected to 5 benefit greatly, according to research by 6 Francine Laden and her colleagues, as part of 7 the extended follow-up to the well-known 1993 8 Harvard Six City Study that established links 9 to exposure of the fine PM to mortality. 10 Laden's research shows a 11 significant relationship between PM2.5 and 12 both lung and cardiovascular mortality, and 13 points to the public health benefits of 14 further reductions in PM2.5 levels. 15Today, I join scores of my 16 colleagues in calling for tighter air quality 17 standards that place an annual limit of 11 18 micrograms of soot per cubic meter, and a 19 daily standard of 25 micrograms per cubic 20 meter. 21As you and others weigh the 22 options before you, I urge you to consider my 23 partner Frank's health, and that of millions 24 of Americans who are affected by these 25 regulations first and foremost.

### 179 1Thank you. 2 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 3 Questions? 4Okay, Ms. Rauch and Ms. Eichholz, 5 thank you. 6 I'd like to call George Herbert 7 and Max Ojserkis. 8 Mr. Herbert, you're up first. 9 MR. HERBERT: Good morning. My 10 name is George Herbert. And I live in 11 Philadelphia. I belong to the local civic 12 organization. And the Clean Air Council came 13 to us and asked for volunteers to study the 14 effects of PM exposure to particulate matter 15 2.5 and 4. 16 We were allowed to wear monitors, 17 walk around the neighborhood, and observe and 18 take pictures of things that we've seen. 19 Around my neighborhood recently in 20 Port Richmond, they're working on 21 revitalizing I-95; it's 30 feet east to the 22 Delaware River. 23 There has been an increase in 24 diesel activity in the area. I have a 25 daughter who has allergies and a heart

### 180 1 condition. I have noticed a change in her 2 allergies. I think it's due to the diesel 3 traffic in the neighborhood. 4Also, in our neighborhood there's 5 a -- they're building up Aramingo Avenue, and 6 you have large trucks that come down there 7 during the day. 8 Off Allegheny Avenue, you have 9 Delaware Avenue trucks that exit, too. And 10 instead of that, they go down a local street 11 instead of Delaware Avenue where they're 12 supposed to go. 13 Right now I'm involved in a study 14 of monitoring the physical effects on 15 particulate matter 2.5 and 4, that I've been 16 doing through the Clean Air Council. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to 18 speak. And I hope you strengthen the rule 19 for particulate matter. 20 Thank you very much for this time. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 22 Any clarifying questions? 23 The study that you spoke of, can 24you just describe that a little bit more? Is 25 that a new study? Who else is involved?

### 181 1MR. HERBERT: Well, there's a few 2 of us neighbors involved in our civic group. 3 We're given monitors to wear. We walk 4 around, we'd note, see what we saw, like 5 diesel trucks or whatever, and we would take 6 pictures of pollution in the neighborhood. 7 What we've done also is allowed 8 them to use my house, use outside monitors, 9 outside the windows, to monitor pollution 10 like on the outside. 11I run a funeral home on Allegheny 12 Avenue. And it was outside monitoring 13 traffic going up and down Allegheny Avenue. 14MR. KOERBER: And how long has 15 this study been under way? 16 MR. HERBERT: About six months 17 now. 18 MR. KOERBER: And long is it 19 supposed to run? 20 MR. HERBERT: I don't know. I 21 think they're all cleared up now with that. 22 The first part of the study was to wear the 23 monitor itself. The second part of the study 24 is where they would put monitors inside our 25 houses, and also outside of our houses to

### 182 1monitor pollution. 2 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you, 3 sir. 4MR. HERBERT: Thank you. 5MR. KOERBER: Mr. Ojserkis. 6 MR. OJSERKIS: Good morning. My 7 name is Max Ojserkis. I live in Center City 8 Philadelphia. 9 Being concerned about the 10 environment, I often choose to walk or ride 11my bicycle as my primary means of 12 transportation. And objectively, one would 13 think this choice is also good for my health, 14 but the truth is I often feel terrible after 15 riding my bike or walking through the city. 16 Philadelphia is full of 17 construction vehicles, trash trucks and 18 double-decker tour buses that spew clouds of 19 toxic diesel fumes into the air. So I try to 20 avoid these types of vehicles. It's often 21 impossible. 22 For example, there's currently 23 construction on several streets and sidewalks 24 on Rittenhouse Square. And these tour buses 25 constantly criss-cross Old City. These are

### 183 1 two of the most heavily trafficked areas in 2 the City, yet the air pollution there is 3 significant and unavoidable. 4After riding my bike to work, 5 which is only a mile, I often find myself 6 short of breath or with pain in my chest. 7 Sometimes this happens even when I don't walk 8 or ride past diesel vehicles, as these 9 particulates can travel far and wide. 10 As someone doing my part to 11 improve my health and to protect the 12 environment, I expect similar efforts from my 13 government. 14I urge the EPA to adopt 15 particulate matter standards of 11 micrograms 16 per cubic meter in order to protect my 17 health, the public health, and the 18 environment. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 21Questions? 22 I think we're good. Thank you 23 both. 24We have one more speaker before 25 lunch. Jackie Wilson.

### 184 1MS. WILSON: Good morning, 2 everyone. And thank you for allowing me to 3 speak today. 4I'm Jacqueline Wilson, and I'm a 5 Sierra volunteer. And I'm here to speak to 6 you today in favor of the EPA's proposal to 7 revise the soot standard from the current 15 8 micrograms per cubic meter down to 12 or 13. 9 And I know some studies have said 10 that a lower level would even be better. 11 Some of the data about soot, which is PM2.5, 12 a/k/a2.5, is a dangerous mix of metals, 13 chemicals, gases that form particulates and 14 droplets in our air and contributes to the 15 regional haze. 16 Coal-fired power plants are a 17 major source of the emissions from soot 18 pollution. And other leading contributors 19 are petroleum refineries, industrial 20 processes and diesel exhaust. 21Soot particles are so small that 22 they bypass the body's natural ability to 23 expel large particles. We would see this 24 when we cough or sneeze, and they lodge deep 25 into the lungs.

### 185 1I can go on and on about the facts 2 about soot, but it will never describe the 3 difficulty that a child or an adult endures 4 when they suffer from various respiratory 5 illnesses. 6 These types of illnesses are 7 personal to me because I watch my nephew 8 constantly compensate with breathing and 9 speaking because he had developed asthma at a 10 young age. 11Asthma affects children in the 12 African-American community more than other 13 ethnic groups. There are many contributing 14 factors, but we see it more than any other 15 group. 16 Asthma not only adversely affects 17 the quality of life for those children, but 18 the immediate family and also the extended 19 family. It is extremely stressful; it has a 20 financial burden, as well as an emotional 21 burden. 22 On a hot day like today, the air 23 quality is poor due to environmental 24pollutants. And those who have the 25 respiratory illnesses, especially children,

### 186 1 are at great risk on a day like today. 2 I urge the EPA to continue with 3 the proposal to reduce the level of soot in 4 our environment. This is one more step 5 towards a better quality of life, not only 6 for the children and adults with respiratory 7 illness, but for everyone. 8 I thank you very much. 9 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 10 Let me again thank all of you for 11 being here this morning. We will adjourn. 12 It is approximately 12:25. We will 13 re-adjourn at 2:00 p.m. We'll be on lunch 14 break until then. 15 Let me thank you again for your 16 thoughts, your ideas, your personal stories, 17 and for being with us for the day. 18 You're welcome to come back at 19 2:00, but if you need to leave, thank you 20 again for being here. 21

_ _ _ _ _ _ 22 his time a lunch recess was taken at 12:25 p.m. 23 and the EPA meeting resumed at 2:00 p.m.) 24

_ _ _ _ _ _ 25 MR. KOERBER: Hello. Good

### 187 1 afternoon. And thank you for attending the 2 Environmental Protection Agency's public 3 hearing on the proposed rule for particulate 4matter. 5I recognize that many of you 6 traveled quite a distance to be here and I 7 appreciate your efforts. 8 My name is Mike Koerber. I'm the 9 Associate Director for Policy for EPA's 10 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 11We are here today to listen to 12 your comments on EPA's proposed revisions to 13 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 14 or NAAQS, for particulate matter. 15As a reminder, this hearing was an 16 opportunity for the public to comment on 17 EPA's proposed rule. The panel members may 18 answer questions that seek to clarify what we 19 have proposed, but the purpose of this 20 hearing is to listen to your comments, not to 21 discuss or debate the proposal. 22 Before we move to the comment 23 period, I would like to briefly describe the 24proposed rule that is the subject of today's 25 hearing. This proposal was published in the

### 188 1 Federal Register on June 29th. 2 An extensive body of scientific 3 evidence shows that exposure to particulate 4matter causes premature death and is linked 5 to a variety of significant health problems, 6 such as increased hospital admissions and 7 emergency department visits for 8 cardiovascular and respiratory problems, 9 including non-fatal heart attacks. 10 Exposure to particulate matter is 11 also linked to the development of chronic 12 respiratory disease. 13 With regard to welfare effects, 14 there is longstanding science characterizing 15 the contribution of particulate matter, 16 especially fine particles, to visibility 17 impairment. 18 In addition, there is scientific 19 evidence that particulate matter is linked to 20 a variety of non-visibility welfare effects, 21 including ecological effects, effects on 22 materials and climate impacts. 23 The current particulate matter 24maps include standards for fine and coarse 25 particles. The standards for fine particles,

### 189 1 also known as PM2.5, generally refers to 2 particles which are less than or equal to 2.5 3 micrometers in diameter. 4The standards for coarse 5 particles, also known as PM10, generally 6 refers to particles less than or equal to 10 7 micrometers in diameter. 8 The PM standards provide 9 protection against effects from particles 10 smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but 11 larger than PM2.5. 12 The EPA is proposing to revise the 13 current suite of fine particle standards to 14provide increased protection of public wealth 15 and welfare. In doing so, the Agency is 16 responding to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 17 the District of Columbia Circuit remands of 18 the primary annual PM2.5 standard and the 19 secondary PM2.5 standards following 20 litigation of the 2006 final rule. 21The Agency is also proposing to 22 retain the current coarse particle standards. 23 We are asking for public comments 24 on all aspects of proposed standards. 25With respect to the primary

### 190 1 standards to protect public health, EPA 2 proposes to lower the level of the annual 3 PM2.5 standard in the current level of 15 4micrograms per cubic meter to a level within 5 a range of 12 to 13 micrograms per cubic 6 meter; retain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 7 level at 35 micrograms per cubic meter; and 8 retain the current 24-hour PM10 standard 9 level at 150 micrograms per cubic meter. 10 With respect to secondary 11 standards to protect public welfare, EPA 12 proposes to set a separate fine particle 13 standard to address PM-related visibility 14 impairment, primarily in urban areas, and 15 retain the current secondary standard for 16 PM2.5 and PM10 to continue to provide 17 protection for other non-visibility welfare 18 effects. 19 The proposal also addresses 20 several issues related to the proposed 21 standards, including updating the air quality 22 index for PM2.5 to be consistent with the 23 proposed primary PM2.5 standards, updating 24 the PM2.5 monitoring regulations, including 25 adding a requirement that a small number of

### 191 1 PM2.5 monitors be relocated to measure fine 2 particles near heavily traveled roads, 3 grandfathering preconstruction permitting 4 applications, and specifying an approach for 5 implementing the PSD program, particularly 6 for the proposed secondary standard for 7 PM2.5. 8 The proposed rule also provides 9 background information and describes their 10 current perspectives on implementation issues 11 related to the proposed max revisions. 12 Additional information on the 13 proposed rule can be found in the fact sheets 14 available in the registration area. 15Now let me turn to today's 16 hearing. This hearing is one of two public 17 hearings we are holding to hear public 18 comments on the proposal. We will also be 19 holding a hearing on July 19th in 20 Sacramento, California. 21We will prepare a written 22 transcript of each hearing. The transcripts 23 will be available as part of the official 24 record for this rule. The hearing record 25 will be kept open for 30 days after

### 192 1 completion of the public hearings to provide 2 an opportunity for submission of rebuttal 3 comments and supplementary information. 4Commenters can also provide such 5 information to EPA in their written comments 6 on the proposed rule itself. We will be 7 accepting written comments for the proposed 8 rule until August 31st. 9 We have a handout available in the 10 registration area with detailed information 11 about how to submit written comments. 12 At this time I would like to 13 outline how today's hearing will work. I 14 will call the scheduled speakers to the 15microphone in pairs. When it is your turn to 16 speak, please state your name and your 17 affiliation. It would help our court 18 reporter if you would also spell your name. 19 In order to be fair to everyone, 20 we are asking that you limit your testimony 21 to five minutes each, and to remain at the 22 microphone until both speakers in a pair have 23 finished. After you've finished your 24 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying 25 questions.

### 193 1As I mentioned, we are 2 transcribing today's hearing, and each 3 speaker's oral testimony will become part of 4 the official record. 5If you have any additional written 6 comments, references or data to support your 7 testimony, please be sure to give a copy of 8 these materials to our staff at the 9 registration table. We will submit that 10 material into the docket for you. 11We have a time keeping system 12 consisting of green, yellow and red lights. 13 When you begin speaking, the green light will 14 come on; you will have five minutes to speak. 15 The yellow light will signal that you will 16 have two minutes left to speak. We will ask 17 that you stop speaking when the red light 18 comes on. 19 We've planned to stay until 20 9:00 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity 21 to comment. If you would like to testify but 22 have not yet registered to do so, please sign 23 up at the registration table. 24For those that have already 25 registered to speak, we have tried to

### 194 1 accommodate your requests for specific time 2 slots. We ask for your patience as we 3 proceed through the list. We may need to 4make some minor adjustments as the day 5 progresses. 6 Now I'd like to introduce the EPA 7 representatives on our panel. Donna Mastro 8 is Acting Associate Director of the Air 9 Protection Division with EPA's Region 3 10 office in Philadelphia. Steven Silverman is 11 with EPA's Office of General Counsel. And 12 Beth Hassett-Sipple is with EPA's Office of 13 Air Quality Planning and Standards Health and 14 Environmental Impacts Division. 15I would like to thank you all 16 again for participating today. Let's get 17 started. 18 I'd like to call on Andrew Blum 19 and Craig Oren as our first two speakers. 20 Mr. Blum or Mr. Oren? 21MR. BLUM: It's Andrew Blum, 22 B-L-U-M. I'm with Conservation Pennsylvania, 23 a nonprofit group here based in Philadelphia. 24And I'll be reading on behalf of a friend of 25mine, who is a geologist, who is unable to

### 195 1make it today. And I'll get to his comments. 2 I want to thank you for the 3 opportunity to comment on the proposed EPA 4 rule to revise air quality standards for 5 particulate matter pollution, pursuant to 40 6 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53 and 58. 7 The proposed revision would modify 8 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to 9 address the serious public health 10 consequences that would result from a 11 foreseen expansion of coal-fired power 12 plants. 13 By way of introduction, this 14 gentleman's name is Patrick Considine. He is 15 a professional geologist and environmental 16 consultant with more than 25 years of 17 experience in the energy and environmental 18 sector. He has a graduate education in both 19 science and business. His experiences 20 include, but are not limited to: Petroleum 21 exploration; coal mine permitting and 22 reclamation; handling of fly ash residual 23 waste for beneficial use; Title V air permits 24 and local air permits; risk assessment and 25 numerical calculations; and funded research

### 196 1 for abatement of acid rain impacts. 2 He's also taught a course titled 3 "Environmental Regulations and Public Policy" 4 at Eastern University. 5Mr. Considine has a very good 6 understanding of the coal energy industry, as 7 he's worked for them in the past, including 8 not only the scientific and technical 9 considerations, but the economics as well. 10 The United States Supreme Court in 11 Whitman versus American Trucking Association, 12 2001, ruled that the EPA is not required to 13 provide a financial rationale for its 14 health-based policies. However, we are 15 gratified to see that the EPA implemented a 16 detailed and very cogent Regulatory Impact 17 Analysis as an important part of its proposed 18 revision to the NAAQS. 19 The proposed rule presents an 20 overwhelmingly convincing body of scientific 21 data that presents the benefits to human 22 health and the reduction in mortality that 23 would result from implementing and enforcing 24 this proposed rule. 25Among the findings of the RIA are

### 197 1 an estimated annual implementation cost of 2 $69 million and an estimated annual benefit 3 of $2.3 billion to $5.9 billion. 4The RIA demonstrates that each 5 dollar that the coal industry invests in 6 technology for cleaner coal emissions 7 pursuant to the rule will result in a 8 reduction of $36 to $86 in healthcare costs 9 for those affected by particulate matter air 10 pollution. 11Very few enterprises could hope 12 for a return on investment as positive as 13 those projected by the EPA studies for the 14proposed NAAQS revision. 15Based on Mr. Considine's 16 experience in the Energy and Environmental 17 sector, he finds the results of the RIA to be 18 not only plausible and accurate, but quite 19 compelling. 20 When viewed from the perspective 21 of national interest versus the interest of a 22 small minority, there is no defensible 23 economic argument against the proposed rule. 24The anticipated favorable 25 consequences of the proposed rule also

### 198 1 include the less tangible benefits associated 2 with impacts to the environment. Reduction 3 in airborne particulate matter would 4 consequently effect a reduction in the acidic 5 component of coal plant emissions. 6 Citing an example from 7 Mr. Considine's professional experience, 8 Fishing Creek is a significant watershed with 9 headwaters in Columbia and Montour Counties 10 in northeastern Pennsylvania. The name 11 Fishing Creek has become all but an oxymoron, 12 as the aquatic life in northern Pennsylvania 13 has been disseminated as a direct result of 14progressive acidification of waterways from 15 acid precipitation. 16 What is most disturbing is that, 17 as most emphasis on environmental regulation 18 and remediation is placed in urbanized areas, 19 even the majority of environmental 20 professionals are completely unaware of the 21 devastating effects of acid precipitation on 22 the ecological resources of the United 23 States. 24Another point to consider is that 25 the coal industry provides approximately

### 199 1 550,000 jobs to the American economy, as has 2 been stated before. Of these, however, 3 nearly 440,000 jobs are in non-mining 4 capacities such as power plants, waste 5 disposal and regulatory controls. 6 By investing in technology, 7 twofold benefits would accrue: First, 8 cleaner air would result in a very 9 significant reduction in mortality and 10 healthcare costs; second, the implementation 11 of regulatory controls would directly foster 12 growth of American jobs. 13 Development of newer technologies 14 actually have the potential to expand the 15 industry at lower risk to the public. Do not 16 try to persuade us that a country that put 17 men on the moon cannot develop amazing new 18 innovations when lives and dollars are at 19 stake. 20 In summary, and in closing, I 21 would urge the EPA to adopt the more 22 stringent and more appropriate standard, a 23 PM2.5 of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The 24 benefits to human health, to the environment, 25 and to the economy far outweigh the slight

### 200 1 inconvenience to a small minority who reap a 2 large profit from the coal industry. 3 Thank you again for your attention 4 and consideration of our input. 5MR. KOERBER: Thank you, Mr. Blum. 6 To clarify, these are the comments 7 from Pat Considine? 8 MR. BLUM: Correct. 9 MR. KOERBER: And could you spell 10 his last name for the record? 11MR. BLUM: C-O-N-S-I-D-I-N-E. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 13 Clarifying questions? 14MR. SILVERMAN: I want to clarify 15 something for the record. Thanks for your 16 testimony. 17 What the Supreme Court held though 18 was that we may not, not that we might want, 19 we may not consider any costs related to the 20 implementation of the standards. 21The Regulatory Impact Analysis, 22 which you cited, has some interest, but it 23 has no relevance to what we're doing here. 24 It's prepared pursuant to satisfy 25 requirements of an executive order, but it is

### 201 1 not part of the basis for our decision in any 2 way. 3 MR. KOERBER: Professor Oren? 4PROFESSOR OREN: My name is Craig, 5 C-R-A-I-G, Oren, O-R-E-N, and I am a 6 professor of law at Rutgers School of Law, 7 Camden, right across the Ben Franklin Bridge 8 from here. 9 I have taught administrative law 10 and environmental law for more than a quarter 11 century. And before that I worked on Capital 12 Hill on Clean Air Act issues and was 13 consultant to U.S. EPA on such issues. 14I have written many articles about 15 the Clean Air Act, and particularly about the 16 establishment of National Ambient Air Quality 17 Standards. 18 I have tremendous sympathy for 19 you. You have only a few months to complete 20 a very complex and critical rule making. 21Setting National Ambient Air 22 Quality Standards is the most important thing 23 that EPA does under the Clean Air Act. It is 24 also one of the hardest. The Agency has to 25make determinations about the state of the

### 202 1 science regarding health effects. And the 2 Agency has to make a policy decision about 3 how much protection to give in the face of 4 scientific uncertainty. And that's 5 especially difficult for a pollutant like PM 6 for which we have not found a safe level. 7 In other words, the Administrator 8 has to exercise judgment in protecting 9 health, just as a doctor must in treating a 10 patient. 11The statutory phrase "in the 12 judgment of the Administrator" shows that the 13 authors of the Clean Air Act recognize this. 14 There is no mechanical principle that can be 15 used in setting these standards. 16 I agree with the Administrator 17 that the status quo of 15 micrograms is not 18 acceptable. The policy assessment and the 19 preamble recites study after study showing 20 effects below that number, and showing that 21many people would be unprotected even if the 22 entire country met that standard. 23 Thus, the Administrator did the 24 right thing by not including 15 in the 25 proposed range.

### 203 1Yet, in my view, the proposed 2 standard does not represent good judgment. 3 The annual standard for PM2.5 should not fall 4 into the 12 to 13 microgram range as the 5 Administrator proposes. Rather, it should be 6 set in the 11 to 12 range. 7 I tried to read the preamble 8 pretty thoroughly, and I find no rationale 9 for picking the 12 to 13 range. 10 The Administrator's explanation 11 consists largely of generalities telling us 12 we must choose between considering the whole 13 body of evidence, and on the other hand, the 14 existence of uncertainty. 15It acknowledges that studies have 16 found harm at levels below 13 and in the low 17 12's, yet it chooses 12 to 13 as the 18 proposed level. 19 There are a few remarkable things 20 about that. First, the Administrator seems 21 to have put no weight on the staff's judgment 22 that the levels should be set between 11 and 23 12. It's true, the staff said it would be 24 reasonable to set the standard at the 12 to 25 13 level, but it's clear the staff thought a

### 204 1more stringent standard was appropriate. And 2 the proposal does not even explain why this 3 recommendation was rejected. 4Second, the Administrator seems to 5 pay attention only to the mean air pollutant 6 concentrations in the long-term studies. 7 Yes, this is the level at which we can have 8 the most confidence in the results. 9 But the staff analyzed levels one 10 standard deviation below the mean believing 11 the studies were still reliable between the 12 10 and 25th percentile. None of that 13 analysis is mentioned in the Administrator's 14 rationale. 15Third, the Administrator never 16 explains how the proposed standard would 17 provide the adequate margin of safety 18 required by the Clean Air Act. That's 19 because the standard in its 12 to 13 range 20 provides little or no margin of safety. 21Fourth, the Administrator's 22 explanation gives us no idea of how she 23 balanced uncertainty against other factors. 24 The Administrator has to take into account 25 the many court decisions that have held the

### 205 1 Clean Air Act to be a precautionary statute, 2 one in which EPA is supposed to emphasize 3 protection in the face of scientific 4 uncertainty. 5The Administrator must explain how 6 she weighed uncertainty against other 7 factors. 8 Thank you very much for your time 9 and thank you for coming to Philadelphia 10 today. 11MR. KOERBER: Thank you. It's a 12 pleasure being here, a little warm, but it's 13 a pleasure being here. 14Any questions from the panel? 15Thank you both. 16 I'd like to call John Graham and 17 Scott Manaker. 18 DR. GRAHAM: My name is John 19 Graham. I'm a senior scientist with the 20 Clean Air Task Force based in Boston. 21The Clean Air Task Force is a 22 national nonprofit, environmental advocacy 23 organization whose mission includes reducing 24 the adverse health, environmental and climate 25 impacts of air pollution.

### 206 1Our staff and consultants include 2 scientists, economists, MBAs, engineers, and 3 attorneys. I appreciate the opportunity to 4 talk with you today. 5I have spent the last 15 years of 6 my career studying fine particles in the 7 ambient air. My comments today will focus on 8 revisions to the primary National Ambient Air 9 Quality Standard for particulate matter. 10 EPA has proposed to lower the 11 annual standard to a level within a range of 12 12 to 13 micrograms per cubic meter while 13 retaining the current 24-hour standard at 35. 14 The Task Force strongly recommends more 15 stringent standards revising the levels to an 16 annual average of 11, combined with daily 98 17 percentile, a 24-hour average of 25. 18 The nation has made substantial 19 progress in reducing the health threat posed 20 by ambient PM2.5 after the promulgation of 21 the initial rule in 1997. Since that time, 22 researchers have strengthened the body of 23 evidence on the causal associations between 24 fine particles and the aggravation of 25 respiratory conditions such as asthma,

### 207 1 cardiac conditions such as heart disease, and 2 premature mortality. Importantly, science 3 has not determined a safe level of exposure 4 to PM. 5The Clean Air Act requires EPA to 6 establish air quality standards that protect 7 the public health with an adequate margin of 8 safety. The Agency's own Clean Air 9 Scientific Advisory Committee supports an 10 annual particulate matter standard of 11. 11EPA staff concluded in their April 12 2011 policy assessment that "the evidence 13 most strongly supports consideration of an 14 alternative annual level in the range of 12 15 to 11, and considered a daily standard 98th 16 percentile of 25 in its most recent 17 quantitative risk assessment. 18 The World Health Organization 19 chose 25 as its guideline level, for daily 20 mean PM2.5 based on their expert evaluation 21 of current scientific evidence. 22 And in 2009, British Columbia 23 established its own ambient air quality 24 objective of 25 micrograms daily standard at 25 the 98th percentile.

### 208 1In anticipation of this PM NAAQS 2 revision, the Clean Air Task Force in, 3 collaboration with Earthjustice and the 4American Lung Association, conducted a study 5 to assess the potential health benefits of a 6 suite of standards. 7 I personally spent several months 8 on the technical elements of the report. Our 9 analysis included the range of standards 10 under consideration by the Agency and the 11 primary results are documented in our report, 12 Sick of Soot, which can be found on our 13 website, www.catf.us. 14Given CASAC, EPA staff and other 15 organizations' evaluation of the scientific 16 record, we strongly advocate that the EPA 17 adopt a health standard combination of the 18 11 annual and 25 daily. 19 In our study we relied on air 20 quality data from 2007-2009 and employed 21 EPA's BenMAP tool using a rollback analysis. 22 Our investigation suggests as many as 35,700 23 premature deaths could be avoided, along with 24major reductions in other adverse health 25 consequences. That's 20,700 more avoided

### 209 1mortalities than the tightest combination of 2 the annual daily standards 12/35 proposed by 3 EPA, and nearly 28,000 more than the weakest 4proposed. 5The associated economic benefits 6 of meeting these standards could amount to 7 nearly $300 billion. 8 For its Regulatory Impact 9 Analysis, EPA's modeled future air quality in 10 2020, assuming emissions reductions from an 11 array of regulations, focused on the mobile 12 source and utility sectors. Based on that 13 work, virtually all monitored counties will 14meet the current air quality standard. 15Further reductions required to 16 meet the existing standards would leave only 17 eight counties failing to meet the most 18 stringent standards proposed by the 19 Administrator. 20 Although those results are 21 estimates based on many assumptions, 22 including rules undergoing litigations, the 23 proposed standard, for all intents and 24purposes, offers no additional protection 25 beyond the current NAAQS.

### 210 1As proposed, the standard would 2 simply serve as a backstop should anticipated 3 air quality gains due to existing rules go 4 unrealized. Since no safe threshold of PM 5 exposure has been determined, we must do more 6 to protect public health. 7 The annual standard of 11 we 8 advocate would result in 14 additional 9 counties projected not to meet the standard 10 in 2020. A daily standard of 30 would add 17 11more counties to that total. Our supported 12 daily standard of 25 would lead to further 13 air quality improvements in over 10 percent 14 of monitored counties based on 2020 baseline 15 projections, expanding health protections for 16 more citizens. 17 I should also say that there are 18 several elements of EPA's proposal that the 19 Task Force supports. As part of its 20 communication strategy, we back EPA's 21 proposal to revise the air quality index to 22 be consistent with the final standard. 23 In addition, we agree with the 24Agency's assertion that a near-roadway 25monitoring requirement will provide important

### 211 1 new information on potential population 2 exposures to mobile source PM. We also 3 support EPA's effort to allow air quality 4measured at micro and middle scale sites near 5 roadways to be compared to the annual 6 standard. 7 Our field monitoring research has 8 demonstrated that diesel engines contribute 9 substantially to and can dominate ambient 10 PM2.5 concentrations and exposures in and 11 adjacent to roadways. 12 In summary, our analysis of the 13 proposal shows that protecting public health 14 with an adequate margin of safety requires 15 setting the standard at 11 annual and 25 16 daily, which are the low end of the ranges 17 supported by the science and EPA's advisors. 18 We urge EPA to strengthen the 19 presently proposed standard and finalize it 20 as soon as possible. 21Thank you for the opportunity to 22 speak today. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, 24 Dr. Graham. 25Questions from the panel?

### 212 1The study that you cited was 2 mentioned this morning, but if you could 3 provide a copy of that along with your 4 written comments, that would be helpful. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. MANAKER: Good afternoon. My 7 name is Scott, S-C-O-T-T, Manaker, 8 M-A-N-A-K-E-R. I'm a pulmonary and critical 9 care physician and practice at the University 10 of Pennsylvania several blocks away. 11I'm speaking here today, however, 12 on behalf of the American Thoracic Society, 13 which is a medical professional society, 14 comprised of 15,000 physicians, researchers 15 and allied health professionals, a society 16 dedicated to the prevention, detection, 17 treatment and cure of respiratory, sleep and 18 critical care illnesses through research, 19 education and advocacy. 20 I, my society, my colleagues and 21 our patients are all grateful for the 22 opportunity to speak to you today. I would 23 highlight that our patients are your 24 families, your loved ones, and may very well 25 be you and others in the audience today.

### 213 1I spend most of my clinical time 2 taking care of patients with very serious 3 respiratory disorders. Through medication, 4 surgery and life-style modifications, we can 5 sometimes help patients gain some level of 6 control over their respiratory health. 7 One thing that neither I nor my 8 colleagues nor our patients can control is 9 the quality of the air that they breathe. 10 Abundant research demonstrates 11 that particulate matter air pollution is bad 12 for your health. Numerous chamber studies 13 convincingly show that particulate matter 14pollution reduces pulmonary function and 15 promotes airway inflammation. These health 16 effects have been demonstrated in healthy 17 young adults at levels as low as 25 18 micrograms per cubic meter. 19 Experience tells us that 20 vulnerable populations, particularly seniors 21 and children, are likely to exhibit much 22 stronger reactions than healthy young adults 23 at similar exposure levels. 24Epidemiological studies implicate 25 particulate matter air pollution to a whole

### 214 1 host of adverse health consequences, 2 including cardiac deaths, respiratory deaths, 3 heart attacks, vascular remodeling, chronic 4 obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, 5 asthma exacerbations and even low birth 6 weights. 7 The most impressive observation 8 about the scientific literature regarding air 9 pollution is that it is comprehensive. There 10 are literally hundreds of studies documenting 11 that particular matter air pollution is bad 12 for human health. 13 Research is quite consistent over 14many decades. Researchers have applied ever 15 increasing improved more sensitive 16 technologies and methods to document the 17 health effects of air pollution at 18 consistently smaller doses. 19 For our patients, it's very 20 simple. Particulate matter worsens their 21 health, particulate matter triggers asthma 22 attacks, flares chronic obstructive pulmonary 23 disease, heart attacks and promotes declining 24 lung function. 25The American Thoracic Society

### 215 1 strongly supports the EPA's proposed rule to 2 reduce air particulate matter pollution. We 3 believe, however, the EPA should set 4 standards of 11 micrograms per cubic meter 5 for the average annual standard, not 12 or 6 13, 25 micrograms per cubic meter for the 7 24-hour standard, not 35, and we support the 8 99th percentile for data monitoring, not 9 the 90, not the 98th. 10 Now would changing the quality of 11 our air improve health? Well, equally 12 compelling is the research showing that when 13 particulate matter pollution is reduced, 14 human health improves. 15A strike at steel plants in the 16 Utah Valley significantly reduced particulate 17 matter in the region leading to a 18 statistically significant reduction in all 19 cause mortality. 20 In Atlanta, Georgia during the 21 1996 Olympics, particulate matter reductions 22 at that time reduced pediatric asthma and 23 emergency room visits, asthma exacerbations 24 and the required use of asthma inhalers. 25Similar improvements were observed

### 216 1 due to particulate matter reduction during 2 the Beijing Olympics as well. 3 So we know that exposure to 4particulate matter air pollution is bad for 5 health, and we also know that steps to reduce 6 particulate matter will lead to real 7 measurable improvements in health. 8 So, in conclusion, the dangers 9 that exposure to particulate matter air 10 pollution is real, the science documents 11 adverse health effects of air pollution 12 conclusively, and the technology required to 13 reduce air pollution is readily available and 14 in use today. And the benefits of the 15 proposed rule are meaningful and significant. 16 And for these reasons the American 17 Thoracic Society strongly supports revising 18 the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 19 Particulate Matter to a level of 11 20 micrograms per cubic meter for the average 21 annual standard, 25 micrograms per cubic 22 meter for the 24-hour standard, and the 23 99th percentile for data monitoring. 24Our patients and your loved ones 25 deserve no less. I thank you for your time,

### 217 1 and I'll be happy to answer any questions 2 that you have. 3 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, 4 Dr. Manaker. 5Questions from the panel? 6 Thank you both. 7 I'd like to call Stephanie Maddin 8 and Susan Edwards. 9 Ms. Maddin can go first. 10 MS. MADDIN: Thank you for being 11 here today. 12 My name is Stephanie Maddin. 13 M-A-D-D-I-N. 14I just want to make it clear that 15 though I do work for Earthjustice, I will be 16 testifying as a private citizen. So though I 17 advocate with Earthjustice, I want to be 18 clear that I will be providing testimony 19 today as a private citizen. 20 I spent my entire life in the 21 Mid-Atlantic and experienced varying degrees 22 of air quality during that time frame. 23 Growing up, I could only think of one or two 24 classmates that had asthma. 25Now that I make my home in

### 218 1 Baltimore and work in Washington, D.C., I've 2 encountered many young adults and children 3 with respiratory health challenges. 4Unfortunately, my perception that 5 asthma is increasing is unfortunately 6 supported by the data. 7 In the United States, asthma rates 8 are increasing every year, and the number 9 that are diagnosed with asthma has grown by 10 4.3 million from 2001 to 2009. 11According to the Center for 12 Disease Control, about one in ten children, 13 10 percent, have asthma, and one in 12 14 adults, 8 percent. 15However, the burdens of asthma and 16 those associated with respiratory health 17 diseases are not uniformly felt throughout 18 the domestic population. 19 For example, CDC has found that 20 the greatest rise in asthma rates were among 21 black children, an almost 50 percent increase 22 from 2001 to 2009. This translates to 1 in 6 23 non-Hispanic black children or 17 percent of 24 black children having asthma in 2009, the 25 highest among all ethnic groups.

### 219 1While we may not know what causes 2 asthma, we do know what can trigger an 3 attack. One such dangerous trigger is fine 4particulate matter, or soot. 5Microscopic in size, say 30 times 6 smaller than a strand of hair, inhalation of 7 soot is associated with asthma attacks, heart 8 attacks and strokes. These outcomes have 9 real world implications in healthcare costs 10 often paid out of taxpayer funded programs 11 like Medicare and Medicaid, reduced 12 productivity for workers when they or their 13 children have to miss school or work, and 14 also impaired quality of life more generally 15 for Americans who are too sick to fully live, 16 play and pray in communities across the 17 country. 18 Today I'm encouraged the U.S. 19 Environmental Protection Agency has proposed 20 to tighten the annual soot limit from 15 21micrograms per cubic meter to a range between 22 12 or 13 micrograms. 23 However, the current proposal 24 would be substantially strengthened by 25 adopting a more protective standard within

### 220 1 the recommended range of the Agency's 2 independent scientific advisors. 3 The Clean Air Scientific Advisory 4 Committee, also known as CASAC, included 11 5micrograms per cubic meter in its 6 recommendations to the EPA. And I believe 7 that there is substantial peer reviewed 8 scientific support for adopting an annual 9 limit of 11. 10 Coupled with a daily limit of 25, 11 we would be able to address the varying 12 degrees of air quality to which all Americans 13 are subject. 14Onto just a personal matter, my 15 nephew KJ, who is going to be 2 years old 16 this November, has spent the first year and a 17 half of his life using a nebulizer and 18 showing the heartbreaking discomfort as his 19 mother responsibly applies his treatments. 20 I also know many women in church 21 who struggle to lift their voices in praise 22 for fear that they may suffer an asthma 23 attack in the midst of worship. 24And then there's the 23-year-old 25 law clerk that politely declined to meet up

### 221 1 for lunch with me just a few weeks ago 2 because she was concerned that the air 3 quality was too dangerous for her to make a 4 10-minute walk up the street to my office. 5For these people and the millions 6 more who desperately need relief, I urge the 7 Agency to use the incredible wealth of 8 scientific support to adopt the strongest 9 pollution limits as possible. This means 10 adopting the most protective standards with 11 an adequate margin of safety. 12 Their protection is your mission, 13 and the millions who have respiratory health 14problems is your mission. And this should 15 remain at the forefront of the Agency's 16 efforts as they work towards a strong final 17 rule. 18 I thank you for all of your 19 efforts. I know that it's extremely hot 20 today. We appreciate your patience, and we 21 do hope you that you adopt the strongest 22 limit as possible. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, and thank 24you for being here as well. 25Questions from the panel?

### 222 1MS. EDWARDS: My name is Susan 2 Edwards, E-D-W-A-R-D-S. And I am a volunteer 3 for Sierra Club. And I think I can speak for 4 Sierra Club actually. There's quite a few of 5 us here today. 6 And I would like to speak in favor 7 of the EPA's proposal to strengthen the 8 standards for soot pollution, revising the 9 allowable soot level to 12 or 13 micrograms, 10 or 11 would be better, down from 15. 11I didn't know that soot was still 12 a problem since the air seems cleaner today 13 than when I was a child, and I know the EPA 14 has been taking steps to reduce pollution of 15 all kinds. 16 But I've learned that soot 17 particles are so small that even at low 18 levels they invade our bodies, not just in 19 our lungs, but in the bloodstream and our 20 organs. They increase our risk of heart 21 attacks, strokes, asthma, lung disease, 22 cancer, developmental and reproductive damage 23 and premature death. 24Those of us at greatest risk are 25 children, the elderly, and people who already

### 223 1 have lung or heart disease or diabetes. Also 2 most seriously affected are people living 3 near highways and industrial facilities who 4 tend to be lower income people. 5Those who say, and there are those 6 in Congress making this argument, that we 7 cannot afford to clean up the haze in the air 8 from soot, are in effect saying that those 9 businesses that produce the soot should not 10 have to pay to clean up dirty air, but it's 11 okay for individuals who become ill as a 12 result to shoulder the medical costs. 13 I'm glad to see that the EPA did a 14 cost-benefit analysis, which showed that the 15 cost to industry, while expected to amount to 16 2.9 million to $69 million a year, which is 17 not insignificant, but it's far outweighed 18 from the benefits of lower health bills, 19 which would range from $88 million to $5.9 20 billion a year. 21Taking steps to reduce soot will 22 save lives and health, and the tragic cost of 23 these to our society will save lives and 24 health. 25An added benefit will be that we

### 224 1 will find ways as a nation to reduce fossil 2 fuel use, the source of soot. This will help 3 in the absolutely necessary effort to reduce 4 greenhouse gases in the environment in order 5 to slow down climate change. 6 We've had ample evidence of the 7 effects of climate change recently, with 8 freak storms and wildfires, droughts and 9 floods, in the U.S. and worldwide. Thus, 10 cleaning up emissions from coal-fired power 11 plants, and other industries, as well as 12 diesel use, will improve our nation's health 13 in the short run and the viability of our 14 climate in the long run. 15Thank you very much. 16 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 17 you both. 18 I'd like to call Margaret Baker 19 and Dale Shillito. 20 Ms. Baker? 21MS. BAKER: Hello, my name is 22 Margaret Baker. I'm testifying as a citizen 23 of the local region. And I am a member of 24 the Sierra Club. 25I am a PAC scientist, having

### 225 1 degrees in biochemistry and nutrition, and I 2 have taught biology classes and nutrition and 3 physiology class. 4Most of my testimony is going to 5 be of a personal nature. I moved to 6 Philadelphia in 1987, which I recognize now 7 is the date of the implementation of the 8 current standards for coarse particle, and 10 9 years before the implementation of the 10 standards for the fine particles were 11 implemented. 12 After 12 years of living in 13 Philadelphia, I was diagnosed with mild 14 asthma and moved to the suburbs. My asthma 15 improved at that point. 16 So, that is my personal 17 observation about the air quality in the 18 region, one of them. And I'm also reminded 19 of some well documented biology studies on 20 soot particles, because of my experience in 21 teaching biology and nutrition. 22 It was actually the soot in the 23 United Kingdom during the late 19th century 24 that led to the discovery of vitamin D. 25 There was actually so much soot in the air in

### 226 1 certain regions of the United Kingdom that 2 the sunlight was blocked in certain 3 neighborhoods, and there was a prevalence of 4 60 to 90 percent among children having 5 rickets at that time. And a certain 6 physician made the observation, and years 7 later it was discovered that Vitamin D was 8 the cure, and sunshine -- Vitamin D is known 9 as the sunshine vitamin -- because Vitamin D 10 is not activated to the hormonal form that 11 allows mineralization of bone unless your 12 skin is exposed to sunlight. 13 So I just wanted to mention that 14 we've come a long way from allowing large 15 populations of children to suffer in such an 16 obvious manner. But according to the 17 testimonies we've heard today, it's clear 18 that there's still ongoing health problems 19 related to these particles. And these 20 particles are not invisible. 21I'm also a sailor. And on a 22 recent day of sailing in the Delaware River 23 with a friend, who just returned from 24Australia, and he looked up and said, The sky 25 is not blue. And I said, Well, you know,

### 227 1 there may be some humidity in the air. He 2 said, No, it's not blue. And I realized, 3 this is what I've come to appreciate as a 4 normal clear day in Philadelphia, and it's 5 really -- it's not clear. 6 So, just to sum it up, I would 7 urge the panel to adopt the most stringent 8 regulation possible on particles, for coarse 9 and fine, that are obviously known to be 10 damaging to human health. 11Thank you. 12 Dale Shillito. 13 MR. SHILLITO: Hello, my name is 14 Dale Shillito. 15Well, I came here at the urging of 16 the Sierra Club when I first realized when 17 those hearings were being held through their 18 efforts. But I'm actually a member of Park 19 Street United Methodist Church and I'd like 20 to speak from that perspective. 21The environmental agency has been 22 maligned recently by certain special 23 interests. To me the EPA is the best friend 24 of anybody who wants to breathe fresh air and 25 drink clean water, and that's all of us.

### 228 1The EPA has, under the Clean Air 2 Act, strengthened the standards of ambient 3 air quality by reducing soot particulate 4 allowances from 15 micrograms per meter to 5 between 13 and 12 micrograms per meter. 6 Soot is nasty, graying the sky, 7 but invisible at close range. It's made up 8 of microscopic particles of toxic metals, 9 chemicals and acid gases that invade 10 everybody's lungs, everybody's. 11Exposure to these noxious 12 chemicals can cause heart attacks, strokes, 13 lung inflammation, worsened asthma, cancer 14 and, in Pennsylvania, 5,000 premature deaths 15 per year. 16 The technology is available to 17 remove particulate matter before smoke is 18 released into the atmosphere. Scrubbers are 19 expensive, but effective. 20 Last year we heard fanciful 21 stories of "death panels" somewhere in the 22 Affordable Healthcare Act. They existed only 23 in Sarah Palin's mind. However, it seems to 24me that there are real death panels sitting 25 in executive boardrooms of utilities with

### 229 1 polluting power plants, petroleum refineries 2 and fleets of diesel trucks. 3 By refusing to install adequate 4pollution control devices, these death panels 5 are condemning people with preexisting lung 6 and heart conditions, elderly and small 7 children, especially those living near their 8 facilities. 9 If you were on the board of 10 directors of a polluting industry, would you 11 allow your own grandparents to die 12 prematurely, or your children to develop 13 asthma, just because you might lose some 14 competitive edge by installing pollution 15 control devices? 16 This is a moral issue as well as 17 an issue of public health. 18 And by the way, by EPA imposing 19 the same rules on everyone, no one loses 20 their competitive edge. 21Thank you. 22 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 23 Questions? 24Thank you both. 25I'd like to call Scott David and

### 230 1 Miriam Shakow. 2 MR. DAVIS: I'm Scott Davis, an 3 American whistle-blower and peacemaker and 4 writer of beautiful music. This will be 5 short but sweet, like the old man's romance. 6 Rather than concern myself with 7 the technical or medical aspects of 8 particulate and other environmental pollution 9 ranging from the inert to the clearly 10 carcinogenic, I wish to focus concern upon 11 the aspects of pollution and industrial 12 activity, which in Pennsylvania particularly 13 are related to systemic corruption throughout 14 the state and extending beyond the state 15 level. 16 My hope is that the EPA, in 17 regulating industrial and citizen-generated 18 pollution, will not give the federal, state 19 and ancillary local governments and their 20 corporate allies an even break, but will hold 21 government and its sweetheart contractors and 22 preferred corporate interests in Pennsylvania 23 to the most stringent standards of complete 24 and total obedience to law. And that a 25 special federal prosecutor will be appointed,

### 231 1 like the president, to protect witnesses who 2 testify against powerful interests in 3 Pennsylvania. 4Thank you. God bless. 5MR. KOERBER: Sir, if you wish to 6 remain seated, there might be more questions. 7 Thank you for your testimony. 8 MS. SHAKOW: My name is Miriam 9 Shakow and I live in Narberth, PA. 10 And I have a 7-year-old son, so 11 I'm here mostly as a mother. And I'm very 12 concerned about the air pollution that we're 13 creating for ourselves and also for him and 14millions of other children in the country. 15My father died of mesothelioma, a 16 cancer caused by exposure to a type of 17 airborne pollution, when I was 20; he was 57. 18 A friend of mine, who was 36, died 19 last year of cancer. And I got to know many 20 other younger men who died of cancer. 21So several people have mentioned, 22 we don't know specifically which exact 23 effects are caused by which different soot is 24 in our atmosphere, but we know that there are 25many harmful health effects from soot, and we

### 232 1 know that some of those harmful effects are 2 cancerous. 3 And I have a fear, and many of my 4 friends -- I'm 37 -- and many of my friends 5 who are my age feel like all of a sudden we 6 know many, many, many young people who are 7 getting cancer. And it's very concerning. 8 And it leads to a pretty grim vision of the 9 future. 10 And I strongly urge you to help 11 enforce the most strictest standards to 11 12 micrograms per million per year with the 13 Sierra Club and the American Lung Association 14 and what other expert medical groups have 15 asked for. 16 I also have experience with 17 neighbors of mine who do air quality research 18 in Philadelphia in poor neighborhoods, such 19 as Port Richmond. And they found that people 20 in those neighborhoods, most as a result of 21 diesel trucks that have routes throughout the 22 neighborhood, wind up breathing even a much 23 higher rate of soot and other air 24 contaminants than what can be measured in the 25 ambient atmosphere.

### 233 1When they strap on air quality 2 monitors, the levels of what they're actually 3 breathing in are much higher. And this was 4 just taken last week. 5But it's clear that there are 6 major problems in much of the City of 7 Philadelphia. 8 And I just want to say, that given 9 the fact that the technology exists to 10 harness clean energy from wind and solar, the 11 political will has been lacking to implement 12 policy that will force private companies, as 13 well as the government, to actually use those 14 technologies rather than the ones that we 15 know are harmful. 16 And so these soot standards will 17 be really helpful in pushing industry as well 18 as individuals and government in the right 19 direction. 20 Thank you. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 22 Any questions? No. 23 Thank you both. We appreciate you 24 being here today. 25MR. KOERBER: I'd like to call Ed

### 234 1 Braun and Marta Piotrowicz. 2 Ed, I guess it's all yours, so 3 take it away. 4MR. BRAUN: Good afternoon. My 5 name is Edward Braun. I'm Regulatory 6 Services Program Manager at the Philadelphia 7 Department of Public Health's Air Management 8 Services, AMS Division. 9 I would like to thank the United 10 States Environmental Protection Agency for 11 holding a public hearing in Philadelphia on 12 the proposed revisions to the National 13 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle 14 Pollution. 15AMS is the local pollution control 16 agency for the City of Philadelphia. AMS's 17 mission is to protect the health and quality 18 of life of Philadelphians from the adverse 19 effects of air pollution. We operate under 20 the authority provided by the Philadelphia 21 code, the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control 22 Act and the Federal Clean Air Act. 23 The City of Philadelphia commends 24 the EPA for its efforts to protect public 25 health by proposing to strengthen the annual

### 235 1 health standard for fine particles by setting 2 the standard within the range of 12 to 13 3 micrograms per cubic meter. 4Thousands of studies show that 5 long-term exposure to particle pollution 6 results in harmful health effects, including 7 premature death related to heart disease, 8 cardiovascular issues, such as heart attacks 9 and stroke, reduced lung development, and the 10 development of chronic respiratory diseases. 11For example, one 2009 study 12 estimated that improvements in air quality 13 accounted for as much as 15 percent of the 14 overall increase in life expectancy in the 15 areas studied. 16 Another 2011 study further 17 concluded that ambient air concentrations in 18 recent decades contribute to premature death 19 in nonsmokers. 20 Under the current air quality 21 standards, the American Lung Association 22 estimates in its 2012 State of the Air 23 Assessment that there are nearly 33,000 cases 24 of pediatric asthma, 118,000 cases of adult 25 asthma, and 364,000 cases of cardiovascular

### 236 1 disease in Philadelphia County. 2 Stronger standards are needed to 3 reduce harmful air emissions, improve air 4 quality and improve human health, and prevent 5 thousands of heart attacks and asthma attacks 6 each year. 7 Thank you for the opportunity to 8 testify in support of the proposed revisions 9 to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 10 for Particle Pollution. We look forward to 11 continued work with the EPA, other air 12 agencies, local businesses and the public for 13 improving air quality to Philadelphia's 14 citizens. 15MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 16 In your written comments, if you 17 could provide references for the studies you 18 cited, that would be helpful for us. 19 Thank you. 20 I'd like to call Don Ranck and 21 Margaret Motheral. 22 Mr. Ranck, you can go first. 23 MR. RANCK: Thank you, sir. 24Thank you for the opportunity to 25 appear today.

### 237 1My name is Don Ranck. I'm from 2 Paradise in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 3 and my wife, Ginny, and I, we milk cows, grow 4 crops like corn and hay and vegetables. And 5 we operate a farm, bed and breakfast and farm 6 tours. 7 I serve as Vice-President of the 8 Lancaster County Farm Bureau and my remarks 9 today are on behalf of the Pennsylvania Farm 10 Bureau. 11Farm Bureau supports EPA's 12 decision to retain the current standard for 13 coarse particulate matter, which includes 14 farm dust. While we recognize that this 15 particular proposal does not change how farm 16 dust is treated in a regulatory fashion, we 17 want to take this opportunity to express our 18 occupational realities and to caution your 19 agency against future consideration of 20 regulating something neither humans or 21 government can control -- Mother Nature. 22 Dust in rural America is a fact of 23 life. It results naturally from normal 24 day-to-day activities such as working in the 25 fields, driving on unpaved rural roads, and

### 238 1moving livestock from one location to 2 another. Dust levels are worse when the 3 ground is dry or when the wind is blowing. 4 Wind and rain are both conditions that the 5 EPA cannot regulate. 6 Farmers do not have the ability 7 simply to forego work when conditions are dry 8 or when the wind is blowing. Field work is 9 far more contingent on crop conditions than 10 on weather conditions. And there are times 11 when we have to get into our fields 12 regardless of dry or windy conditions in 13 order to plant, protect or harvest our crops. 14Moreover, the simple act of 15 running farm machinery across the land 16 creates dust. As you know, no-till, 17 minimum-till, and conservation tillage are 18 the predominant agricultural practices in 19 Pennsylvania and around the nation. This 20 already reduces the amount of dust that 21 agriculture stirs up. 22 However, planting a crop requires 23 that the soil be disturbed in order for the 24 seed to be placed in the soil. Even that 25minor soil disturbance, coupled with tractor

### 239 1 and planter tires rolling across carbon 2 matter from the previous crop and the soil 3 itself creates dust. 4This time of year farmers all 5 across the nation are mowing, raking and 6 baling hay. The final stuff in the haymaking 7 process creates dust. To bale hay before it 8 completely dries, in the name of mitigating 9 or reducing dust, creates a storage risk. 10 As any farmer knows, storing wet 11 hay can lead to a barn fire as a result of 12 spontaneous combustion. Many farmers harvest 13 high moisture hay as baleage or silage, but 14 that is only possible for ruminant, or 15 four-stomached animals, not for horses and 16 other single-stomached animals which must 17 have dry hay. 18 In only a few months, forage 19 choppers and combines will start rolling 20 through my fields and fields across America. 21 No method of harvesting is currently 22 available, let alone imaginable, that is 23 totally dust-free. 24Driving on unpaved roads and 25 driveways stirs up dust. The primary way to

### 240 1mitigate this is to pave the cowpaths, as you 2 would see in Lancaster we've paved most of 3 them, creating an impervious surface that now 4presents a water quality concern to the EPA 5 likely resulting in more regulations for 6 farms and businesses. 7 Our cattle have access to the 8 barnyard, pasture and the barn interior. 9 Whether they move on their own in and out of 10 the milking parlor, or if we load them on a 11 trailer for sale at auction, their movement 12 creates dust. 13 Farming generally, and dairy 14 farming specifically, does not occur in a 15 vacuum environment. The fact of the matter 16 is the act of farming creates dust. 17 My farm is located in the heart of 18 Pennsylvania Dutch Country. Chances are 19 those in this room who have vacationed in 20 Lancaster County have driven past my farm and 21 perhaps some have even stayed at our bed and 22 breakfast or took a farmland fun day tour to 23 see our farming practices to milk a cow, feed 24 a calf, collect eggs, and interact with small 25 animals.

### 241 1Visitors to our farm understand 2 and expect our farm environment to be a 3 little dusty because, frankly, it's a farm. 4Mine is an occupation relying on 5 the soil to grow and harvest crops. The 6 soil, the crops and our animals all create 7 dust. 8 Farmers take many measures to 9 reduce dust, like strip-cropping, using trees 10 to reduce wind at ground level, using 11 environmentally friendly Dust-Kill oil to 12 reduce dust on farm lanes, but farmers would 13 hope that, like the visitors to our farm, the 14 EPA understands this reality and that your 15 future considerations of regulating coarse 16 particulate matter reflect the inability of 17 agriculture and rural American to control 18 weather and wind or to eliminate dust. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 21 Questions? 22 MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you for 23 coming, sir. I was wondering, are you being 24 affected by the drought right now? 25MR. RANCK: We were until three

### 242 1 days ago. We had 1 1/10th inch of rain, and 2 then later 6/10ths. Not everybody got it. 3 So it's hit or miss. 4Thank you. 5MR. KOERBER: Thank you for making 6 the trip here today. 7 Ms. Motheral. 8 MS. MOTHERAL: Hi, I'm Margaret 9 Motheral. 10 I had to evacuate from my house 11 yesterday for about the fifth time over six 12 years. My home is in the Mount Airy part of 13 Philadelphia, right next to what had been a 14 rail yard, a history of coalbins. The 15 coalbins were there when I moved in. And 16 there was a lot of, just, chemicals I mean in 17 through the ground in the creek that's under 18 the soil. 19 So, politicians went in front of 20 City Planning and Zoning to pitch this 21 project to build. And they started in with 22 demolition with no permits, there was brick, 23 cement, an old company store, et cetera, no 24 dust control. 25My property, from their property

### 243 1 line, is like 4 feet and then wraps around 2 the back. 3 They cracked my house, and that 4 was my first approach to the City. And I'm 5 from California, and my brother is in 6 construction. And I just thought, well, they 7 don't want to hurt my house. They'll just 8 fix it. 9 And then I started getting really 10 sick. And then they started doing 11 excavation. And all the chemicals came up. 12 And I got really, really sick. I ended up in 13 the ER. I finally got L&I to come out and 14 they shut -- they got shut down for 15 demolition without permits. They had 16 violations for excavation without permits. 17 Three doctors said to remove me 18 from my house. Instead of being removed, 19 I've been threatened with everything from 20 jail, rape, rocks thrown at me. 21The politicians have tried to 22 rough me up in various ways. And most of the 23 time back in the house since 2004 I've not 24 been able to live there. 25I thought the project was done,

### 244 1 and I could move back and at least have some 2 financial relief for a moment. But they had 3 dealt so badly that a couple of weeks ago 4 they started stripping down outside walls, 5 and a white film of all this particulate 6 matter, I've collected the particulate matter 7 going all in my yard. 8 And a lot of witnesses, I have 9 confessions that the land was contaminated. 10 Senator Casey got me into EPA criminal 11 investigation. But it's always politics. 12 So everybody says they look at 13 this, they see everybody involved, and they 14 go, Well, we can't help you because of the 15 politics. So, they're putting politics over 16 human life. 17 My life stopped. It just stopped. 18 I lost my career. My children have never 19 been to my house. 20 And one time I went to the police 21 department and I said, If my boyfriend beat 22 me up so back that I ended up in the hospital 23 and I had to have help breathing, is that a 24 crime? And she said, Yeah, that's assault. 25 And I said, Well, I want to file an assault

### 245 1 charge against these people. And she looked 2 at it. It was a construction site. And she 3 said, No, no, that's different. That's a 4 civil suit. 5But all the lawyers in this town 6 are all connected. I mean, some of the top 7 lawyers in this town set up that project. 8 So, basically, I'm sick, and I'm 9 going to die early, I've lost everything, and 10 I can't get any help because of politics. 11Well, more in the last year I've 12 met other people in similar situations. I 13 mean, it's so easy just to move somebody. 14Down in Baltimore they had big 15 dust studies, and there was a couple, Rosa 16 and somebody else, and one of their policies 17 was if there was going to be a big demolition 18 project, or rehab redevelopment project, you 19 get those residents out of the way so that 20 they're not breathing this stuff day and 21 night. 22 So, anyway, Philadelphia politics 23 is basically committing slow manslaughter as 24 far as I'm concerned. I'm not too happy 25 about it.

### 246 1Thank you. 2 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, ma'am, 3 for being here with us today. Questions? 4Thank you both. 5It says we get a 20-minute break. 6 The next group of speakers is not here. Oh, 7 yes? 8 AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I just have a 9 clarification. This is regarding fine 10 particulate matter, is that right? 11MR. KOERBER: It's regarding 12 particulate matter, so the proposal deals 13 with both PM2.5 and PM10. 14AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank 15 you very much. 16 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Just for the 17 record, the first question was regarding 18 whether or not the public hearing was about 19 fine particles only, and the clarification 20 was that it's in regards to both fine and 21 coarse particles health and welfare 22 standards. 23 MR. KRAMER: My question was just 24 if this affects farm dust. 25MR. KOERBER: That's a terminology

### 247 1 that is used to describe PM10, which is 2 another aspect of this proposal, coarse 3 particles more clearly. 4We will be on break until 3:30 and 5 we will readjourn until that time. 6

_ _ _ _ _ _ 7 this time, a recess was taken at 3:08 p.m. and 8 the EPA meeting resumed at 3:32 p.m..) 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ 10 MR. KOERBER: Welcome back. 11It is approximately 3:32 and we 12 are back in session. 13 Thank you again for attending 14 EPA's hearing on the proposed rule for 15 particulate matter. The same ground rules as 16 before. 17 Many of you were here before the 18 break so I won't go over my whole statement, 19 but, just to remind you, I will be calling 20 speakers to the microphone in pairs. When 21 it's your turn to speak, please state your 22 name and your affiliation, and it would help 23 our reporter if you also spelled your name. 24And also, I'd ask that you limit 25 your testimony to five minutes each. And we

### 248 1 have a timekeeping system up here to help you 2 with that. 3 With that, we will begin with 4 Marta Piotrowicz and Sara Clark. 5My apologies for any 6 mispronunciations. 7 MS. PIOTROWICZ: Hi, my name is 8 Marta Piotrowicz. I'm currently a college 9 senior and I live in Abington, Pennsylvania. 10 The new pollution standards 11 proposed by the EPA demonstrate a willingness 12 to abide by science, not corporate interests. 13 Rather than cave to pressure from 14 big oil and gas, the EPA has strengthened 15 protections against harmful particulate 16 matter. 17 Soot can decrease lung function, 18 aggravate asthma and increase the development 19 of chronic bronchitis. Despite these health 20 effects and the premature deaths prevented by 21 increased protection, industry lobbyists and 22 their friends in Congress have been fighting 23 back. 24We cannot allow special interests 25 to win out over the health of our citizens.

### 249 1 These interests will try to defeat these 2 protections by talking about their economic 3 freedoms or by trying to discredit 4peer-reviewed scientific research. 5These actions demonstrate that 6 this industry only cares about increasing 7 their profits and will place our health at 8 risk to do so. 9 The new standards of 12 to 13 10 micrograms per cubic meter are a step in the 11 right direction; however, the more protective 12 levels of 11 micrograms per cubic meter 13 should be considered. 14These increased protections are 15more in mind with the scientific evidence 16 available and will help protect the health of 17 our citizens. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 20 Ms. Clark. 21MS. CLARK: My name is Sara Clark. 22 I'm a college student from Bucks County, 23 Pennsylvania. 24I'm here testifying today because 25 I firmly believe that clean air is not a

### 250 1 luxury, but a right. 2 EPA has taken a step in the right 3 direction by proposing these new pollution 4 standards as part of the Clean Air Act. 5 Particulate pollution poses a serious threat 6 to the health of citizens nationwide. With 7 health effects ranging from asthma attacks to 8 heart attacks and even death, these standards 9 are essential for protecting public health. 10 The new soot pollution standards 11 will save thousands of lives each year and 12 millions of dollars of healthcare expenses. 13 Particulate pollution is also a major 14 contributor to the smog that hangs over urban 15 areas like Philadelphia or Trenton, New 16 Jersey, closer to my home. 17 When I was younger, one of my 18 favorite places to spend my summer days was 19 at Bowman's Tower, a wildflower preserve in 20 Bucks County. I used to be able to see 21 Trenton easily from the top of the 125-foot 22 revolutionary era tower there, but thanks to 23 the smog enveloping Trenton in the 24 summertime, this is becoming increasingly 25 difficult.

### 251 1When you consider Trenton is far 2 smaller than Philadelphia with 84,000 3 population size rather than 1.5 million 4people, you can realize the amplifications of 5 the effects of the smog that is plaguing 6 Philadelphia. 7 It's a widespread issue and not 8 one restricted to large cities like 9 Philadelphia or New York. 10 Smog is an unattractive and 11 unhealthy addition to urban skylines as well 12 as scenic rural areas. And we need these new 13 soot pollution standards to help clean our 14 air and decrease smog levels while protecting 15 public health. 16 I applaud EPA for taking this step 17 and encourage them to continue implementing 18 new pollution standards in accordance with 19 the Clean Air Act. 20 Thank you. 21MR. KOERBER: Thank you both. 22 I'd like to call Michael Klusek 23 and Chris Mizes. 24MR. KLUSEK: I live in Port 25 Richmond. And I definitely noticed that

### 252 1 there's a lot of particulate matter. For 2 instance, I live in a row house and I'm 3 constantly wiping up collections, not even 4 dust, I don't know what it is, but it's like 5 heavier white stuff, and I don't know where 6 that's coming from, but it's in the air. 7 And when I blow a fan or whatever, 8 it's like I constantly have to clean this 9 stuff up. 10 I also notice like health effects, 11 I don't have asthma or anything like that, 12 but when I go out to Media, PA every once in 13 a while, it's like wow, I feel like I'm in 14 the mountains. I can actually breathe. It's 15 so much of a difference. It's like a 16 vacation going out there. 17 So I don't know if it's all over 18 Philadelphia, or just in my neighborhood, but 19 it's definitely a factor. 20 So, that's pretty much it. 21MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you, 22 sir. Thank you for being here today. 23 MR. MIZES: Hello. My name is 24 Chris Mizes. I'm a project coordinator at 25 Clean Air Council in community health. And

### 253 1 the work that I do at Clean Air Council is 2 organizing a community-based respiratory 3 research project with residents of Port 4 Richmond, such as Mike. And we've been doing 5 this a little bit under a year now. 6 To give you kind of an idea of 7 what the neighborhood is like, I suppose it's 8 northeast of here on the northeast corridor 9 in Philadelphia, and it's directly adjacent 10 to one of Philadelphia's international ports. 11 In fact, it is on the border of this port. 12 The neighborhood has been here for 13 well over a hundred years. It's an old 14 industrial neighborhood. And lots of working 15 class people live here and lots of them used 16 to work at the port, and some of them still 17 do. But it's really important to note that 18 this neighborhood is directly next to the 19 port, and all of the heavy soot that comes 20 along like port land use. 21So, part of that is that lots of 22 heavy-duty diesel truck traffic is driving 23 through the neighborhood. And something that 24many residents like Mike had pointed out to 25me is that this is a huge issue, not only for

### 254 1 air pollution but also for congestion, health 2 and safety, unable to cross roads. 3 Fire trucks can't fit through the 4 streets sometimes if they're clogged with 5 these heavy-duty diesel trucks. And that's 6 just sort of, like, one of the problems. 7 Another is like large piles of tires that 8 occasionally catch on fire. 9 So, the neighborhood is directly 10 next to the port. And in the 70's a highway 11 was built down through the east side of the 12 neighborhood that sort of bisects the port 13 from Port Richmond. And it's a heavily 14 trafficked highway. And not only does it go 15 through the neighborhood, but it actually 16 goes directly through the center of one of 17 the neighborhood's most popular parks. 18 The east side is the baseball 19 fields, and the west side is the basketball 20 court. And this is where they hold most of 21 their community events and Little League and 22 things like that in the neighborhood. 23 So people use this park and 24 children play in it and it bisects I-95 and 25 it's directly next to Philadelphia's port.

### 255 1 So that's kind of what the neighborhood is 2 like. 3 The Clean Air Council has been 4 working with ports for a long time, trying to 5 clean up their diesel fleets through diesel 6 retrofits to reducing other emissions that 7 come off of the diesel trucks that drive in 8 and out of Mike's neighborhood. And since 9 doing those, we wanted to start reaching out 10 to neighborhood residents who were directly 11 affected by these things, so we started doing 12 a community-based participatory air 13 monitoring project, because, as you all know, 14 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 15 are measured by this loose network of air 16 monitors in Philadelphia that is run by the 17 Department of Public Health. 18 So, Philadelphia is made up of 19 maybe 11 to 12 of those air monitors that 20 measure air at these sites throughout 21 Philadelphia. But granted, those are only in 22 12 sites. 23 What we don't get is a spatial 24 dispersion of those things about how people 25 are overburdened and the unequal spatial

### 256 1 dispersion of air quality. 2 So we don't know what it's like 3 directly next to the port. We do not know 4 what it's like for air quality in people in 5 Mike's neighborhood, for example. 6 So a part of what we're doing is 7 trying to involve the neighborhood residents 8 in the project, such as Mike, and to get an 9 idea of exactly what air quality is like for 10 people that live in places that are already 11 overburdened with air quality and toxicologic 12 inventories, everything. This is an old 13 industrial neighborhood. 14So those are sort of some of the 15 problems that we're trying to address through 16 our projects and through Clean Air Council 17 and the residents of Port Richmond. 18 One of the solutions is obviously 19 cleaning up our diesel trucks. Another is 20 making sure that they reroute to different 21 places. And the third is really enforcing 22 those routes and mitigation strategies from 23 the highway, for example. 24The highway is actually being 25 redeveloped right now.

### 257 1And so limiting, changing this 2 threshold for particulate matter at the 3 national level, while it doesn't address the 4 fine grain neighborhood level effects, such 5 as neighborhoods in Port Richmond, it does do 6 a good job of reducing the overall effects, 7 which I feel filter down to the specific 8 places. 9 So we don't know still what it's 10 like exactly in Port Richmond, it's still a 11 useful project for us to reduce the amount of 12 air emissions in neighborhoods that are 13 already overburdened with these things. 14So I encourage you to adopt the 15 rule. 16 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 17 Any questions? 18 MR. SILVERMAN: No. But I wanted 19 to mention something about the programs EPA 20 has done for particulate emissions from 21 diesel engine. 22 Our legal authority only extends 23 to new engines. We have standards, and I've 24 seen this with my own eyes, that you can put 25 a white tablecloth beyond the tailpipe of a

### 258 1 diesel engine, and it'll get singed, but it 2 will not get any soot on it. 3 And the petroleum industry does 4 deserve some credit for taking sulphur out of 5 diesel fuel, because that's what enabled 6 these particular traps to operate. So diesel 7 engines will get progressively cleaner as the 8 fleet turns over. 9 Those standards are in effect now, 10 and you'll see more and more benefits from 11 them. 12 MR. KOERBER: You also mentioned 13 the community study that you're doing. Any 14 data, any findings that have been published 15 on that to date? 16 MR. MIZES: Not published. We 17 just recently finished our most recent air 18 monitoring project about a month ago, 19 wrapping up field work. So we won't have 20 anything until we do a little bit more 21 analysis. 22 And since it's a community-based 23 project, the first place that we report our 24 results to are going to be our neighborhood 25 residents, and then we'll decide where to go

### 259 1 with that. 2 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you for 3 sharing that with us today. 4I'd like to call Tom Au. 5MR. AU: Good afternoon. My name 6 is Thomas Au. And that's spelled A-U. 7 I am here today on behalf of the 8 Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania. The 9 address is 528 Garland Drive in Carlisle, 10 Pennsylvania. 11The Clean Air Board was formed in 12 the fall of 2005 after over a hundred 13 Cumberland County physicians signed and 14published in the local newspapers an open 15 letter informing the community of the growing 16 threat of air pollution. 17 Initially, a small group of people 18 of faith gathered to support the physicians 19 in educating our community and advocating for 20 cleaner air. We have grown to include not 21 only that faith community, but also business 22 people, teachers, lawyers, parents and the 23 medical community. 24Increasingly we are becoming 25 concerned about air pollution, and, in

### 260 1 particular, the especially pernicious effects 2 of PM2.5 fine particulate matter which is 3 invisible and small enough to penetrate 4 readily into human tissue. 5From the 1990's, scientific 6 evidence has been accumulating regarding a 7 wide array of negative health effects of air 8 pollution. And that evidence has pointed a 9 particularly telling finger towards PM2.5. 10 It's now well established that 11 exposure to PM2.5 increases the incidence of 12 respiratory illness, including bronchitis and 13 asthma. 14In addition, recent studies, 15 including one by the Columbia Center for 16 Children's Environmental Health, have drawn 17 direct links between high levels of 18 combustion-generated pollutants and high 19 rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, 20 and cancer. 21In recent years, a direct link has 22 been established between air pollution and 23 cardiovascular illness. This link has been 24 confirmed repeatedly in studies done by 25 scientists around the world.

### 261 1But if all of this wasn't enough 2 to give us pause, researchers have begun to 3 find strong associations between PM2.5 and 4 two other dreaded health problems, stroke and 5 cognitive degeneration. 6 A recent and widely cited study, 7 run by Greg Wellenius of Brown University, 8 has revealed that on days when concentrations 9 of traffic pollutants go up, so does the risk 10 of stroke. The risks of ischemic stroke or 11 onset among patients residing in the greater 12 Boston area is associated between daily and 13 hourly changes in PM2.5 levels. 14Specifically, the researchers 15 found that overall a 24-hour exposure to 16 moderate air quality raised the odds of 17 having a stroke by 34 percent as compared to 18 a 24-hour period of good air quality. 19 The increased stroke risk was 20 highest within 12 to 14 hours of exposure to 21 PM2.5, and was most strongly associated with 22 traffic-related pollution. 23 Regarding the latter finding, the 24 authors noted that the experimental studies 25 in humans and animals have shown that

### 262 1 exposure to concentrated ambient PM2.5 can 2 induce increases in blood pressure and heart 3 rate, and reductions in heart rate 4 variability within this time frame. 5What is perhaps most striking 6 about this study is the PM2.5 exposure 7 increases the risk of ischemic stroke even at 8 levels below those currently considered safe. 9 That same observation prompted 10 Dr. Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco 11 Department of Public Health to suggest that 12 current ambient air quality standards should 13 be reviewed and revised. 14Dr. Bhatia argued that improved 15 human control of PM2.5 is technically 16 feasible, but will require increased efforts 17 to assess exposure at the community level, 18 more stringent and creative regulatory 19 initiatives and political support. 20 In another study of equally 21 daunting ramifications, Jennifer Weuve of the 22 Rush University Medical Center in Chicago 23 found that woman with higher levels of 24 long-term exposure to coarse and fine 25 particulate matter had significantly faster

### 263 1 declines in cognition than those with less 2 exposure to pollutants. 3 Dr. Weuve and her colleagues found 4 evidence that fine particulate can penetrate 5 the brain through nasal passages. 6 These findings of the Weuve study 7 are consistent with the findings revealed in 8 a 2011 study by researchers at the Ohio State 9 University looking at the impact of ambient 10 fine airborne particulate matter in mice. 11 Those researchers found that mice exposed to 12 PM2.5 displayed more depressive-like 13 responses and impairments in spatial learning 14 and memory compared with mice exposed to 15 filtered air. 16 They concluded that the exposure, 17 that the long-term exposure to particulate 18 air pollution at levels typical in major 19 cities around the globe can alter affective 20 responses and impair cognition. 21All of these studies have a 22 significant impact to the national health 23 policy and the regulatory goals of this 24 agency suggesting that more stringent public 25 health standards and stronger efforts to

### 264 1 control fine particle pollution may be needed 2 to protect the general population. 3 A review and revision of the fine 4particulate public health standard is long 5 overdue. We urge you to consider the 6 populations at risk that will be affected by 7 the standards you set. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 10 Any questions? 11MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Just one 12 comment. It's very helpful to have the 13 peer-reviewed literature as part of our file. 14We make a note in the preamble to 15 the proposal that we will be conducting a 16 provisional science assessment to remove 17 literature that's been published since the 18 Integrated Science Assessment was completed. 19 Now, the Weuve study, the 20 W-E-U-V-E study that you mentioned? 21MR. AU: Yes. 22 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: That's the 23 nurse's health study, is that correct? 24MR. AU: Yes. 25MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Okay. Great.

### 265 1 Thank you very much. 2 MR. AU: I'd ask, the Clean Air 3 Scientific Advisory Committee has not come 4 out with a recommendation; is that correct? 5MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: The last 6 comments that we received from the CASAC, the 7 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, was 8 on their review of the second draft policy 9 assessment. 10 And in their review, they 11 supported a range of 11 to 13 for the annual 12 PM2.5 standard, and either retaining the 13 24-hour PM2.5 primary standard at 35 or 14 revising it somewhat lower down to 30. 15They also supported revising the 16 level and form of the PM10 standard, while 17 revising the form from one expected 18 exceedance form to a 98th percentile form, 19 and the level in a range of 65 to 75 20 micrograms per cubic meter. 21The current range is 150 22 micrograms per cubic meter, with a one 23 expected exceedance form. 24They also generally supported a 25 distinct secondary standard to provide

### 266 1 protection of PM visibility impairment. 2 MR. AU: Okay. Thank you. 3 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: And that if 4you need a copy of that, it's in our docket, 5 as well as it's available on CASAC's website. 6 And if you need any help, just let 7 me know. 8 MR. AU: I'll look at it. 9 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Okay. 10 MR. KOERBER: Thank you again, 11 sir, for being here. 12 I'd like to call Mary Anne 13 Rushlau. 14You've been so patient sitting 15 here all afternoon. It's a pleasure finally 16 having you up here. 17 MS. RUSHLAU: I learned a lot. 18 That's spelled R-U-S-H-L-A-U. 19 I'm not sure who I represent. I 20 got e-mails from Sierra Club, Penn 21 Environment, World Wildlife Fund and the 22 Audubon Society and one other. I think it's 23 the Sierra Club. So I think it's the Sierra 24 Club, but I'm not sure. 25MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Ms. Rushlau,

### 267 1 it would help if you speak into the 2 microphone. It would help the court 3 reporter. 4MS. RUSHLAU: Is this better? 5First, I'll say something nice. 6 It always helps. 7 I looked at page 38910, and you're 8 talking about different concerns with 9 different at-risk populations, infants, 10 senior citizens and so forth. 11Now, this is much better because 12 two years ago when they did the mercury 13 standards, there was no consideration given 14 to different populations. Everything is 15 based on the average adult. And I always 16 wondered who that was. Because if you buy a 17 bottle of cough medicine, it says average 18 adult doses. 19 And through very difficult 20 research, because it was before the internet, 21 I found out it's a 35-year-old, 170-pound 22 white male. And this is because in the early 23 days before our institutionalized testing of 24 drugs, all drugs were tested on second year 25medical residents, who were down to the last

### 268 1man, a 35-year-old, 170-pound white male. 2 Now, I don't weigh 170 pounds; I'm 3 not 35, I'm 74. And from the work that I did 4 in -- before you were born -- in 1960, in the 5 testing of drugs on animals, the relationship 6 between weight and dosage is not linear, it's 7 curvilinear and sometimes a lot of rhythmic. 8 So, when you have a standard that 9 may be appropriate for adults, it has to be 10 very, very, very different for young 11 children, not only because of weight, but 12 because of their metabolism, and for senior 13 citizens who have multiple illnesses which 14 aggravate that. 15But, this is an improvement. At 16 least you recognize there are different 17 populations, that's an improvement over a few 18 years ago. 19 Another thing that I thought was 20 very, very good was you talked about getting 21 input from states and Indian tribes. 22 I think you have to consider 23 different locations. In 1970 or something, I 24 was working on a contract for the EPA 25 inspecting grain elevators in Kansas for the

### 269 1 presence of wheat dust, because many people 2 are allergic to wheat dust. 3 Now, for those of you who have not 4 visited Kansas, it's flat. Think about an 5 ant crossing a card table. Windy, red dust. 6 Dust, dust, dust all the time. 7 Anybody who has an allergy to 8 anything airborne should not live in Kansas, 9 period. And in addition to which, in terms 10 of wheat dust, the farmers had the greatest 11 incentive of the world to keep down the wheat 12 dust in their silos, which is that it 13 explodes. 14So they were trying to keep it 15moist and doing whatever they could. 16 So when you make a national 17 standard, if you could have some discretion 18 for the regional EPAs to say that in certain 19 localities, these standards are totally 20 impractical. 21And it's not a matter of cost. 22 You can't stop the wind from blowing in 23 Kansas, period. 24When we talk about risk, okay, a 25 certain level of contamination is related to

### 270 1 risk. If you are talking about stroke, 2 cardiovascular disease, emphysema, asthma, 3 it's not the odds, it's the stakes. 4So I really get annoyed when 5 anybody talks about risk. Whose risk? Okay. 6 The risk of being sued maybe. But the risk 7 to the individual who has it is something 8 else. 9 You did talk about, which I had 10 not seen before, the study where you were 11 concerned about the impact on animals and 12 plants in the environment. And this is a big 13 improvement, because nature is all 14 interdependent. You just can't separate out, 15 okay, we'll forget about the snails, or we 16 don't need that, you know, we'll do something 17 else. But generally it's better. 18 But there is one thing that I've 19 never seen done in the EPA, which is to focus 20 on the person rather than the polluter. 21 You'll pass these regulations, they'll get 22 amended and they'll finally come to see the 23 light of day in a year or two, and if someone 24 violates them, you'll give them a citation, 25 if they don't fix it, you'll sue them.

### 271 1This doesn't help the people who 2 are choking. 3 Japan, up until the recent 4 unfortunate thing with the earthquake and 5 nuclear, had the healthiest longest lived 6 population in the world. 7 If you look at the newsreels of 8 Japan, whenever there's a problem of any sort 9 at all, they're all wearing facemasks. 10 We don't do that in this country, 11 we're too self-conscious. If you, in your 12 monitors, of which you're going to have many 13 more now, pick up a point source, it's a 14problem, and very bad in the neighborhood, 15 could you not put out a warning this says 16 people in this area should wear facemasks, or 17 whatever other precaution might be suitable. 18 Because it doesn't help those people that 19 three years later you're going to fine 20 somebody or put them in jail. 21I think that's about it. Thank 22 you. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 24We appreciate your testimony, we 25 appreciate your thoughts. Thank you very

### 272 1much. 2 MR. KOERBER: I'd like to call 3 David Low and Pat Healey. 4MR. LOW: Thank you for the 5 opportunity to speak and for being here. 6 I guess I'll just make a few 7 remarks. 8 MR. KOERBER: If you could state 9 your name for our court reporter. 10 MR. LOW: David Low; L-O-W. 11So, of course, the negative impact 12 on human health, soot levels and particulate 13 matter, you know that from your own studies, 14 as illustrated. 15I had a child with asthma, which 16 I'm sure was exacerbated by the pollution at 17 the time. Otherwise, I'm relatively 18 fortunate. 19 I live in a suburb and without 20 high concentrations and parapollutants, but 21 when I come down here and I breathe the 22 exhaust of an accelerating bus engine, I 23 noticed there's also a few soot particles 24 from the powerful emissions. 25And if the government cares about

### 273 1 this image and its minority populations, 2 which are disproportionately affected by this 3 sort of thing, then we'll try to do something 4 about it. 5And you're aware also, doubtless, 6 of the issues of the air pollution visibility 7 in the national parks. About 40 years ago I 8 went to the Grand Canyon, and I could see a 9 little bit of a smog and pollutant effect. 10 I went there about five years ago, 11 and it was markedly worse. The other side 12 was visible but not very. 13 So, I guess they don't have good 14 air scrubbers, or whatever. But I don't want 15 to see smog in the Grand Canyon. That's 16 unacceptable. 17 I guess the most important thing 18 I'd like to say, it involves not so much the 19 regulations that are necessary, you already 20 know that, but to do your best to stand up to 21 your bosses, like the president, who I 22 recently read overruled your analysts and 23 scientists in recommending certain type of 24pollution standards. 25There may be a lot more than you

### 274 1 can do short of losing your jobs to stand up 2 to the people in government who will decide 3 what you're going to implement and what 4you're not going to implement, so just to say 5 that. 6 I think, it may not look like it 7 now, but I think we're entering a phase in 8 American history where the people are 9 beginning to support these sorts of things 10 much more than they have in the past. 11And, finally, maybe this is kind 12 of the spiritual angle in the whole thing, 13 when you walk around the City, tour the power 14plants, think of your grandchildren. Because 15 the lobbyists don't think of them, the 16 Congress don't think of them, and most of the 17 people in the White House don't think of them 18 either. 19 So, think about the distant future 20 concerning what we do now. 21Thanks. That's all I wanted to 22 say. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 24you for many coming today. 25Did Pat Healey join us? You're

### 275 1 up. 2 MR. HEALEY: Good afternoon. For 3 the record, you have me down as Pat Healey. 4 My name is John E. Healey, III. And I live 5 at 3022 Aramingo Avenue here in Philadelphia. 6 I'd like to thank you for having 7 this hearing and providing me, as part of the 8 public, with the opportunity to address you 9 all and offer my opinion on the proposed 10 revisions to the existing statutes. 11I welcome the idea of getting 12 public input to changes in our laws. And 13 although most certainly it's time consuming 14 and probably kind of irritating to agencies 15 such as yours, it's an exercise that should 16 be practiced more, I think. 17 There are several reasons that I'm 18 here today to address you. The primary 19 reason is that in my neighborhood, which is 20 known as the Port Richmond area of 21 Philadelphia, there's currently a study being 22 conducted by the Clean Air Council to measure 23 air quality and the amount of particulate 24matter in and around Port Richmond. 25I'm currently participating in

### 276 1 that study. And as a result of my 2 participation, I was made aware of this 3 hearing today. Had it not been for the Clean 4Air Council's work and my participation in 5 the study, I would unfortunately not have 6 heard about the hearing. 7 But, the second reason that I 8 wanted to address you today is because I read 9 both the overview that was made available and 10 the proposed statute changes as closely as I 11 could in the time that I had, and I noted 12 what I considered to be a disconnect. And I 13 feel that it's important to express my 14 concerns for what appears to be a lack of 15 consideration as to how the setting of the 16 particular levels impact the economy, 17 industry, state finances and the general 18 public. 19 There also seems to me an apparent 20 lack of coordination between government 21 agencies to take these impacts into 22 consideration and work systematically towards 23 a national plan that encompasses energy 24 industry and the needs of states and the 25 general public and how it changes, such as

### 277 1 this seemingly innocuous adjustment to a 2 particulate level may or may not cause issues 3 that can negatively impact all of these 4 entities. 5For example, let's take a 6 coal-burning power plant. Everybody knows 7 that coal-burning plants are one of the 8 biggest sources of soot. I doubt that there 9 would be much argument from anyone on that 10 point. 11Now, let's just say for the sake 12 of this example that the new proposed 13 particulate level of 12 micrograms per cubic 14meter sets a level that the coal-burning 15 power plant is forced to close because it 16 can't meet the new regulated standards. The 17 immediate result is that most likely it will 18 result in cleaner air, which I think is safe 19 to say is healthier for everybody living in 20 the path of the plant's soot footprint. And 21 this seems to meet the stated goal of 22 cleaning up the air. 23 But what is the total impact of 24 this plant closing? It will also cause the 25 obvious impact of the loss of jobs employed

### 278 1 at the plant. What about the drop in 2 business to the coal mine that supplies the 3 coal? Will there be a loss of jobs there as 4 well? How much of an impact will there be to 5 the railroad that delivers the coal? Will 6 there also be a loss of jobs at the railroad 7 or simply a loss in revenue? 8 There's also a question of 9 replacing the power supply from a closed 10 plant. Will existing plants pick up the 11 slack, and how much more particulate will 12 they emit in order to step up power 13 production. Or will a new power plant be 14 needed? 15If a new power plant is needed, 16 will it be fueled, and how will it be fueled? 17 Will it be nuclear, natural gas, diesel, or 18 perhaps burns waste? And what will the 19 particulate output from the new plant be? 20 Is there money available for 21 financing a new plant? How will these actual 22 jobs lost impact the state or states 23 affected? How will Unemployment and Welfare 24 be impacted? What happens when the people 25 who will lose their jobs have no health care

### 279 1 and don't go to see a doctor when they're 2 ill, because they can't afford to pay for 3 health care or insurance? Will they become 4 sicker? 5Does the implementation of this 6 new standard that has been set with the view 7 of fixing one issue and improving our health 8 by improving the air we breathe, in fact, fix 9 it or make it worse by impacting jobs, 10 business, industries, states and ultimately 11 the people that it is meant to help in ways 12 not considered? 13 My point is that it's easy to set 14 a number for the particulate levels and very 15 probably any lower number will benefit the 16 health of some people in a limited area. 17 But, what are the other impacts 18 and how far reaching are they? Will they be 19 acceptable to not only the people and the 20 states that are impacted by the price they 21 have to pay in terms of job losses and 22 financial impact, but also to the businesses 23 of industries that may not only be harmed but 24may be ended forever, and whose existence in 25 robustness also affect our health and welfare

### 280 1 whether we want to admit it or not. 2 The final reason I'm here is 3 because of where I live, and, in fact, 4probably why my neighborhood was chosen by 5 the Clean Air Council as a study area. 6 Port Richmond is bisected by 7 Interstate 95 and several major thoroughfares 8 and bounded by Tioga terminals, which is a 9 major seaport on the Delaware River. 10 Obviously, these major traffic 11 arteries and the port generate a high volume 12 of truck, auto, train and public transport 13 traffic. And this high level of traffic 14 through and around the area naturally impacts 15 air quality. 16 I know this even without the 17 benefit of an air quality study being done. 18 It's glaringly evident to the paint on our 19 cars, and the outer surfaces, porches and 20 steps of our homes. And closed doors and 21 windows don't keep the interior of our homes 22 free from a constant layer of soot on our 23 carpets, furniture, walls and floors. 24I can only imagine how it's 25 affecting our health, because unfortunately

### 281 1 the impact on our bodies is not as easy to 2 see as the dirt built up on our property. 3 MR. KOERBER: Sir, if you could 4 start to wrap it up please. 5MR. HEALEY: Sure. There's no 6 doubt that air quality suffers in Port 7 Richmond nor do I doubt that it also suffers 8 in other areas of the City. 9 These new stringent standards that 10 we are here to discuss today are meant to 11 improve air quality and hopefully ultimately 12 the health of people. 13 This is a good and noble 14 intention. I can't and won't argue against 15 it even if this new statute has not taken the 16 broad impact to business, industries and 17 states into consideration as I already noted. 18 It does do one thing, it sets a 19 goal to work toward. And if we as a people 20 and country don't make an attempt to improve 21 on what we're doing and how we're doing it, 22 we'll never make things any better. 23 Having said that, I also feel that 24 in light of the existing economic conditions, 25 that adequate time must be allotted in the

### 282 1 statute revisions to allow business and 2 industry to attain any new standards and for 3 states to develop and submit their 4 implementation plans for oversight and 5 enforcement of these new standards. 6 I think it would be unwise and 7 harmful to the overall welfare of the 8 national economy to impose standards that are 9 unattainable or cost prohibitive under these 10 conditions. Hopefully, business, industry 11 and the states will be heard and their 12 concerns addressed. 13 Thank you very much. 14MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 15 Thank you for traveling here to talk with us 16 today. 17 MR. HEALEY: Thank you for 18 traveling. 19 MR. SILVERMAN: I would like to 20 say a couple of things to you. First, thank 21 you, sir, for your thoughtful comments. I'd 22 like to clarify just a few things for you. 23 First, thank God we're a nation of 24 laws, but that means the EPA does not have 25 plenary authority to do what we think best.

### 283 1 We act pursuant to our statutory authority 2 and that exclusively. 3 So, first, when we set these 4 standards, we have to put blinders on, we set 5 a standard in the national ambient air, which 6 is protected with an adequate margin of 7 safety. That's our sole task. 8 We cannot actually consider, in 9 setting that standard, these what might come 10 from implementation. 11But that is taken into account, as 12 you recognized partially in the state of 13 limitation process. Where states figure out 14 how to achieve or attain these standards, 15 that can be done through a variety of means; 16 costs, impacts on business are all taken into 17 account in that process. It does not happen 18 instantaneously. But it's going to be 19 extended over, quite a lengthy process, 20 three, five or even longer, depending on 21 various factors. 22 And individual sources, you gave 23 the example of the utility having to meet a 24 state standard of 12. That isn't the way 25 this works.

### 284 1This is a national ambient 2 standard that applies to the ambient air. It 3 does not apply to individual sources. What 4 individual sources have to do is determine 5 the state implementation process, which is 6 down the road and takes into account many of 7 the factors that you properly list here. But 8 it's proper under the law to consider them at 9 that stage, not at this one. 10 MR. HEALEY: Okay. Thank you for 11 that clarification. I appreciate it. 12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you again, 13 sir. 14We have run out of speakers 15 temporarily, so we will be in recess until at 16 least 4:30. We'll see when we get more 17 speakers that show up. 18 Until we adjourn though, I would 19 like to thank people for attending today. I 20 appreciate your thoughts and ideas and 21 personal stories. 22 We really appreciate your 23 participation. 24So Carol, we'll be on break until 25 at least 4:30.

### 285 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ 2 this time, a recess was taken at 4:15 p.m. and 3 the meeting resumed at 4:40 p.m.) 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ 5MR. KOERBER: The time is 4:40 and 6 we are back in session. 7 The same ground rules. I'll be 8 calling the speakers to the table up here. 9 And if you could state your name and 10 affiliation and spell your name for the court 11 reporter, that would be appreciated. And, 12 again, if you could limit your testimony to 13 five minutes each. 14Our next speakers will be Jesse 15 Bacon and Joe Parrish. 16 MR. BACON: Jesse Bacon, citizen. 17 My name is spelled J-E-S-S-E, and Bacon like 18 the pork. 19 I'm a parent of a four and a half 20 year old daughter, and I can tell you from 21 parenting it's the things that you don't see 22 that get you. 23 And what I was learning about soot 24particles is that they're 1/30th the size of 25 the human hair of my daughter, that I was

### 286 1 painstakingly brushing this morning. 2 And there's plenty of visible 3 anxieties, but the list of potential causes 4 of soot pollution reads like every parent's 5 worse nightmare, heart attacks, strokes, 6 asthma, lung ailments, cancer, developmental, 7 reproductive and even death. 8 Now, the odds are that it won't be 9 my daughter's death. She lives in a 10 beautiful tree-lined neighborhood. No one 11 would ever think of locating an industry 12 there. And if they did they'd have a lot of 13 trouble. 14But, you know, she does have to 15 breathe the same air that all of the children 16 do. And all of those children are somebody's 17 children. 18 So, the new EPA standards will 19 help a lot. They'll save thousands of lives, 20 thousands of someone's children. But this is 21 the substance where there is no safe limit. 22 So safety is the one thing that I 23 feel we can't compromise on. And 11 24milligrams a cubic meter standard would save 25 even more.

### 287 1So I applaud you for your move. I 2 think it's definitely a step in the right 3 direction. And I look forward to the day 4 when no one's child, no parent will have to 5 worry about soot causing any of those 6 problems. 7 Thank you very much. 8 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 9 Hi, Reverend Parrish. 10 REVEREND PARRISH: My name is 11 Joseph Parrish. And I am an Episcopal priest 12 in New Jersey. And I'm on the Leadership 13 Council of the American Lung Association. 14I have a Ph.D. in biological 15 chemistry from Harvard, and I worked for 16 several years for Merck and Company and 17 Bristol-Myers in medical research overseeing 18 toxicological studies and medical studies for 19 those two large companies. 20 My specialty is in physical 21 biochemistry, even though I've been a pastor 22 for 25 years. And I've testified several 23 times at these EPA hearings. 24I made a little visual here that 25might help make a point. You probably can't

### 288 1 see it, it's not dark enough, but this is a 2 picture of particles that can be a sphere, a 3 cube, a pyramid, whatever. But a particle 4 2.5 microns is about 30 times -- 8 to the 5minus 8 in size. 6 And I converted that size of the 7 particle, let's say in a totally smooth 8 sphere, into how many molecules could adhere 9 on a sphere. 10 One of my jobs in Bristol-Myers 11 was to come up with ways to deliver long 12 active and nasal active corticosteroids that 13 would relieve swelling, lung constriction and 14 so forth. And we had patents creating 15 various spheres of water. And there were 16 things around the original steroid, so it 17 would be more effectively able to penetrate 18 into the nasal passages of the lungs. And 19 it's used regularly now generally by 20 prescription. 21So we knew that the delivery 22 system is the particle. The particle in 23 medical terms is generally that's the active 24 ingredient. But in the environment, the 25 active ingredient is what sticks on the

### 289 1 surface of the particle. 2 Particles, let's say if they're 3 inert particles, they're silica, iron, 4 aluminum, other simple compounds, and what 5 you would get if you burned carbon-based 6 materials or in our area we burn a lot of 7 garbage. 8 But, the sphere, just taking a 9 perfect sphere, I calculated how many 10 particles could actually adhere onto a sphere 11 of 2.5 microns in diameter. It is a sphere 12 that size is large enough for 3 hundred 13 million benzene molecules, 700 million 14 nitrogen dioxide molecules, over one billion 15mercury atoms, 100 billion dioxin molecules, 16 and over one billion ubiquitous sodium 17 chloride and other electrolytes. 18 The surfaces, when you get to the 19 small particles, behave a little different 20 from just the normal surface of a table. 21 They're just very active. The way that you 22 bend the construction of the -- whatever the 23 core is, creates either a positive or a 24 negative charge and it absorbs everything. 25So, I think what we need is more

### 290 1 research about what -- about what particles 2 is in a given area. 3 If you measure PM2.5 around 4 automobiles, obviously what is going to stick 5 on a sphere is benzene mostly and other 6 hydrocarbons. 7 If you measure it around 8 incinerators, you're going to have mercury 9 coating it, you're going to have dioxins 10 coating it, and so forth. And particles from 11 any source will certainly have various and 12 sundry things, like sodium and potassium and 13 so forth. 14And all of these things that 15 absorb onto the particles, assuming the 16 particles are inert, which of course they're 17 not always insert, cause dysfunction in human 18 bodies. And it's a very effective delivery 19 system. It essentially goes straight into 20 the bloodstream, if you breathe in a particle 21 2.5 micrograms or smaller. It's not filtered 22 out by the lungs in any way. 23 So, when we create these small 24particles, which, of course, we do for 25 anything that burns or is combusted, we're

### 291 1 creating the potential of disease. And, in 2 fact, that's what you see. 3 You don't see the same disease and 4 a problem in every area because we don't even 5 have a stage to say what is the typical 6 absorbent to the particle. 7 My area is near an intersection in 8 Elizabeth, New Jersey. I'm the pastor of 9 St. John's Episcopal Church. And near the 10 intersection where the Goethals Bridge 11 crosses to Staten Island, and the New Jersey 12 Turnpike goes from Boston to Washington and, 13 of course, beyond, and Route 1 and 9. 14So we have a compilation of three 15major arteries there. And the Newark Airport 16 is maybe two or three miles away. So we have 17 jet fuel continuously feeding there. 18 I don't think we've ever been 19 entertainment for anything there. And they 20 do have a monitor at that site. 21So, we always come under the "if". 22 And, of course, right in that juncture within 23 300 yards is our gifted and talented high 24 school -- or I should say fifth grade to high 25 school. So all of our children are affected.

### 292 1And in my own parish we had 25 2 children. And we start finding out how many 3 had been hospitalized, and we found 16 of the 4 25 had been hospitalized. And so we were 5 running at a 60 percent asthma rate there. 6 Just north of us, with the same 7 kind of conflation of the Newark Airport, 8 Route 1 and 9, the New Jersey Turnpike and so 9 forth, is what is called the iron man section 10 of Newark. The one difference between our 11 two areas is that they have an incinerator 12 that burns all the garbage from the Borough 13 of Manhattan. And they're literally, the 14 iron man section, every child has asthma, a 15 hundred percent. It's the highest asthma 16 rate in the world. The only difference 17 between our area, which is affected by all of 18 the other things in their area, is that 19 they're sitting there on the millions of tons 20 of garbage that are burned every year. 21So our findings is that the worst 22 source of any kind of pollution from PM2.5 23 comes from incinerators; second, probably 24 gasoline-powered automobiles, diesel, trucks; 25 and third, coal-fired power plants. They're

### 293 1 a huge source of mercury. 2 And the United States, since I've 3 been testifying here, has gone from I think a 4 rate of autism of 1 in 200, now it's 1 in 90. 5 So it's more than doubled just since I've 6 been testifying on all of these issues. 7 Autism, among other things, is a 8 dysfunction of how the nervous system of 9 children is put together. 10 What interrupts typically autistic 11 children's neural pathway is mercury. And as 12 we continue to pump mercury into the air, are 13 we going to have more and more children to be 14 autistic? 15People tried to disprove that, but 16 there is, in fact -- I worked with a 17 professor in Harvard who found a compound 18 that is different, it depends on your genetic 19 composition, the sulfur protein, it absorbs 20 mercury. 21If you have a high concentration 22 of that in your body, you're probably fairly 23 safe from mercury concentration. But your 24 genetics, if you have a low concentration of 25 it, you're probably going to become autistic

### 294 1 or you have a higher percentage of the 2 possibility of that. 3 MR. KOERBER: Sir, if you could 4 wrap it up, please. 5REVEREND PARRISH: So, I'm of the 6 opinion that we need to control PM2.5 7 microgram particles, and, in fact, the 8 American Lung Association's data indicates 9 probably nanoparticles even more active in 10 delivering these contaminants to human 11 bodies. 12 So 2.5 is really a huge number, in 13 fact, it's probably the most effective 14 delivery system are the nanoparticles which 15 will come from all the previously-mentioned 16 sources of contamination and pollution. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 19 Thank you for being with us today. 20 I appreciate it. 21I'd like to call Walter Tsou and 22 Mervyn Kline. 23 MR. TSOU: Thank you. My name is 24 Dr. Walter Tsou. I'm President of the 25 Philadelphia Physicians for Social

### 295 1 Responsibility located here in Philadelphia. 2 Did you ever go out on a clear day 3 and smelled something bad, maybe bad enough 4 to make you cough or wheeze? Well, you can 5 blame it on fine particulate matter commonly 6 called soot. Even though you can't see it, 7 it is still big enough to be trapped in your 8 lungs, and tragically Philadelphians die 9 every year due to breathing in these tiny 10 particles. Soot particles can penetrate deep 11 into your lungs and potentially trigger 12 serious health problems, including asthma and 13 heart attacks, stroke, early death, and as 14 new research suggests, lung cancer. 15Volumes of scientific and medical 16 research have demonstrated the link between 17 soot exposure and these adverse impacts on 18 our health. Indeed, little things can have 19 big consequences. 20 Children, the elderly, asthmatics, 21 diabetics, people with heart disease, and 22 low-income communities are most at risk, but 23 even healthy adults who spend time outdoors 24 exercising can be affected by soot outdoors. 25So where is this soot coming from?

### 296 1 Combustion. Whether it is from poorly tuned 2 motor vehicle exhaust, power generation, 3 industrial plants or residential fireplaces 4 and power mowers, the uncontrolled release of 5 this soot is dangerous, which is why national 6 limits are established. 7 Recent research indicates that 8 strong national limits on soot pollution 9 could prevent nearly 37,000 premature deaths 10 nationwide every year, more than 1,500 of 11 those in the Philadelphia metro area. 12 The EPA is required by law to 13 update soot limits every five years based on 14 the latest scientific and medical data, but 15 the current annual standard hasn't been 16 changed in 15 years. 17 Public health and environmental 18 groups had to sue the Agency for its 19 foot-dragging. A federal court thankfully 20 stepped in as a result of this legal action 21 and directed the EPA to propose new limits 22 this past June with a final decision due by 23 this December. 24The major polluters responsible 25 for the soot that's in our air, car

### 297 1manufacturers, coal-fired power plants and 2 oil refineries, for example, are flexing 3 their political muscle for the weakest limits 4possible. 5But as urban areas grow, things 6 will only get worse. It is unreasonable to 7 expect the public to walk around with masks 8 and oxygen tanks, which is why national fine 9 particulate matter limits must be updated. 10 As a public health physician and a 11 former health commissioner of Philadelphia, I 12 endorse what many public health and 13 environmental groups are calling for: A 14 strict annual limit of 11 micrograms of soot 15 per cubic meter of air, and a daily limit of 16 25 micrograms of soot per cubic meter of air. 17 I think it's 11 milligrams of soot. 18 These concentrations are what is 19 necessary to protect our health with an 20 adequate margin of safety. Such limits could 21 prevent tens of thousands of annual deaths 22 nationwide, and more than 1,500 in our region 23 every year. 24We will inevitably face the broken 25 record criticism that cleaning up air

### 298 1 pollution stifles economic growth. Don't 2 believe that lie. 3 Since the Clean Air Act was passed 4 in 1970, the gross domestic product has risen 5 dramatically at the same time that air 6 pollution levels have declined. Workers who 7 are breathing cleaner air are more 8 productive. 9 The EPA should start with setting 10 strong limits on soot pollution and our lungs 11 and our economy will benefit. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 14 Mr. Kline? 15DR. KLINE: My name is Mervyn 16 Kline. And I'm a biochemist. I've been an 17 environmental science teacher until I retired 18 a couple years ago. 19 Today there are a host of reports 20 of the health hazards of air pollution, and 21 specifically particulate in the air. Yet 22 very few of them have focused on the dangers 23 of air pollution to the human brain. 24The brain has been neglected. I 25 support the efforts to reduce the particulate

### 299 1matter in the air because of the effects on 2 the heart, the lungs, as well as the 3 environmental damage caused by these 4 substances. But it is hard to believe that 5 the brain is not prominently mentioned all 6 the time. 7 I find it almost impossible to 8 believe that any condition that affects 9 either the lungs or the heart cannot have a 10 direct effect on the brain. 11Providing oxygen to the brain is a 12 major function of both the lungs and the 13 heart. Any pollutant that affects the 14 ability of the lungs or heart to function 15 normally must affect some function of the 16 brain. And if the pollution is chronic, what 17 can we expect to happen to the brain? 18 The ultrafine particles that are 19 less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are 20 reported to be the most dangerous of the 21 particulate matter because it gets past the 22 bodies defenses and enters the body and 23 causes damage to the organs these particles 24 encounter. 25A very important point that should

### 300 1 be stressed is that there are populations of 2 individuals that are currently not being 3 protected by the current levels of protection 4 afforded by the current standards. 5I am going to mention a number of 6 studies where air pollution affects brain 7 function. This can occur during fetal 8 development when all of the organs of the 9 body are being formed. It can affect 10 children, and it can be especially damaging 11 to senior citizens who might be affected by 12 environmentally induced dementia. 13 This could all be caused by 14 ultrafine particles, although not all the 15 studies mention their existence in the air, 16 but obviously they have to be there. 17 It was shown in 2001 that air 18 pollutants may increase the chance that a 19 pregnant woman will give birth to a child 20 with certain heart defects, according to a 21 UCLA study that provides the first compelling 22 evidence that air pollution may play a role 23 in causing some birth defects. 24Women living in regions with high 25 levels of pollution were as much as three

### 301 1 times as likely to give birth to children who 2 suffered from serious heart defects. The 3 pollution was attributed to tailpipe 4 emissions, which obviously have fine 5 particles. 6 In 2004, a study was done focused 7 on Alzheimer's disease and air pollution. 8 Calderon-Gasciduenas and Associates found 9 biochemical evidence of inflammation as well 10 as acceleration of Alzheimer's-like pathology 11 when they compared autopsied brains of 12 lifelong residents of Mexico City and 13 Monterrey with autopsied brains of 14 individuals from the control cities. 15Can pollutants affect the 16 development of the fetus? In January 2008, 17 the results of a 10-year study found that 18 mothers with a higher exposure to air 19 pollution had fetuses that were on the 20 average smaller in head circumference. 21The research showed that bigger 22 babies were healthier in childhood and 23 adulthood, so fetus size during pregnancy was 24 important. 25Bigger babies have been shown to

### 302 1 have higher IQs in childhood and lower risk 2 of cardiovascular disease in adulthood. 3 In 2008, a study showed negative 4 effects on the structure and function of the 5 brain of children. Cognitive tests and MRI 6 studies were used to analyze the results. 7 And when I say negative, I mean 8 reduced, damage to the structure as well as 9 damage to the function of the brain. 10 The Senior Author Randell Engle 11 explained that the differences in cognition 12 of the type measured predict school 13 performance, complex learning behavior, 14 ability to control attention and avoid 15 distraction, reading and listening 16 comprehension, reasoning and the ability to 17 block impulsive anti-social behavior. 18 Also, in 2008, on the east coast, 19 Joel Schwartz and Associates from the Harvard 20 School of Public Health reported in a study 21 of children who lived in the Boston, 22 Massachusetts areas. Those children in the 23 neighborhoods, which were heavily polluted by 24 automobile traffic and were exposed to black 25 carbon, have lower IQs and scored worse on

### 303 1 other intelligence and memory test than 2 children in healthier environments. 3 The researchers speculate that the 4 harmful effects may be caused by the 5 inflammatory and oxidative effects of black 6 carbon particles. 7 Stroke is a cardiovascular 8 problem. In 2010, the American Heart 9 Association singled out fine particulate 10 matter as a cardiovascular risk factor. Of 11 the different sizes of particles that can 12 become suspended in air, fine particulate 13 matter appears to be most strongly associated 14 with adverse effects. 15More evidence reveals that short 16 and long-term exposures to air pollution 17 directly increases the likelihood of heart 18 attack, stroke, or other cardiovascular 19 problems. 20 The American Heart Association 21 found that particulate matter can increase 22 the risk of cardiovascular events, including 23 heart attack, stroke, heart failure, 24 irregular heartbeats, and death. 25I'll stop there since my time is

### 304 1 up. 2 MR. KOERBER: Do you want to take 3 another minute to make any conclusionary 4 remarks? 5DR. KLINE: Well, the main thing 6 I'd like to say is, based upon what I've been 7 reading over the past year or so, they 8 referred to a lot of the problems as a -- it 9 was a -- well, I would just like to refer to 10 all the damage caused to our populations 11 around the world. 12 We're seeing things where there's 13 pesticide or particulate materials. The 14 basic concept is the IQ and the intelligence, 15 the brains of our entire world population is 16 going down. And I can visualize, based on 17 what I'm reading in China and Mexico and all 18 these other places, that we might at one time 19 wind up with a group of people that I like to 20 use the name of pollution zombies, people who 21 are not able to handle or complex situation 22 in our environment because they have been 23 damaged mentally, an increase in people who 24 are autistic, an increase in a whole bunch of 25 people, and it's not due only to particulate,

### 305 1 but things such as lead, mercury, and other 2 things all over the world. Pesticides 3 decrease IQ. 4It's really sad to think of all of 5 these things that are happening to the whole 6 population and not enough is being done about 7 it. 8 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 9 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Thank you for 10 your comment. I just have one comment, sir. 11I'd just like to point out, yes, 12 we know that there are a number of 13 environmental factors that impact the central 14 nervous system. And the particulate matter, 15 in particular, we don't have a lot of 16 information. 17 And in evaluating this science and 18 the other technical information that is 19 available, we have identified a number of 20 areas that we think are areas that would be 21 appropriate to focus research or data 22 collection efforts. And that includes 23 expanding the health end points that are 24 evaluated for particulate matter, including 25 potential central nervous system effects.

### 306 1So, that's something that we 2 definitely are aware is an area for 3 exploration. 4DR. KLINE: Is there any effort 5 being made to take all of these different 6 components and see how they work together 7 against us as opposed to just looking at one 8 thing and you see how particulate works, see 9 how this works. 10 Together, the damage must be much 11 greater than what we're seeing with one 12 thing. 13 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Well, we're 14 definitely aware that people are exposed to 15multiple pollutants. And we know that those 16 exposures change based on time and where you 17 are, what concentrations and what you're 18 exposed to. 19 And the Clean Air Act requires us 20 to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards 21 for specific pollutants. But we are moving 22 in the direction of looking at those 23 individual pollutants, ozone, nitrous 24 dioxide, within the ambient mix. So there's 25 definitely a move in that direction.

### 307 1Now, we know that particulate 2 matter, both fine and coarse, is a mix of 3 substances. So that we there are looking at 4 the multitude of exposures for particulate 5matter and the number of components. 6 We also are aware that though our 7 standards are set for particulate matter, but 8 we need to understand particulate matter 9 effects in the broader context of the ambient 10 exposure. So we're moving in that direction. 11But the Clean Air Act requires us 12 to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards 13 based upon those pollutants that are 14 identified. 15DR. KLINE: Thank you. 16 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir, for 17 being with us today. 18 I'd like to call Erin Johnson and 19 Jacqueline Saier. 20 Do you want to proceed? 21MS. JOHNSON: Hi, I'm Erin 22 Johnson, a registered nurse from the 23 Philadelphia area. I'm also a member of and 24 representative of the Pennsylvania State 25 Nurses Association Environmental Health

### 308 1 Committee. PSNA represents the more than 2 211,000 registered nurses in Pennsylvania. 3 Particulate matter, also known as 4particle pollution or PM, is a complex 5mixture of extremely small particles and 6 liquid droplets. It is made up of a number 7 of components, including soot, acids, such as 8 nitrates and sulphates, organic chemicals, 9 metals and soil or dust particles. 10 Soot comes from power plant 11 smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, and other 12 industrial sources, and can cause asthma 13 attacks, heart attacks and even death. 14The size of particles is directly 15 linked to their potential for causing health 16 problems. Particles that are 10 micrometers 17 in diameter or smaller are of concern because 18 those are the particles that generally pass 19 through the throat and nose and enter the 20 lungs. 21Once inhaled, these particles can 22 affect the heart and lungs and cause serious 23 health effects. EPA groups particle 24pollution into two categories: Inhalable 25 coarse particles, such as those found near

### 309 1 roadways and dusty industries; and fine 2 particles, such as those found in smoke and 3 haze. 4Fine particles can be directly 5 emitted from sources such as forest fires, or 6 they can form when gas is emitted from power 7 plants, industries and automobiles react in 8 the air. 9 Particulate matter kills thousands 10 of people every year. Fine particles are 11 approximately 1/30th the average width of a 12 human hair, and are so small that they can 13 penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream 14 and cause a variety of serious health 15 impacts, including: Increased respiratory 16 symptoms, such as irritation of the airways; 17 coughing, or difficulty breathing; decreased 18 lung function; aggravated asthma; development 19 of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; 20 nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death 21 in people with heart or lung disease. 22 Particulate matter is a complex 23 and varying mixture of substances that 24 includes carbon-based particles, dust, and 25 airborne acid droplets. It is associated

### 310 1 with increased premature deaths, and is 2 especially harmful to people with lung 3 disease, such as asthma and chronic 4 obstructive pulmonary disease, which includes 5 chronic bronchitis and emphysema, as well as 6 people with heart disease. 7 Exposure to particulate air 8 pollution can trigger asthma attacks and 9 cause wheezing, coughing and respiratory 10 irritation in individuals with sensitive 11 airways. At risk populations include 12 children, teens, senior citizens, and people 13 with chronic lung disease, such as asthma and 14 emphysema. 15People with diabetes, high blood 16 pressure and congestive heart failure are 17 also at higher risk. 18 The Archives of Internal Medicine 19 in 2012 tied air pollution to an increased 20 risk for stroke and memory loss. Data from 21 the Nurses' Health Study showed that 22 long-term exposure to both coarse and fine 23 particulate matter was linked to a faster 24 cognitive decline among older women. In 25 another study, researchers noted a 34 percent

### 311 1 higher stroke risk in the 24 hours following 2 EPA reports of moderate levels of fine 3 particulate air pollution compared with good 4 readings. 5The larger particles are also 6 associated with health problems related to 7 pulmonary and cardiovascular disease. 8 Elevations in particulate matter are 9 responsible for increased incidence in 10 asthma, cardiovascular disease, chronic 11 obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer. 12 In addition, particulate matter 13 pollution is noted to result in epigenetic 14 changes that impact subsequent generations. 15The Pennsylvania State Nurses 16 Association requests that the EPA adopt 17 up-to-date standards that are more protective 18 and are based on current science. We request 19 that the EPA adopt the standard of 11 20 micrograms per cubic meter instead of the 21 proposed decrease to 12 to 13 micrograms per 22 cubic meter from 15 for the annual limits, 23 and adopt a standard of 25 micrograms per 24 cubic meter for the daily standard decreased 25 from the current proposal of remaining at 35

### 312 1micrograms per cubic meter. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. KOERBER: Thank you for being 4 here today. 5Any questions? Thank you. 6 Is Ms. Saier with us? 7 MS. SAIER: Good afternoon, folks. 8 I'm Jacqueline Saier. I live at 2603 East 9 Westmoreland Street in Port Richmond. 10 In 1996, if you were from 11 Philadelphia, you would remember a tire fire 12 under I-95. Interstate 95 was closed for a 13 week. Cars had to use Aramingo Avenue going 14 south to and from work. It was bumper to 15 bumper. 16 And when the drivers got to 17 Westmoreland Street, the street where I live, 18 because Aramingo went from three lanes down 19 to one lane, everyone on Aramingo Avenue, the 20 drivers started jumping the rank and going 21 down all of our streets, or coming up all of 22 our streets. Our streets couldn't handle it. 23 When my neighbor, Police Officer 24 Gary Skerski was killed, Allegheny Avenue was 25 closed off to all traffic. His funeral was

### 313 1 at Saint Albert's Church on Allegheny Avenue. 2 The traffic was detoured to Westmoreland 3 Street and Clearfield Street. And that is 4 when Westmoreland Street was discovered. 5We don't have any traffic lights 6 on Westmoreland since Mayor Rendell took them 7 out. And drivers avoid Allegheny Avenue 8 because of traffic lights at all major 9 intersections. And the smell from some of 10 the cars going by my house on Westmoreland 11 have fumes coming out of the exhaust. This 12 is not legal, but they do it. And it's very 13 bad. 14We now have all Coca-Cola trucks 15 by the dozens starting at 2:00 p.m. until 16 7:00, 8:00 at night. They get off of I-15 17 north and make a left-hand turn onto 18 Westmoreland Street instead of making a right 19 turn onto Allegheny Avenue. They come over 20 Westmoreland to get to "I" Street, then to 21 Erie Avenue. This is a shortcut for them. 22 But, there's the traffic, the fumes, 23 everything that goes with it. 24Over the years I noticed the kids 25 in the playground across from my house at

### 314 1 Almond and Westmoreland, it looks like they 2 all had asthma and were coughing up a storm. 3 Then it dawned on me, it has to be the fumes 4 from the street. It has to be from the fumes 5 and soot from the diesel large trucks. Some 6 are tractor trailers up to the size of 7 53 feet long with diesel soot. They could be 8 a block away from my house and you could 9 still smell the fumes. 10 Two summers ago my neighbor's 11 house on Almond Street was on fire. It 12 started in the kitchen. My 87-year-old 13 neighbor was badly burned because of the 14 tractor trailers going over Westmoreland 15 Street. The freight truck was so large, the 16 fire truck couldn't get by. The firemen also 17 couldn't open their doors to get out of the 18 fire truck. They were stuck between a parked 19 car and tractor trailers. 20 The smell from the diesel was so 21 overwhelming on Westmoreland Street from this 22 truck. It was so bad. 23 What makes me emotional is that 24 87-year-old woman died from the fire. They 25 couldn't get out of the fire trucks.

### 315 1The tractor trailer, the diesel 2 fuel pumping up out of his exhaust pipe was 3 so bad, everybody had to go in. Sad. 4There is a playground across the 5 street from my house. And I have pictures of 6 it from 1996. I didn't realize I had those 7 photos. 8 We have at least two or three ice 9 cream trucks come by every night. They are 10 just as bad. The smell and the fumes, they 11 just stay in the air. When you go to the ice 12 cream truck, the fumes are overpowering. You 13 can smell them. 14And if you never experienced this, 15 please stand by an ice cream truck on the 16 street. They are strong fumes. 17 When I first came to Port Richmond 18 in '97, I loved the area. And we had a train 19 outside my house that went by two times a day 20 or more. 21As soon as you heard the bell from 22 the train coming, you closed all of your 23 windows. The diesel fuel, the fumes, the 24 soot, would be in the air at least 20 to 30 25minutes after the train left.

### 316 1When I got a call from Clean Air, 2 I left my windowsill get dirty. It only took 3 two or three days. Really I'd sit down three 4 or four days, so I figured I'd get that, just 5 to let them see how bad it was. 6 When I clean my windows, I have to 7 use soap and water first to get rid of the 8 soot. Or you could write your name on my 9 window and you would see all the black soot. 10 I washed my windows with soap and 11 water, and after that, that's when I used the 12 Windex. But you got to get rid of the soot 13 first or it smears. 14We are trapped here in Port 15 Richmond with the traffic, fumes and soot 16 between Castor Avenue, north of us, down to 17 Allegheny Avenue, from Aramingo Avenue to 18 I-95, we are stuck in that area. 19 We also live in a red zone, along 20 with Manayunk. We have women who had breast 21 cancer almost on every block where I live. I 22 ask myself why. Is it in the air? 23 Thank you. 24MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 25Thank you for coming in here today

### 317 1 and talking with us. I appreciate it. You 2 did great. 3 MS. MASTRO: The particles that 4you see on your windows, are they all black? 5MS. SAIER: Always black. 6 MS. MASTRO: Nothing white? 7 MS. SAIER: No. I know soot. 8 I've been there 45 years. Trust me, it's 9 soot. 10 Like I said, if you take your 11 fingers to my windows before they are washed 12 with soft, soapy water, your fingers are 13 black. 14You get dust maybe outside of your 15 house. I get soot. 16 There's a lot of traffic and we 17 are stuck right where we are. Castor Avenue, 18 everyone uses Castor Avenue just to get on 19 I-15 south or north. 20 I don't drive. I use a bus all 21 the time. And I think it's north or south, I 22 don't know which way. 23 Any more questions? But this soot 24 is bad, trust me. I wish you had took the 25 time to come and see for yourself.

### 318 1MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 2 you for being with us today. 3 MS. SAIER: Thank you. 4MR. KOERBER: I'd like to call 5 William Kramer and Kevin Little. 6 Mr. Kramer is first. 7 MR. KRAMER: Thank you. I guess 8 it's evening now. Yes. 9 My name is William Kramer and 10 that's spelled K-R-A-M-E-R. And I'm an 11 organizer with the Sierra Club. I'm also a 12 father of a young boy named Noah who turns 6 13 next Monday. I have two jobs. 14So, the Sierra Club, we're 15 increasingly working with African-American 16 communities in Philadelphia. And we've had 17 several folks from the African-American 18 community come speak here today, and we 19 really appreciate that. And we feel that 20 it's important to reach out beyond the kind 21 of traditional base of environmental groups 22 within white communities, especially on the 23 issue of asthma. 24The statistics show that in 25 Philadelphia asthma rates can run as high as

### 319 1 30 percent in African-American communities, 2 which is much higher than the national 3 average; 8 percent for adults and 10 percent 4 for children, so almost as high as three or 5more times as high. 6 I guess the other reason I'm 7 concerned about soot is the way it 8 contributes to climate change. And that's 9 something we've not talked about that much 10 today. But there is the argument to be made 11 about the way that soot lands on glaciers and 12 on snow and increases the melting of both 13 glaciers and snow. And this basically puts 14 an increasing risk of droughts. 15We've already had droughts in a 16 lot of parts of the southeast and west and 17 southwest. And I think, if you look at the 18 west, there are more mountains out there than 19 the southeast, but there are places there 20 where I would imagine where melting snow mass 21 or lack of snow mass has a lot to do with the 22 droughts. 23 And so for me this is part of the 24 whole tangled up problem of climate change, 25 which we've all been working on from our

### 320 1 different positions. 2 And I think that the reason it's 3 important to me is for three reasons: One, I 4 think as a father, and perhaps other fathers 5 start to do this, too, you start doing the 6 math. It's like, I probably won't be around 7 when most of these predictions, droughts and 8 floods and extreme weather and really bad 9 heat waves, even worse than today, come 10 about. 11But, you know, my son, in the 12 years like 2035 or 2050, where often people 13 make predictions, he'll be like 29 or 44 14years old. So he's going to be really the 15 one that lives with those changed climatic 16 conditions. So for me that's really been a 17 focus to my energies the last couple of years 18 ago. 19 Also, I believe that in a city 20 like Philadelphia, the sort of opportunity 21 here is addressing climate change means 22 creating green jobs for the unemployed and 23 working people. So ironically those the most 24 to lose from climate change, and also 25 pollution, poor people, working people who

### 321 1 tend to live near sources of pollution, have 2 the most to gain by the creation of green 3 jobs. And especially like in an industry 4 like the construction industry, which is such 5 a, you know, where there's such high levels 6 of unemployment. 7 So, climate scientists tell us 8 that we're in a period of profound and 9 potentially catastrophic warming. But they 10 also tell us that we need to act together 11 globally, particularly industrialized 12 countries, to stave off the worse of these 13 changes. 14So we have the technology, the 15manufacturing capacity to dramatically reduce 16 our emissions. We just lack the political 17 will. 18 So let's keep working together, 19 folks within government and then the groups 20 like ourselves and our members to change 21 that. 22 Thank you. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. 24Mr. Little. 25MR. LITTLE: Hello, my name is

### 322 1 Kevin Little. I am a Philadelphia resident 2 that's spent most of my 47 years in 3 Philadelphia. 4I am currently a chemistry teacher 5 for the Philadelphia public schools, but my 6 early beginnings I started off in the 7 Passyunk homes projects in South 8 Philadelphia, which tends to be by some 9 coincidence about a block away from what is 10 now the Sunoco Oil plant, the Sunoco Oil 11 refinery. 12 In addition to teaching, before I 13 taught, I worked in labs for 14 years, 14 biochemical research. And I spent perhaps a 15 year working as a data collection clerk at 16 Hahnemann University. This is right up the 17 street. Well, it's no longer Hahnemann. 18 About two years ago my son was 19 diagnosed with asthma. And I have a very 20 troubling and vivid memory from when I was a 21 data collection clerk. There was a nurse 22 from the emergency department, and I'm 23 collecting data off of clinical pathways that 24 came from her department, and I just needed 25 to ask her what she needed. And I said, Oh,

### 323 1 do you want the age of people who come in 2 with asthma? And she said, No, they're all 3 young, as asthma kills them. They're all 4young, asthma kills them. 5And she worked in the emergency 6 department, and she was telling me that this 7 disease kills. Of all people she would know. 8 Vivid memories. 9 Another vivid memory I have is, a 10 wonderful memory is, I started taking my son 11 to school; I took him to school for a few 12 years. And I have one memory of this old 13 raggedy school bus that used to idle in front 14 of the school yard. And my wife and other 15 parents complained. And the principal said 16 the driver doesn't want to turn the bus off 17 because he may not be able to get it started. 18 So when I heard he had asthma, I 19 remembered that vividly, the smell, the soot, 20 the irritation and on. And now I think about 21 that when I realize my son has a disease 22 that's been called, quote/unquote, a killer. 23 Recently the June 10th, 2012 24 edition of E Magazine, it mentions that 25 40 percent of Americans still live in areas

### 324 1 with unsafe levels of smog and soot 2 pollution. 3 And on my way to work -- I caught 4 the public transportation most of last 5 year -- I remember waiting under the Spring 6 Garden Street bridge, where the old station 7 was, and just watching the buses idle and 8 idle and idle, and knowing that people have 9 to breathe this in. 10 There are safe levels of soot. 11 You can take the levels per se, it doesn't 12 mean that in certain years the levels are 13 safe. If you stand right behind a bus, 14you're going to get a lot more soot. 15And I think about the City of 16 Philadelphia, I think about growing up in the 17 projects, growing up poor, but there just is 18 not a way to get away from the buses. And I 19 know if we talk about soot pollution from 20 diesel engines, it's not just the buses, it's 21 the ships that come up the Delaware, the 22 ships that come up the Schuylkill, it's the 23 forklifts, the cranes, the buses, the 24 bulldozers, the dump trucks, the sewers, the 25 school buses. There's no way to get away

### 325 1 from it. The City cannot run without buses. 2 And I know that there are a lot of 3 poor people who rely on them that have to 4 wait out in a spot where, a bus depot, people 5 do it all the time. Not just the poor, but 6 the poor have no choice. 7 So I'm urging you not to stop your 8 regulations that have been having a positive 9 effect as E magazine mentioned. And I'm just 10 asking you to do it for people who just can't 11 avoid it, the soot, from those sources. 12 Thanks. 13 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. Any 14 questions? 15MS. MASTRO: I just wanted to make 16 sure that you were aware that Pennsylvania 17 has the anti-idling law. You might want to 18 look in to that. 19 MR. LITTLE: Yes, there's a soot 20 covered sign at the bus stop. 21MS. MASTRO: But if it's not being 22 enforced, you should contact the Pennsylvania 23 DEP. 24MR. SILVERMAN: You mean the 25 police didn't do that --

### 326 1MS. MASTRO: Well, the police 2 shouldn't be enforcing that, it's enforced by 3 EPA or the Pennsylvania DEP. 4MR. LITTLE: Thank you. Thank you 5 both. 6 MR. KOERBER: I'd like to call 7 Lisa Widawsky Hallowell. 8 MS. WIDAWSKY HALLOWELL: Good 9 afternoon. My name is Lisa Widawsky 10 Hallowell, and I'm an environmental attorney 11 for a nonpartisan organization. And my 12 comments today are my own and not necessarily 13 representative of my employer. 14As someone who has committed my 15 professional career to obtaining and 16 enforcing protective environmental laws, and 17 as an expectant mother, I applaud EPA for 18 taking the necessary steps of proposing 19 tighter National Ambient Air Quality 20 Standards for Fine Particulate Matter. 21However, given the gravity of the 22 health effects of PM2.5 and PM10 to children, 23 the elderly, and others with compromised 24 immune systems, and given that EPA is 25 supposed to be guided by the best available

### 327 1 science in making this regulatory decision, I 2 urge EPA to set even more protective 3 standards for these dangerous pollutants than 4 those being proposed. 5I live in Philadelphia County, 6 it's just a few blocks away from here, which 7 the American Lung Association has given F 8 grades for both 24-hour particle pollution 9 and ozone pollution. Soot from nearby 10 coal-fired power plants and petroleum 11 refineries as well as diesel vehicle exhaust 12 puts the health of the over 1.5 million 13 people, including 344,000 children that live 14 here, in jeopardy. 15EPA itself has noted that 16 thousands of studies show that long-term 17 exposure to fine PM can cause grave 18 consequences to health including premature 19 death related to heart disease, 20 cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks 21 and strokes, and respiratory diseases. 22 Even short-term exposure to fine 23 PM can cause increased hospital admissions 24 from heart attacks and strokes reduced lung 25 function and premature death. Coarse PM, as

### 328 1 well, is known to cause heart and lung 2 disease and premature death. 3 These risks are especially acute 4 for children, whose developing lungs are more 5 sensitive to PM pollution. 6 At nine months pregnant, I have 7 taken steps every day to reduce potential 8 health impacts to my unborn child, including 9 crossing the street when I see people smoking 10 cigarettes to avoid inhaling second-hand 11 smoke. 12 However, when the entire city's 13 air is degraded from PM emissions, how am I 14 supposed to protect my child when I cannot 15 just cross the street to avoid inhaling PM 16 pollution. 17 EPA needs to rely upon the 18 extensive body of scientific evidence 19 indicating that PM standards can and should 20 be more protective of public health. 21 Specifically, the PM2.5 standards should 22 reflect an annual limit of 11 micrograms per 23 cubic meter instead of 12 and 13, and a daily 24 limit of 25 micrograms per cubic meter 25 instead of 35.

### 329 1Similarly, the Clean Air Act 2 requires EPA to review the particulate matter 3 standards every five years. Given the 4 severity of the known threats of coarse PM, 5 the EPA would be greatly underserving public 6 health by not finalizing a more stringent 7 coarse PM 24-hour standard than the outdated 8 standard of 150 micrograms per meter cubed 9 that has been in place and unchanged for 25 10 years. 11As a family who frequents state 12 and national parks, I know these modest 13 improvements to the proposed standards would 14 not only reduce hospital visits, prevent 15 pre-premature deaths, and protect children 16 from developing respiratory disorders, but 17 would also increase the economic and 18 aesthetic benefits to all by reducing haze in 19 our nation's most treasured recreational 20 spaces. 21In conclusion, by its very title, 22 the Environmental Protection Agency is 23 charged with protecting the environment. I 24 urge you to think of me and the thousands of 25 other mothers to be in Philadelphia and

### 330 1 throughout the nation who cross the street to 2 avoid second-hand smoke but are unable to 3 cross the street to avoid the real and known 4 dangers of PM pollution. 5We need you to stop protecting 6 polluters and pass stringent standards to 7 protect our children. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. KOERBER: Thank you for being 10 with us, and let me say congratulations and 11 best wishes. 12 MS. WIDAWSKY HALLOWELL: Thank you 13 so much. 14MR. KOERBER: We're going to take 15 a little pause. We're expecting a couple of 16 more speakers before 6:00 p.m. So we're just 17 going to take a little break and we'll 18 readjourn when our speakers appear. 19 Thank you. 20

_ _ _ _ _ _ 21 his time, a short recess was taken at 5:37 pm. 22 and the EPA meeting resumed at 5:44 p.m.) 23

_ _ _ _ _ _ 24MR. KOERBER: Okay, thank you. 25 It's about a quarter to 6:00, and we have one

### 331 1more speaker before we break for dinner. And 2 I'd like to call Dawn Hawkins. 3 Make yourself comfortable. 4MS. HAWKINS: Good evening. My 5 name is Dawn Hawkins, D-A-W-N, H-A-W-K-I-N-S. 6 I'm here today to tell you all how 7 I don't know how I contracted asthma. In 8 high school, I used to run track. Okay? 9 That was in the '80s when I was a teenager. 10 I'm 40 years old now. 11So, like in my late 20's, late 12 30's, I started catching myself, you know, 13 catching my breath and stuff, not breathing. 14 Like I just had the symptoms of heaviness on 15my chest. So I said let me go to the doctor 16 to see what's going on with me. 17 They did all sorts of test. They 18 said my lungs and stuff -- they said, Oh, you 19 just got a little acute asthma. 20 I'm like, Well, where do that come 21 from? I wasn't born with this, I was born 22 healthy. I used to run track. My mom made 23 sure we ate healthy in the home, and stuff 24 like that. 25So he couldn't explain to me where

### 332 1 did I catch asthma from. 2 But today I'm here to tell you 3 that I'm 40 years old and my asthma is worse, 4 and over here in my blue bag I have to carry 5 a machine and apply it three times a day. I 6 have to take Prednisone, which is a steroid, 7 every morning to make sure that my lungs are 8 opened up properly for me to breathe. 9 Today the weather is close to a 10 hundred. If you can hear me now, I can 11 barely catch my breath because of me having 12 severe asthma. I have it bad. 13 And I'm just saying today I also 14 have a 12-year-old son, I have a 12-year-old 15 son that was born healthy. My son also has 16 asthma, too. 17 I'm just asking you all to listen 18 today to me about this air pollution. You 19 can smell it through the air. It stinks. 20 I'm just saying, talk to the people about we 21 can do better things with pollution. 22 I was just telling a member of our 23 group at Action United that in Fairmount 24 Park -- I live around the corner from 25 Fairmount Park -- they put a recycling unit

### 333 1 around the corner in our park, and in the 2 morning you can smell all of these fumes. 3 And I'm like, okay, right there is the Dell 4 where they have concerts and family events 5 and stuff like that in the park. And I mean 6 it's pollution, point blank period. And I'm 7 just saying help us to breathe cleaner air, 8 because I might not be here, I'm doing it for 9 my son. Do that for my son. Because 10 breathing is no joke. 11I stayed in the hospital a lot for 12 it, emergency ward, because sometimes the 13 treatments don't work, you know, pumping 14 steroids, steroids, steroids. And it's 15 terrible to live with this type of condition, 16 it is. 17 Thank you for listening. And have 18 a blessed day. 19 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 20 you for being with us today. 21We have no further speakers. The 22 time is 5:48. We will be in adjournment 23 until 7:30 p.m. And then we have an evening 24 session from 7:30 until 9:00 p.m., if 25 necessary.

### 334 1Thank you. 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 this time, a dinner recess was taken at 5:49 4m. and the EPA meeting resumed at 7:36 p.m.) 5

_ _ _ _ _ _ 6 MR. KOERBER: The time is 7 7:36 p.m. and we are back in session. 8 Thank you for coming back, those 9 of you returning, or those of you who are 10 new, welcome. 11We are here to hear your comments 12 on EPA's proposed revisions to the National 13 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 14 Matter. 15The panel members may answer 16 questions that you might have on the proposed 17 rule, but the purpose of this hearing is to 18 listen to your comments, not to discuss or 19 debate the proposal. 20 As you're probably aware, EPA is 21 proposing to revise the suite of fine 22 particle standards to provide increased 23 protection of public health and welfare. And 24 we are asking for public comments on all 25 aspects of the proposed standard.

### 335 1The way the hearing will be run 2 this opening is, I will call the scheduled 3 speakers to the microphone in pairs. When it 4 is your turn to speak, please state your name 5 and affiliation, and it would help our court 6 reporter if you also spelled your name. 7 I'd also ask that you limit your 8 testimony for five minutes each. And to 9 assist you, we do have a timekeeping system 10 here consisting of green, yellow and red 11 lights. When you begin speaking, the green 12 light will come on. You'll have five minutes 13 to speak. The yellow light will signal that 14you have two minutes left to speak. And we 15 will ask you to stop speaking when the red 16 light comes on. 17 We will be here until 9:00 p.m. 18 If you would like to testify, but have not 19 yet registered to do so, please sign up at 20 the registration table. 21With me this evening is Donna 22 Mastro. Donna is the acting associate 23 director of the Air Protection Division with 24 EPA's Region 3 office in Philadelphia. 25Also with me is Beth

### 336 1 Hassett-Sipple with EPA's Office of Air 2 Quality Planning and Standards, the Health 3 and Environmental Impacts Division. 4I'd like to at this time call our 5 first two speakers to the table, Gail Mershon 6 and Cindy Parker. 7 You're Ms. Parker? 8 DR. PARKER: I am. 9 MR. KOERBER: Our other speaker 10 was here just a moment ago. And we're just 11 going to grab her and then we'll get started. 12 Thanks for your patience. 13 DR. PARKER: No problem. 14MR. KOERBER: They went to track 15 her down. If you'd like to begin, Ms. 16 Parker. 17 DR. PARKER: Sure. So my name is 18 Cindy Parker. I'm a physician. I work at 19 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public 20 Health. However, I'm not speaking for Johns 21 Hopkins. 22 I am speaking for the Chesapeake 23 Physicians for Social Responsibility in 24 Baltimore. And I am, and two colleagues, 25 decided to spend our evening after work

### 337 1 driving to Philadelphia because we think this 2 is really important. And that's sort of my 3 main point, is that this is really important. 4And we just want you to know how 5 important it is from health professionals who 6 take care of people who suffer from the 7 consequences of poor air quality. 8 We do support the recommendations 9 by the American Lung Association to 10 restrict -- to allow only 11 micrograms per 11 cubic meter, and the 24-hour standard of 25 12 micrograms per cubic meter. 13 Also, I should probably mention 14 that one of my colleagues, Dr. Gwen Dubois, 15 it's her birthday today. So, again, another 16 indication of how very important this is, 17 that she's willing to give up her birthday 18 evening to be crammed in to the back seat of 19 a Prius and hauled up to Philadelphia to talk 20 with you about particulate matter standards. 21In general, we very much do 22 support the EPA and I also wanted to say 23 that. We don't want to go back to a time 24 before there was an EPA when we had no 25 environmental regulations. But we also want

### 338 1 to encourage you to make those regulations 2 health based, and not cost based. We want to 3 protect the health of the public. 4And, particularly, from our point 5 of view, again, we're charged with protecting 6 the -- and I'm a public health physician, so 7 we're charged with protecting the health of 8 the public. 9 Also, one of my main concerns is 10 climate change, and particulate matter, in 11 general, as to climate change, fine 12 particulate matter perhaps slightly less so. 13 But particulate matter, in general, is a 14major contributor to climate change. 15And so for all of these reasons, 16 we want you to again follow the ALA, the 17 American Lung Association's recommendations 18 for 11 micrograms per cubic meter and 25 19 micrograms per cubic meter as the annual 20 standard. 21And that's all I have to say. 22 MR. KOERBER: Thank you for making 23 the trip. 24MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Dr. Parker, 25 just one point of clarification. As you most

### 339 1 likely know, the Clean Air Act and the 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are 3 based on the science, and that costs cannot 4 be considered in setting the standards. 5Cost can be considered in 6 implementing the standards, but we cannot 7 consider costs in actually setting the 8 standards. 9 DR. PARKER: Right, I do know 10 that. But I know that there are also 11 corporations and individuals who would like 12 to change that. So I just wanted to sort of 13 publicly state my support for using 14 health-based standards, not cost-based 15 standards. 16 MR. KOERBER: Ms. Mershon? 17 MS. MERSHON: Yes. So I'm here 18 for two reasons. The first is that -- and 19 thank you by the way for letting me speak. 20 MR. KOERBER: Could you state your 21 name for the record? 22 MS. MERSHON: Oh, I'm sorry. Gail 23 Mershon. 24And I'm here for two reasons. I 25 appreciate your time being here. And the

### 340 1 first reason I'm here is because in 1993 I 2 received a diagnosis of COPD and emphysema. 3 And I did a fair amount of research on my 4 own, because I was living here in 5 Philadelphia at the time. And I knew it was 6 a city that was fairly high up in the 7 pollution table. 8 And so I did a little more 9 research. And I found out about particulate 10 matter and nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide 11 and decided to leave here, because my 12 research told me at that time that my 13 lifespan could be shortened as much as 15 14years if I were to stay here. 15So I traveled and lived elsewhere 16 and returned here about three years ago, 17 almost three years ago. And I don't have to 18 look, you know, I work -- I'll get to my work 19 part in a moment -- but I don't have to check 20 out the pollution ratings of the day anymore. 21 I just have to go outside and breathe and my 22 lungs tell me how bad things are. And I 23 often verify it just for the heck of it. And 24 sure enough, particulate matter is often very 25 high up when I'm having the most difficulty,

### 341 1more wheezing, more fatigue, more difficulty 2 in general. So that's the first reason. 3 The second reason is, I work as an 4 occupational therapist here in Philadelphia. 5 I work in about 10 or 11 Philadelphia County 6 zip codes, all but two of which are in very 7 poor neighborhoods. They're populated by the 8 working poor and the working class people. 9 And I work specifically, I think I 10 said this, with 3 to 5 year olds. I see them 11 in their homes; I see them in their 12 preschools; daycares; Head Starts; grandma's 13 house. I go wherever the child is. 14And I would guess about between 10 15 and 15 percent of the children I see have 16 asthma. And another small percent have other 17 respiratory ailments, but it's mostly asthma. 18 And these children live in inner 19 city neighborhoods, where there is nowhere to 20 play but outside. Their houses are small. 21 They're poorly maintained because they are 22 poor and often absentee landlords. 23 The children from the time they're 24 babies, from the time they're infants, 25 they're out on the stoop. That's where all

### 342 1 the activity in the neighborhood happens, out 2 on the street and on the stoops, all row 3 houses. And they're breathing this air 4morning, noon and night. 5And at this time of year I often 6 actually work with them out on their porches 7 because their houses are too hot. They don't 8 have air conditioning. Their houses are too 9 hot. 10 And I do see the effects, directly 11 see the effects of the respiratory illnesses 12 on these children, on their attendants, at 13 their little preschools or daycares, on 14 their -- I mean, I can't draw a direct 15 correlation. I'm not a physician. And this 16 is all anecdotal, of course. But I've been 17 doing this work for a number of years. And 18 there's a big difference between the children 19 I work with who have asthma and the children 20 who don't. 21And I just feel it's 22 unconscionable for us not to do what you 23 intend to do, what I hope you intend to do, 24 which is to really tighten up the standards 25 for all pollution, but especially particulate

### 343 1matter. 2 And that's all I have to say. 3 Thank you. 4MR. KOERBER: Thank you. And 5 thank you for making the trip here this 6 evening. 7 I'd like to call Gwen Dubois and 8 Steven Shapiro. 9 DR. DUBOIS: Thank you for letting 10 us speak. 11My name is Dr. Gwen Dubois. I am 12 an M.D. and an MPH, but mostly what I do is 13 as an internist taking care of patients. 14I guess you can't call me the 15 birthday girl, I'm the birthday woman today. 16 And one of my patients brought pie in, and 17 she has lung cancer, so she brought me a 18 present. And we'll never know why she had 19 lung cancer. She smoked, but she stopped 36 20 years ago. So I was telling her why I was 21 coming here, and she was quite surprised that 22 there could be anything besides cigarettes 23 causing her problem. 24I was thinking in the last couple 25 of days, putting it in context, because all

### 344 1 day long I write prescriptions. I mean, I'm 2 an internist. I don't do surgery. And today 3 as usual, I did a lot of prescriptions for 4 statins. These are medicines for 5 cardiovascular disease, people with heart 6 disease or people with high cholesterol 7 mostly. And I looked up a figure for how 8 much we spend on statins. They're good 9 medicines. 10 So in 2005, we spent $19.7 billion 11 dollars on statins, one class of drugs. 12 And the overall reduction in 13 mortality in primary prevention in people who 14 have not had heart attacks, I mean, we all 15 know from our friends, their neighbors, my 16 patients, that a lot of people are on these 17 medicines and haven't had heart attacks. And 18 the primary prevention, the reduction 19 mortality is quite small, and most of these 20 eliminate a lot of groups when they study 21 these medicines, and yet we don't bat an 22 eyelash at the fact that we spend $19.5 23 billion dollars on one class of medicine. 24Personally, I'm very frustrated in 25medicine that so little discussion is about

### 345 1 prevention. 2 I have medical students who are 3 from Hopkins, probably the best medical 4 school, or one of the best in the country. 5 They know nothing about air pollution and 6 illness. 7 I was looking at this study just 8 seeing what was new. You all know the 9 studies better than I do, the Harvard Six 10 Cities Study. 11But I saw something from Canada 12 that was very interesting. So it's the 13 Environmental Health Perspectives, there was 14 over a million people were looked at in the 15 correlation between fine particulate matter 16 and cardiovascular disease and non-accidental 17 mortality. And the mean concentration was 18 8.7 micrograms per meter squared. And even 19 in the arctic, they were looking at people 20 and measuring particulate matter. 21Now, most studies seem to say that 22 the relative risk of all causal mortality is 23 like 1.1 per 10 micrograms per meter squared. 24Again, you all are probably better versed in 25 this than I am.

### 346 1And it would seem to me that when 2 we can protect people instead of just giving 3 them more and more pills, but protect people, 4 from children all the way to the elderly, 5 then we should do it. 6 There's no reason that we 7 shouldn't be doing this. And we depend on 8 the EPA and, you know, the wonderful people 9 who work for the EPA who make decisions on 10 our behalf for the public's well-being to be 11 as rigorous as possible in these standards. 12 And I hope that we do follow the 13 Lung Association's recommendations of 11. 14 Because if it's true, for every 10 micrograms 15 per meter squared, for every point lower you 16 make these regulations, these standards, more 17 people are going to be saved. 18 I feel it's like Schindler's List, 19 you know, you'll save one more person's life. 20 So, at any rate, a lot of 21 importance goes into these decisions. 22 Thank you for letting me speak. 23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 24you for making the trip this evening. 25Dr. Shapiro?

### 347 1DR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Good evening. 2 My name is Steve Shapiro. I'm a psychologist 3 at Johns Hopkins Baby Medical Center. I work 4 with poor children and families in the City 5 of Baltimore, which has a poverty rate, right 6 now, a child poverty rate of 37 percent. And 7 if you double that, because about double 8 makes up the near poor, so you have roughly 9 70 percent of the children in Baltimore City 10 are poor. 11Poverty is strongly associated 12 with a relationship with environmental toxins 13 and toxicants. And so I actually want to 14 read some articles you may be aware of. This 15 is from the psychological perspective as 16 opposed to the health perspective. 17 There was an interesting study 18 done in Mexico City on children, so-called 19 healthy children. The children with no known 20 risk factor for neurologic or cognitive 21 disorders residing in a polluted urban 22 environment exhibited significant deficits in 23 a combination of fluid and crystallized 24 cognitive tasks. 56 percent of these Mexico 25 City children tested showed prefrontal white

### 348 1matter hyperintense lesions, and similar 2 lesions were observed in dogs. They also 3 studied even dogs. 4So they compared a group of 5 children who were exposed to ultrafine 6 particulate matter deposition. And so they 7 studied children and they studied dogs and 8 they found both of them had these lesions and 9 both of them had cognitive dysfunctions. 10 Just one study. 11Another study found that the 12 number of emergency department visits for 13 depression went up when the particulate 14 concentrations went up. There's a correlate 15 with ambient air pollution. A large majority 16 of this pollution results from fossil fuels. 17 18 An interesting study that was done 19 in mice that was just published last year 20 actually found long-term exposure to ambient 21 fine airborne particulate matter affects 22 cognition, affective responses, hippocampal 23 inflammatory cytokines and neuronal 24morphology in mice. And they conclude: 25 "Taken together these data suggest that

### 349 1 long-term exposure to particulate air 2 pollution levels typical of exposure in major 3 cities around the globe can alter affective 4 responses and impaired cognition." 5And there are several others I 6 could read to you. 7 So these are all studies that have 8 been done in the last five years. 9 And so there is an increasing 10 correlation between particulates in the 11 atmosphere and psychological dysfunction. 12 I worry about it, and doubly so, 13 because I work with these poor kids and 14 families who have all kinds of other 15 stressors in their lives, and so you combine 16 the stressors of their environments and the 17 stressors of living in poverty and it's like 18 a double whammy. 19 And so I think that's something 20 that I'd like the EPA to keep in mind. I 21 know you're concerned about health issues, 22 and I just wanted you to have the mental 23 health perspective also noted. 24Thank you. 25MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

### 350 1Questions from the panel? 2 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: One comment. 3 Dr. Shapiro, if you can give us 4 specific citations for the studies that you 5mentioned, that would be very helpful. 6 The Integrative Science 7 Assessment, which is the body of scientific 8 information that was assessed, and it serves 9 as the foundation for the decisions that we 10 included in the proposed rule, was completed 11 in 2009, so it included studies that were 12 published through mid-2009. 13 We have committed to doing a 14provisional science assessment to look at the 15 new studies that have been published. But 16 the Integrative Science Assessment in 2009 17 indicated that the data we have for 18 neurological effects was emerging. 19 But we really need more 20 information. So if you have new studies to 21 point out to us, that would be quite helpful. 22 I think this is definitely an area of active 23 research and we'd like to see more research 24 in that area. 25DR. SHAPIRO: Sure. These studies

### 351 1 actually are in 2011 and 2012. And also, 2 it's not just neurological, it's really 3 psychosocial. So the nexus between the 4 environment and these kids' lives are really 5 pretty significant. 6 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: And as much 7 as you could point us to that literature, 8 that would be quite helpful. 9 DR. SHAPIRO: Sure. 10 MR. KOERBER: I should point out, 11 though, that the public comment period on 12 this proposed rule is open through 13 August 31st. So if you get us the 14 information before then, we'd really 15 appreciate it. 16 Thank you both for being here. 17 I'd like to call Ed Callahan and 18 Teri Elliot. 19 MS. ELLIOTT: Hello, my name is 20 Teri Elliot and I'm a resident of Port 21 Richmond, which is one of the neighborhoods 22 of Philadelphia, sort of north of here. 23 I was involved over the summer, 24 this past summer, including recent weeks, 25 with the Clean Air Council. The local Clean

### 352 1 Air Council had sent a request to our 2 neighborhood organization for people who were 3 homeowners that were interested in hosting an 4 air monitoring device. And so I did host the 5 device. 6 Any time they wanted, they could 7 come put it -- they put it in several 8 different locations, they put it on my third 9 floor deck. 10 I don't know any of the results of 11 those monitorings yet, but one of the 12 agreements we had was they could monitor 13 anything they wanted, I just wanted to be 14 aware of the results. Because while I'm not 15 particularly ill or -- I don't know people 16 that are ill with respiratory problems, I 17 have recently moved to the City in order to 18 sort of reduce my carbon footprint. I want 19 to do things that I can, you know, take the 20 bus or ride my bike. 21I happen to work for a company 22 that, a software vendor, a local software 23 vendor, that is interested in sustainability 24 and reducing carbon footprints, so they let 25me work from home two days a week.

### 353 1I filter my water; and I try to 2 eat organic when I can. But the one thing I 3 really can't do anything about is the air. 4And I'm two blocks from I-95. So I smell a 5 lot of what must be auto exhaust from my 6 third floor deck which moves over to the 7 city. 8 Right now I noticed before I left 9 my house, there's a haze, and I'm only, like, 10 3 miles from the City, but there's a haze. 11 And I know it can't be anything but some kind 12 of auto pollution or some other kind of air 13 pollution. 14So, if there's anything we can do 15 about that, things that I moved to the City 16 for was to help. You know, I'll become aware 17 and I'll help other people become aware of 18 things we can do to change the environment, 19 what we're doing now, maybe lowering the 20 parts per million or making the requirements 21 higher on emissions would help, or the parts 22 of our environment that we are able to 23 control and to do something about, because I 24 just don't think it's going to get any better 25 on its own. I think we have to do everything

### 354 1 that we can, not just one thing, we have to 2 all do everything. 3 And so I'm here to speak in favor 4 of the proposal. And I appreciate you 5 letting me talk. 6 Thanks. 7 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. And 8 thank you for being with us this evening. I 9 appreciate you making the trip. 10 MS. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 11MR. KOERBER: Mr. Callahan. 12 MR. CALLAHAN: I got a call from 13 the Sierra Club, but I'm not speaking for the 14 Sierra Club. I'm just a member. 15I understand the Supreme Court has 16 ordered the EPA to regulate the air, the air 17 quality; is that right? 18 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: The Clean Air 19 Act requires us to set national ambient air 20 quality standards. The Supreme Court has 21 confirmed that in setting those standards, we 22 can consider the science and technical 23 information, but cannot consider costs in 24 setting those standards. 25That has been confirmed through

### 355 1 the Supreme Court. 2 MR. CALLAHAN: In fact, the law is 3 on your side, so to speak. 4Well, anyway, I, too, have COPD, 5 and there are high school classmates that 6 I've kept in touch with from the 50's; one 7 has since died of emphysema, and the other 8 can no longer talk on the telephone, he just 9 gasps on the phone. And, I mean, it's just 10 unbelievable, the suffering. 11A few have gotten rich at the 12 expense of literally millions of people. And 13 the suffering is just unbelievable. I mean, 14 it's all due -- it's all unnecessary, I mean 15 because of corner cutting. And it's really 16 something that is truly amazing that's going 17 on. 18 And there are people, I mean, 19 every Republican candidate is against signing 20 the environmental regulations. It's amazing. 21 It's absolutely amazing. 22 I live in the suburbs. And I'm 23 sure the air is a little cleaner out there. 24 But I know there's going to be like 60 some 25 different chemicals in the air, everywhere,

### 356 1 in the suburbs. 2 I know that most people in the 3 world, most people in this country, I'm sure 4 95, 98, 99 percent of the people in this 5 country would put health before wealth. But 6 there are a few people who put wealth above 7 everything. 8 I mean, the longevity rate in this 9 country is what, 37th in the world now? 10 One of the newsletters I get, the 11 average American teenager has 200 industrial 12 chemicals in his blood. How is all of this 13 going to end? How can it end? 14When we're fiftieth or a hundredth 15 in the world, our longevity rate, when we all 16 have cancer? Is somebody is going to do 17 something about it then? 18 It's really, it's truly -- it's 19 like the Second World War never ended; it 20 just goes on and on. I mean life doesn't 21mean anything to the people running the 22 economy. 23 That's all I have to say. I mean, 24 I didn't prepare a speech, but it's just a 25 few things that I'd like to -- that I wanted

### 357 1 to get off of my chest. 2 Thank you very much. Thanks for 3 your work. 4MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir, for 5 speaking from the heart. We appreciate you 6 being here this evening. 7 I'd like to call Susan Patrone and 8 Charlotte Leeks. 9 MS. PATRONE: Good evening and 10 welcome to Philadelphia. 11MR. KOERBER: Thank you. 12 MS. PATRONE: You're here very 13 late. We all appreciate you being here. 14My name is Susan Patrone, and I 15 represent a coalition, actually an alliance, 16 of several civic organizations in a community 17 development corporation in South 18 Philadelphia. And we are all civic 19 associations which we're all very involved 20 with the quality of life of all of our 21 neighbors. 22 We are civics particularly devoted 23 to the quality of life in terms of resource 24 conservation and resource sustainability. 25Well, just to give you a little

### 358 1 background, I was president of our civic and 2 our advisory council, so I have a lot of 3 history with my neighborhood and my city; I'm 4 from there all of my life. And we actually 5 developed a strong relationship with the 6 Water Department, which the EPA recognized in 7 Green City, Clean Waters. Our civic was a 8 strong part with you guys. 9 So, anyway, it sounds like 10 bragging rights. 11Our group of civics has been 12 involved for the last six years trying to get 13 SEPTA, our regional transportation authority, 14 to reinstate sustainable public 15 transportation, in particular, fixed 16 guideways. We have fixed guideway lines in 17 South Philadelphia, which are run through 18 electricity, the trackless trolley routes, 19 the 29 and 79. 20 For the last six years we've been 21 trying to get a conversation with them and 22 the City. It's very difficult. We also have 23 the 23 line, which isn't on the table yet, 24 but, again, it's a fixed guideway, and it's a 25 trolley line.

### 359 1To get to the point, we have the 2 infrastructure in place in Philadelphia to 3 participate in the way for phenomenal public 4 transportation, which would not contribute to 5 any particulate pollution because it could be 6 generated through electricity, and 7 particularly we could use electricity through 8 suppliers which use renewable energy sources. 9 So, our civics have been saying 10 for years, we're in a great position, we're 11 designed for walking, we're designed for 12 clean air, we can beat -- do a lot better 13 with it. But I'm here to say, let's use 14 that, our voice, to say, let's look at public 15 transportation which has minimal 16 environmental impact on our air quality. 17 So, I think that's basically the 18 message that I want to give you guys. 19 So thank you very much for 20 listening. And thank you for protecting us. 21 If not, we'll be back. 22 And it's Susan Patrone, 23 P-A-T-R-O-N-E. 24And I can submit some of our 25 written stuff via electronically, right?

### 360 1MR. KOERBER: Yes, you can. 2 MS. PATRONE: I will make a little 3 note of that and send the EPA our previous 4 testimony. 5MR. KOERBER: There's instructions 6 out at the registration how to submit them. 7 MS. PATRONE: Yes, I have it. 8 Again, thank you. It's a long day, I know, 9 but it's necessary. Thank you. 10 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 11 you for being here this evening. 12 Ms. Leeks. 13 MS. LEEKS: Thank you for allowing 14me to speak. 15My name is Charlotte Leeks, 16 L-E-E-K-S. I'm a retired respiratory 17 therapist. I just retired about nine months 18 ago. And I'm here to basically speak about 19 what I have seen as a respiratory therapist. 20 I heard the gentleman talking 21 about COPD, and that was one of my main 22 things as a respiratory therapist, treating 23 patients with this disorder. 24It is a severe lung disorder that 25 can be brutal at times for patients -- I'm

### 361 1 sorry -- people are really unable to get good 2 air expansion in and out of the lungs. And 3 knowing now what I know about the quality of 4 the air, it makes me understand more why I 5 have seen so many patients over the years 6 with this disease, besides smoking. 7 What people have to go through in 8 trying to just get air in and out of their 9 lungs, it can be excruciating, it really can. 10 The COPD diseases are bronchitis, 11 emphysema, and, of course, asthma. 12 Asthma is really, really, a 13 terrifying attack. If you've seen anyone who 14 has suffered an asthma attack, you will truly 15 understand that we need to try to make the 16 quality of the air better, not only for 17 asthmatics, but for everyone in general. 18 But watching these people struggle 19 to get air in and out of their lungs is 20 heartrending. 21It's a very terrifying experience 22 for those who have it, especially their very 23 first time and they don't know what's going 24 on. You have your airways, which is our 25 lungs and bronchial tubes that take the air

### 362 1 down into our lungs, they go into severe 2 spasms. And the air is not going to go in, 3 it's not going to go out. 4You have a severe build up of 5mucus that you're trying to cough up also to 6 get in and out along with the air. And it is 7 just heart-wrenching to see these people 8 struggling to just get a breath in and out. 9 It's really, really heartrending. 10 They have medications. It's not a 11 cure, it's a treatment. It will help to 12 relieve the attacks. But I think one of the 13 things that we really need to do is to try to 14 help make this problem of bad air a better 15 situation for anyone who has respiratory 16 ailments. 17 As an ex-healthcare worker, I 18 still have concerns about what's going on 19 with people in general, and watching how 20 people are affected by the quality of the 21 air. 22 And, also, I feel that if this air 23 quality is improved, it would also help to 24 decrease what is one of the big talks now 25 about the cost of healthcare, because it

### 363 1 costs a lot of money to treat these patients, 2 especially those that are people that are 3 repeated visits to the hospital. 4I have seen where we discharge a 5 patient one day, and sometimes not even 24 6 hours later they're back in. And it's not 7 just because they're not doing the 8 medications, it probably has to do with some 9 of the environment that these people live in. 10 And it's very, like I said, 11 heartrending to watch these people struggle 12 to breathe, which a lot of us that don't have 13 this problem take for granted. 14So I would like to say that 15 hopefully the EPA can help to improve the 16 quality of the air, not only in the City and 17 this country, but around the world, because 18 so many people are suffering because of this. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 21 you for coming this evening. 22 MS. LEEKS: You're welcome. 23 MR. KOERBER: Any other speakers? 24We will sit tight if they show up. 25 We'll just take a little bit of a pause.

### 364 1Well, thank you all very much for 2 being here this evening. We'll stay open for 3 a few more minutes waiting for another 4 speaker or two. 5

_ _ _ _ _ _ 6 (At this time, an off-the-record 7 discussion took place.) 8

_ _ _ _ _ _ 9 MR. KOERBER: I'd like to call 10 Janet Fishman and John Poole. 11Ms. Fishman, when you're ready. 12 MS. FISHMAN: Okay. Well, thank 13 you for being here. Thank you for coming to 14 hear what we have to say. 15My name is Janet Fishman. I'm an 16 instructor at two universities. And I've 17 also taught theater to young people, children 18 of all ages. And I'm a mother of a 19 24-year-old young man who told me when he was 20 7, I don't like cars, they make the sky 21 dirty. So he knew the score then. 22 We know the facts, coal-fired 23 power plants are a major source of the 24 emissions that form soot pollution. 25I appreciate the EPA's proposal to

### 365 1 strengthen standards. I support even 2 stronger limits, and I've detailed those 3 numbers in my testimony. 4The air quality reports in my 5 local newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, 6 confirmed this to me just Sunday. The worst 7 pollutant in the region was particulates 8 produced mainly by motor vehicles and power 9 plants. 10 So I'd like to add my perspective 11 to this discussion, and I know you know the 12 facts. 13 I like being outside. I walk. I 14 ride my bike. I don't see why I should have 15 to put up with hazy science fiction weather. 16 And I don't see why other people should have 17 to put up with being sick because of the poor 18 air quality. 19 The excuses that we are told again 20 and again and again is that the economy can't 21 handle these emission controls, that it would 22 be too expensive. And sometimes I feel like 23 this economy is a primitive idol and we have 24 to sacrifice our health and our children's 25 well-being to its insatiable appetite and

### 366 1 throw us into its fires. 2 We would laugh at centuries ago 3 when people followed human sacrifice. And I 4 feel in a way we're doing the same thing. 5 And who is this too expensive for? Too 6 expensive for companies that want to maximize 7 profits at the expense of our quality of 8 life, our health, and to the detriment of 9 other industries, such as farming, fishing 10 and tourism in our public parks. 11So, I don't worship this economy. 12 And I feel that some profits are not 13 acceptable. 14We don't encourage the drug 15 dealers on our street corners. They bring 16 jobs into the community, jobs that have left 17 our country. We don't think it's healthy. 18 Slavery, very profitable. 19 Emancipation was not good for the economy at 20 the plantations. We believe that slavery was 21 evil, certainly physically harmful, and that 22 those economies that profited from the 23 institution would have to change. 24Our current economy that depends 25 on the right to pollute will have to change.

### 367 1I count on and thank the EPA for 2 doing its part in moving us towards that 3 adjustment, towards a healthy environment for 4 all of us. 5MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 6 you for coming this evening. 7 Mr. Poole. 8 MR. POOLE: Hi, my name is John 9 Poole. And thank you for giving me the 10 opportunity to come speak this evening. 11I recently moved to Philadelphia 12 from West Virginia. And I never realized how 13 much cleaner the air was down there than up 14 in the City. I love Philadelphia and I hope 15 that someday it can be like my home, because 16 now my home is Philadelphia. 17 And I, in doing some research 18 before I came in here today, I'm not as 19 familiar as some of these other residents of 20 Philadelphia are, but we have twice the level 21 of childhood asthma in Philadelphia as we do 22 in other areas. And hospitalizations are 23 more frequent than even some surrounding 24 suburbs that have a lot of the same risk 25 factors.

### 368 1We're also 13th on the most 2 challenging places to live with asthma that 3 the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America 4 survey put out. 5And the 12 more highly ranked 6 cities all have no 100 percent smoking bans 7 in their eating and bar establishments. We 8 are the highest ranked city with a smoking 9 ban in all of our eating and drinking 10 establishments and it weighs heavily on the 11 study of the most likely cities to have 12 asthma. 13 I think that's really telling 14 about how bad it's gotten here and how much 15 further we could come. 16 I appreciate that the EPA is 17 saying that we could bring the level down to 18 13 micrograms per cubic meter or 12 19 micrograms per cubic meter. I really think 20 that along with what the American Lung 21 Association has and with lots of other 22 groups, that it would much more healthful to 23 bring it down to 11 micrograms per cubic 24meter and with a daily standard of 25 25micrograms per cubic meter.

### 369 1I really think that a lot of times 2 the public is not heard under the drowning of 3 all of these lobbies and everything. And the 4 EPA does these studies, and they say one 5 thing, like, for instance, the advisory panel 6 chair said that particulate matter would be 7 at the top of the list for the causes of 8 premature death of 230,000 people every year. 9 And we're paying for these studies with our 10 tax dollars and they're not implementing a 11 lot of these things. 12 It's about the future, about my 13 children, my grandchildren, your children and 14your grandchildren. And if we don't do it 15 now, when are we going to do it? 16 And also, the public is really, 17 and I'm really tired of Congress legislating 18 pollution standards. They're not the 19 experts, the EPA is the experts. 20 So, basically I really think there 21 would be a lot of benefits to bringing the 22 standard down to that amount. It would 23 reduce medical expenses for the public. And 24 it's even been said that you could reduce 25missed school or workdays by 1.8 million.

### 370 1So, anyway, thanks a lot for 2 giving me the opportunity to speak. Have a 3 good evening. 4MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 5 you both for being here this evening. We 6 appreciate you taking the time to be with us. 7 Thank you. 8 I'd like to call Roberta Winters 9 and Chris DiGangi. 10 Ms. Winters. 11MS. WINTERS: Thank you. Good 12 evening. I am Roberta Winters, Issues and 13 Action Vice-President for the League of Women 14Voters of Pennsylvania for whom I'm speaking. 15The League believes it's 16 imperative to protect people, not polluters. 17 This is particularly important when we 18 consider the current status of Pennsylvania 19 as the sixth smoggiest state in the nation. 20 In rankings compiled by the 21 American Lung Association, Pennsylvania's two 22 largest cities have had more short-term small 23 particle pollution in 2010 than they did in 24 2005. 25Pittsburgh moved from fourth to

### 371 1 third place in the overall pollution, while 2 Philadelphia regressed even more, rising from 3 20th to 12th on the list. 4These numbers unfortunately have 5 real life and death consequences. 6 In 2010, pollution from power 7 plants in Pennsylvania triggered an estimated 8 17,000 asthma attacks and 2,300 nonfatal 9 heart attacks, pollution-related lung 10 cancers, heart attacks, acute asthma attacks 11 and chronic obstructive respiratory diseases 12 have been projected to have taken the lives 13 of 1,300 men, women and children just in our 14 state alone. 15And this is all before the 16 projected impact of wide-scale industrial 17 development of natural gas resources that 18 will further degrade our air and make us 19 sick. 20 As individuals, we can choose to 21 wear seatbelts, to stop smoking, to limit our 22 sugar intake. However, we have no choice 23 about the air we inhale. 24It is thus imperative that the 25 Environmental Protection Agency does the

### 372 1 right thing. Protect our public health and 2 safety. Set standards to reduce harmful air 3 pollution by strengthening the proposed soot 4 standard to a level between 13 micrograms per 5 cubic meter and 12 micrograms per cubic 6 meter. 7 Soot is not just bits of dirt or 8 ash. It's a dangerous mix of metals, 9 chemicals and acid gas that form tiny 10 particles and droplets in our air. 11Such tiny particulate matter not 12 only contributes to the haze we see, but also 13 to the unseen degradation of our airways, 14 lungs and cardiovascular system that we only 15 feel after it's too late. 16 Pennsylvanians take seriously 17 their right to clean air, not just for today, 18 but for generations yet to come. It's even 19 included in our state constitution. 20 We need your help to protect us 21 from toxins and pollutants in soot. When our 22 health or that of loved ones become 23 endangered and compromised, nothing else 24matters. Not taxes, not elections, not 25 education, not even the results of our

### 373 1 favorite sports teams. 2 The League of Women Voters of 3 Pennsylvania urges you to go beyond those 4proposed standards to adopt policies and 5 other protections that scientists and public 6 health practitioners have recommended to 7 safeguard our air quality. This includes 8 reducing the daily standard for fine particle 9 pollution from the existing 35 micrograms per 10 cubic meter. 11With a number of point sources 12 from industrial development in once rural 13 areas increasing, we must err on the side of 14 caution. 15We urge you to consider the 16 cumulative and aggregate sources of soot 17 sources, those diesel trucks, the coal-fired 18 plant, and the industrial operation, 19 particularly those involving fossil fuel 20 production, processing and transportation. 21Air is not restricted by our 22 national boundaries or our state boundaries. 23 It is thus critical that the EPA, our elected 24 officials and opinion leaders work together 25 to support the maintenance and extension of

### 374 1 needed clean air standards. 2 However, setting the standards is 3 just the first step. 4We trust the EPA will establish 5 comprehensive monitoring for air quality as 6 well as enforcement practices with harsh 7 penalties to force to compliance. 8 Prevention today is far more 9 valuable than the cures to our related 10 ailment in the future. 11In closing, the League of Women 12Voters of Pennsylvania appreciates this 13 opportunity to speak today and encourages the 14 EPA to adopt those policies that protect 15 people and not polluters. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. KOERBER: Clarifying 18 questions? 19 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Just one 20 question. 21You stated that you believe that 22 the 24 hour or the daily PM2.5 primary 23 standards should be reduced from the current 24 level of 35. 25Is there a level that your

### 375 1 organization supports, an alternative 2 standard level? 3 MS. WINTERS: I believe what I 4 have read is that the scientists and public 5 health officials would like to see it as low 6 as 25 micrograms per cubic meter. That's 7 what I've read. 8 I'm not a scientist, so I cannot 9 attest to that. 10 I would just say that the League 11 would prefer you to err on the side of 12 caution and do the best possible. 13 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Thank you. 14MR. KOERBER: Thank you for being 15 with us. 16 Mr. DiGangi? 17 MR. DiGANGI: Thank you. My name 18 is Chris DiGangi. I run a green technology 19 search firm, GreenLink, in the area. 20 And I have a personal story to 21 tell you and maybe a little bit about 22 economics arguments that are going on and my 23 take on that as well. 24In 2006, December, I was leaving 25my company's Christmas party. I got home and

### 376 1 I had a tickle in my throat. I started 2 coughing. I went to the bathroom and started 3 coughing in the sink, and I looked down and 4 the white porcelain was completely covered 5 with blood. 6 X-rays revealed that there was a 7 hematoma. They didn't know it at the time, 8 but there was a growth about three quarters 9 of the size of a golf ball in my right lung. 10 Actually, I was scared. I had to 11 go in to surgery. They couldn't biopsy where 12 it was located, so they had to cut me open 13 and biopsy it while I was on the table, and 14 then at that point, a further surgical 15 procedure, removing part of the lung, had it 16 been cancerous. 17 And thankfully it did not turn out 18 to be cancerous, but had it been, I had a one 19 in five chance of getting off that table 20 alive, of coming out of that. 21So, when I woke up and I realized 22 I had another chance at life, or it felt like 23 it, anyway, I had about three months to 24 recover, because your lungs take a long time 25 to heal, because it's not a dry environment

### 377 1 so things bleed for a long time. 2 And I just started thinking about 3 my life. And I had always considered myself 4 green, but never really active. 5I had been the number one producer 6 in two of the top executive search firms in 7 the Philadelphia area. And I left that 8 practice completely behind and started 9 GreenLink, because I kind of wanted -- you 10 know, I used to work on anything before. A 11 company called me up, there was a job order, 12 they paid me good money, I got whatever they 13 needed. 14But in thinking, what I got over 15 those months was basically this is a 16 pollutant that got into my lungs. My doctor 17 told me it was probably soot. 18 I said, How did this happen? I'm 19 kind of a health nut. I don't smoke. I jog. 20 He goes, You probably inhaled some soot, you 21 just were in the wrong spot at the wrong 22 time. A little piece of soot got past your 23 body's defenses and my body started building 24 cells around it to protect it from going into 25 the blood system. But it kept on growing and

### 378 1 it started bleeding and it started to hit the 2 sides. So that's what happened. 3 That's just happenstance that 4 happened to me, but it could happen to 5 anybody, including the people who own coal 6 companies. 7 Anyway, so my recruiting efforts 8 have now been mostly for wind power companies 9 and solar companies. And when I left my 10 practice behind to start this, I had no 11 idea -- I was shocked really at the 12 resistance, and it was unprecedented within 13 our own Congress, and mostly from the GOP, to 14 keep green energy and clean energy down. 15Time and time again I would have 16 many good engineers ready to go to work at 17 wind-powered solar-powered companies, only to 18 watch the GOP walk out on the renewable 19 energy standards, shocked the world, shocked 20 the industry, it never happened anywhere else 21 for something that didn't cost the taxpayers 22 a penny, just asking publicly sponsored 23 monopolies to buy 5 percent more of their 24 energy maybe every year from green energy, 25 and it would have helped grown our economy.

### 379 1Well, when they walked out on 2 that, that was in 2009, in August, within two 3 weeks we lost $12 million in this country, in 4 foreign investment or VC investment in green 5 energy companies. 6 We went from the number one green 7 investment company in the country to 8 number four, behind Germany, Italy and China. 9 Their blocking of the production 10 tax credit is unfortunate within the 11 industry, at a time when we should be having 12 jobs. 13 That's somewhat related. I can 14 tell you directly that cleaning up the air 15 that comes out of -- and I don't have all the 16 numbers in front of me, now you're talking 17 about 13 parts -- I'd like to see 0 parts. 18 Because I don't think they have a right to 19 put poison into my lungs for their profit. 20 And what I would say is, this is 21 tantamount to murder. And it's, you know, 22 this is basically murder is what it is. 23 They've decided statistically they 24 can put 35,000 people in this country to 25 premature deaths for the sake of corporate

### 380 1 profit. That's ludicrous. In two years 2 that's more people than we lost in the 3 Vietnam war. 4And the technology is out there. 5 The air scrubbers are out there. Employing 6 the designers, the engineers and the 7 implementation companies to put these 8 scrubbers on their stacks would put some of 9 that record-making profit back into the 10 economy and it would actually stimulate the 11 economy. 12 The technologies to clean this 13 stuff up while we're transitioning into a 14 cleaner energy would actually help the 15 economy, it wouldn't hurt it. That's a bogus 16 argument completely. 17 And I've had many companies go 18 under in that line of work, too, that 19 infiltration because of the relaxing of the 20 standards or the enforcing of the standards. 21So I guess I'm just going to close 22 this. I could go on and complain about this 23 for a long time, but, you know, I have 24 family, I have loved ones. They have to 25 breathe this air. If somebody is putting

### 381 1 pollutants in the air for profit, that's what 2 I call murder. 3 And if you help them out, and if 4you're a government official and you help 5 them out, an elected official, I call that 6 being an accomplice to murder. And that's 7 the way I see it. 8 You take three years, four years 9 off of one person's life, do it to twenty 10 people, that's another life that's added up. 11 There's no excuse for this. It's shameful. 12 It's shameful, it should be stopped and I 13 think the people are going to really start 14 not putting up with this anymore. 15So, hopefully, you guys, you're 16 given the ability, the funding to carry out, 17 carry through what you should have been 18 doing -- I mean, they should have let you do 19 this a long time. 20 I shouldn't have had to inhale 21 that piece of soot. And no one should have 22 to, so that somebody can get a bigger yacht. 23 That's all I can say. 24MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. I 25 appreciate you both being here this evening.

### 382 1Thank you so much. 2 And I believe our last speaker is 3 Miranda Kramer. 4Is there anyone else here who 5 wishes to speak this evening before we close? 6 MS. KRAMER: Hi, my name is 7 Miranda Kramer. I'm a member of the Sierra 8 Club, but I'm really here just in my capacity 9 as a private citizen. 10 I have a little boy who is going 11 to turn 6 on Monday. And here he is. And 12 here he is with his friends. 13 And I told him that we were going 14 to go to downtown Philadelphia and speak at 15 the hearing about soot. And he asked me what 16 soot was. And I explained that it was 17 something too little to see, but when there 18 was a lot of soot in the air, the air started 19 to look dark and it could get in kids' lungs 20 and make them sick. And then he asked me, 21 could the kids die? And I had to tell him 22 yes. 23 And after I told him that, I 24 really decided that I had to trust that there 25 were better informed people who could really

### 383 1 explain scientifically about the dangers of 2 this microscopic particulate matter to human 3 health, and particularly to children and to 4 the elderly, and to people for whom nobody 5 really lobbies, but people for whom it is the 6 sacred trust of our elected officials to 7 protect. 8 I think all I can really say as a 9 parent and as a private citizen is that I can 10 make certain to feed my child healthy organic 11 food. I can forbid TV on school nights and 12 make sure he reads and does his homework. 13 But I can't protect him from the 14 air that he breathes. 15It's the job of the elected 16 officials to whom, you know, for whom we vote 17 and whose, you know, to whose work we fund 18 through our taxes to protect the next 19 generation of Americans from the air that we 20 all breathe. 21And I want to close optimistically 22 by thanking everyone who is listening for 23 supporting the regulation that sets a healthy 24minimum standard for public health. 25Thank you.

### 384 1MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank 2 you for being here this evening. I 3 appreciate it. 4Any other speakers before we 5 close? 6 The time is 8:39. We are in 7 adjournment. 8 Thank you all for being here. I 9 really appreciate hearing all of your input, 10 all of your comments, your personal stories. 11Thank you so much. Have a good 12 evening. 13

_ _ _ _ _ _ 14(The EPA Meeting concluded at 15 8:41 p.m.) 16

_ _ _ _ _ _ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

### 385 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the 3 proceedings and evidence are contained fully 4 and accurately in the stenographic notes taken 5 by me upon the foregoing matter on Tuesday, 6 July 17, 2012, and this is a correct 7 transcript of same. 8 9 NOTARIAL SEAL 10 Carol J. Angiolillo, Notary Public 11 Upper Southampton Twp., Bucks County 12 My commission expires February 19, 2013 13 14 15 16 17

__________________________ 18 CAROL J. ANGIOLILLO 19 20 NOTE: (The foregoing certification of 21 this transcript does not apply to any reproduction 22 of the same by any means unless under the direct 23 control and/or supervision of the certifying 24 reporter.) 25