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 _ _ _ _ _ _

5 MR. 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.

21 As 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

4 period, 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.

24 In 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.

4 The 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

14 provide 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.

5 With 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

11 meter, 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.

15 With 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.

24 The 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

4 monitoring 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

1 We 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.

5 The 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

21 microphone 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.

25 In 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.

15 We 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.

11 Now, I'd like to introduce the EPA

12 representatives on our panel.

13 Donna Mastro is the Acting

14 Associate 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.

21 I would like to thank you all

22 again for participating today. Let's get

23 started.

24 I'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.

5 MS. 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.

15 API 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

21 million 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.

25 The 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

1 In 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

1 There is real concern regarding

2 how many industries and consumers could be

3 affected if the standard were to be lowered.

4 And 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.

14 Taken 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.

21 Thank you again for the

22 opportunity to provide this testimony.

23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

24 Do any of the panel members have

25 clarifying questions?
18

1 MR. 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.

25 MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you.
19

1 MR. 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.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. FELDMAN: Certainly.

13 MR. KOERBER: Let's move on.

14 Mr. Paul Billings.

15 MR. 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.

24 In 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.

11 Yes, thousands of people die

12 prematurely because ambient air pollution in

13 the United States is too high.

14 The 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.

25 Those greatest at risk are
21

1 children, seniors, people with chronic lung

2 disease, heart disease, diabetes, and those

3 living in poverty.

4 After 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.

15 It 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

24 Americans who live in high traffic areas.

25 Without 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

1 However, many pollution cleanup

2 programs remain at risk in the courts. We

3 may learn within the hour on the Cross State

4 Air 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

21 much 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

1 micrograms per cubic meter, we could prevent

2 the premature deaths of 35,700 people each

3 year.

4 The 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

14 particle 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

22 Clarifying questions from the

23 panel?

24 MR. 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.

14 MS. 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

25 make that decision.
26

1 MR. 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

14 Association of the Mid-Atlantic.

15 I'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.

21 Our 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

14 particle 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

24 people is a family member, a neighbor, a

25 co-worker, a friend, perhaps yourself.
28

1 The American Lung Association has

2 been on record for years that the current

3 particle pollution standard is inadequate to

4 protect 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

1 Opponents 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.

11 Far 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.

25 Yet, 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

14 Association 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

24 meter, 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.

4 And 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.

15 Questions 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.

21 Is 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

1 MR. 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

1 MR. KOERBER: If you could provide

2 that in your written comments, we'd

3 appreciate that.

4 MR. 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.

25 The 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.

5 As 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

15 measurement 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.

24 Taken 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.

14 Overall, 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.

24 Also, 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."

14 EPA 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."

21 Choosing 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

1 In 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.

14 Also, 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

22 Clarifying questions from the

23 panel?

24 MR. 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.

21 MR. SILVERMAN: Okay. And you'll

22 explain that as well, I take it?

23 DR. GOODMAN: Yes.

24 MR. KOERBER: Other questions?

25 Thank you. I'd like to call Tony
40

1 Payton and Joseph Otis Minott.

2 Mr. Payton.

3 MR. PAYTON: Thank you to the

4 panelists. 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.

24 Thank you.

25 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir.
41

1 Any clarifying questions from the

2 panel?

3 Thank you.

4 MR. KOERBER: Mr. Minott.

5 MR. 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.

24 It 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

1 The 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.

5 The 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

14 Ambient 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.

25 Certainly, 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

4 yearly and 24-hour standards.

5 Finally, 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

1 more rural area, such as shale territory, or

2 in a densely populated urban area, such as

3 near a port.

4 I 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

24 panel?

25 MR. 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?

5 MR. 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

14 properly 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?

21 MR. MINOTT: I'm focused on the

22 diesel, yes.

23 MR. KOERBER: Any other questions?

24 MR. SILVERMAN: Do you have a

25 position on the coarse particle standards?
47

1 MR. MINOTT: We're still waiting

2 for the American Lung Association to tell me

3 what that should be.

4 Thank you.

5 MR. 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.

15 My 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.

4 Specifically, 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

14 pollutants.

15 The 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.

4 In 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.

14 It'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.

25 That'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.

4 Soot 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

14 pollution. 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

24 pollution standards and urge you to implement

25 them as soon as possible.
51

1 Thank you again for the

2 opportunity to testify today.

3 MR. KOERBER: Thank you,

4 Mr. Garber.

5 Clarifying 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.

15 MS. 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.

21 I received support today from the

22 American Petroleum Institute to share my

23 comments on Urban Visibility Secondary

24 Standard.

25 EPA'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.

5 Our 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.

24 Evidence 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.

4 Issue 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.

15 Issue 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.

25 For 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.

4 Issue 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

14 measurement 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?

21 Issue 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

1 But 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.

11 MR. KOERBER: Thank you,

12 Mr. Heinold.

13 Clarifying questions?

14 I 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you.

22 I'd like to call David Hartley and

23 Deborah Shprentz.

24 Mr. Hartley.

25 MR. 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.

15 So 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

24 pick.

25 The 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.

11 The 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.

4 Clarifying questions?

5 MR. 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.

11 MS. 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.

25 At 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

14 program 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

24 must be strengthened and expanded, expedited

25 and supplemented by modeling.
63

1 Today 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.

11 Today 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

14 peak 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.

21 Clarifying 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

24 minus 2.5 health studies, which are much more

25 limited.
66

1 So, 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.

11 MS. 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.

21 MR. 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

4 monitors 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

1 MS. 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.

21 Primary 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.

25 However, 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.

5 It 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.

11 NACAA 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.

4 Third, 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.

11 EPA 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

15 meeting 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

24 protection.

25 It'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.

4 In 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.

11 Clarifying 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.

21 And 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

4 my lungs said, I think you have asthma.

5 Like 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.

21 So, over the years I've used

22 inhalers, pills, even a nebulizer at one

23 point.

24 The 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

5 medicine 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.

21 MR. 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.

4 So 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.

11 I'd like to call Katie Feeney and

12 Gretchen Alfonso.

13 Ms. Feeney.

14 MS. 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.

24 I 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.

5 I'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.

15 I 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.

14 I 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

1 So 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.

5 Thank 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.

25 The 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.

5 My 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.

14 The 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.

21 Not 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

1 mortality 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.

5 I'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.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

17 Clarifying questions?

18 Your organization, Moms Clean Air

19 Force; is that correct?

20 MS. ALFONSO: Yes.

21 MR. 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.

4 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

5 I'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

24 personal 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

11 must have spent a good part of her life

12 cleaning it off of the windowsills and the

13 floors and everywhere.

14 Today, 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.

21 And 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.

4 We 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

14 miserable, from a very early age.

15 As 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.

11 We 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?

14 MR. 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.

21 MR. 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.

15 There 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."

4 AF&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.

15 It 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.

21 The 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."

4 In 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.

21 In 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

5 majority 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.

11 First, 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?

21 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: You

22 identified some new studies, 2009-2011, and

23 I'll point out that the preamble to the

24 proposed 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.

4 As 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.

14 MR. KOERBER: Thank you both.

15 I 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.

24 EDF 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.

4 Particulate 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

21 main 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

11 micrograms and a daily standard to just 30

12 micrograms would yield $14-36 billion in net

13 monetized annual health benefits.

14 A 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.

25 Emission 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.

5 Pennsylvania 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.

11 According to the American Lung

12 Association, two Pennsylvania metropolitan

13 areas ranked in the top 25 among cities most

14 polluted by year-round particulate pollution.

15 Additionally, 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.

4 Every 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.

21 Despite 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

22 Clarifying questions?

23 MR. SILVERMAN: Will you be taking

24 a position on the coarse standard?

25 MS. 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

24 micron 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.

4 I'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.

14 It 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.

25 And 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.

14 And 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

25 medical expert groups.
103

1 Again, 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

5 meet 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?

21 Soot 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

24 percent, and it is getting worse.

25 I 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.

5 Thank 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.

11 MR. 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

1 When 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.

14 This 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.

25 Recently, 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

21 me a sample of a product to clean the red.

22 It's called Red Out. The chutzpah of those

23 people.

24 I 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.

4 And 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.

11 This 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.

24 Why? 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

4 pollution permitted by the driller.

5 One 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?

14 MR. 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?

21 MS. MASTRO: Fracking fluids in

22 Pennsylvania are disclosed. You can check

23 with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

24 Protection.

25 MR. 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.

5 MS. 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.

14 We 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.

25 And 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

4 propose. 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

24 many 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.

14 Someone 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.

5 Ultimately, 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

24 people 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.

11 And 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

1 more 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.

11 Questions from the panel?

12 Okay. Thank you.

13 I'd like to call Ashley McDonald

14 and Albert Accooe.

15 Ms. 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

1 much of the nation's supply of food.

2 Our members are proud of their

3 tradition as stewards and conservators of

4 America'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.

15 PM10 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.

25 These 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.

5 Studies 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.

15 Additionally, 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.

11 The 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.

25 NCBA 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

14 may 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."

25 This 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.

4 In 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

14 panel?

15 MR. 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.

21 MS. 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.

5 MS. 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.

15 MS. 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.

21 There 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.

5 MS. 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

14 policy-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.

24 At 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.

15 Other 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.

21 Because 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

1 Unlike reducing carbon dioxide,

2 the main benefits of which arrive only after

3 decades of costly efforts, controlling these

4 pollutants 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.

14 Globally, 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.

24 Even 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.

4 According 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.

15 Thank 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?

21 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: No. Actually,

22 I'm speaking on behalf of Cecil.

23 MR. KOERBER: Okay. And if you

24 could state your name.

25 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Dr. Jalonne
126

1 White-Newsome.

2 MR. KOERBER: Could you spell that

3 please for the court reporter?

4 MS. 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.

15 Thank 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.

24 We 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

4 poverty level in the last 12 months. The

5 majority 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.

21 Studies 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.

4 Consequently, 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.

25 WE 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

15 micrograms 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

25 mortality.
130

1 It 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

11 monitoring for co-pollutants, and the

12 proposed addition of PM2.5 monitors near

13 highways, traffic corridors and residential

14 areas.

15 Because 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.

24 By 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.

5 Secondly, 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.

21 Thank you again for this

22 opportunity, and let us know if there's any

23 information that we can provide.

24 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

25 Copies of the studies that you
132

1 cited, we'd appreciate receiving those in

2 your written comments.

3 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: Sure.

4 MR. 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.

15 So, 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

14 mortality, 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?

25 MS. WHITE-NEWSOME: It was 32.
134

1 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: So 11 and 12

2 and 32 is what you're working with.

3 Thank you for the clarification.

4 MR. 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.

11 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Very good.

12 We'll call him up in the next group. Thanks.

13 Mr. McGuire.

14 MR. 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.

14 So, 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.

21 We 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.

5 Because 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.

15 We 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

1 So, 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

15 mandate, 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

4 Ambient 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.

21 Unfortunately, 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.

4 Poll 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,

14 particularly 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

21 most.

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

4 American people and support a standard of 11

5 micrograms 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?

14 Okay. Thank you both.

15 I'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.

21 WE ACT for Environmental Justice

22 is the host organization for a national

23 effort called the Environmental Justice

24 Leadership for Climate Change.

25 And 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.

15 And 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

14 most 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

1 Would 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.

15 MR. 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.

21 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: A point of

22 clarification, we were sued by environmental

23 groups, Earthjustice on behalf of the

24 American 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.

5 MR. 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.

11 But 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.

25 MR. 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.

14 MS. 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.

14 I'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.

24 We appreciate this opportunity to

25 provide comments on the proposed rule.
147

1 According 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-Camden7 Vineland 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.

14 In 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

15 million 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.

25 Second, 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.

5 The 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

21 monitors.

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

4 years 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.

11 That 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

14 proposal 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.

24 In 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

14 most 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.

21 Clarifying 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

1 more 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.

5 Thank 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.

5 Second, 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

11 monitoring 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.

25 Other definitions of severe asthma
156

1 include visiting the emergency department or

2 being hospitalized for asthma in the past

3 year.

4 These definitions took on more

5 meaning 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.

14 I 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

4 mortality. 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

21 make 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.

15 MR. 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?

21 DR. 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.

25 MR. KOERBER: Thank you,
159

1 Dr. Cromar.

2 Ms. Simeone, thank you.

3 I'd like to call Joy Bergey and

4 Alex Bond.

5 Ms. 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.

5 Every 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

14 policies, such as this rule.

15 The 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.

25 The rule on which we comment today
162

1 moves 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

11 morning.

12 I'm Alex Bond, the Director of Air

13 Quality at the National Mining Association.

14 NMA 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.

24 My 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.

11 The 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

1 Further, 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.

15 However, 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.

21 These 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

1 A 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

21 microgram 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.

25 Many, 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

4 Administrator 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.

11 The 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.

21 The 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

1 measurement statistic and it could be highly

2 variable from city to city, depending on

3 meteorological conditions.

4 Until 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.

24 Should 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.

5 The 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.

14 In 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.

21 Comments, 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.

4 MR. 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

14 master's degree in public health.

15 To 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.

4 Suddenly, 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.

15 As 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.

14 And 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

1 This is consistent with the most

2 recent scientific evidence, and the

3 recommendations of many health professionals,

4 including the American Lung Association.

5 This 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.

14 Compared 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

1 many researchers have documented near heavily

2 traveled roadways.

3 EPA estimates that 35 million

4 Americans 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.

21 I 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

24 proposed 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.

4 We 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.

11 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

12 Clarifying questions? Okay.

13 Ms. Eichholz?

14 MS. EICHHOLZ: Thank you.

15 My 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.

5 I 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.

15 As 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.

15 The 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

24 morbidity 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.

15 Today, 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.

21 As 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

1 Thank you.

2 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

3 Questions?

4 Okay, 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.

4 Also, 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

22 Any clarifying questions?

23 The study that you spoke of, can

24 you just describe that a little bit more? Is

25 that a new study? Who else is involved?
181

1 MR. 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.

11 I run a funeral home on Allegheny

12 Avenue. And it was outside monitoring

13 traffic going up and down Allegheny Avenue.

14 MR. 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

1 monitor pollution.

2 MR. KOERBER: Okay. Thank you,

3 sir.

4 MR. HERBERT: Thank you.

5 MR. 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

11 my 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.

4 After 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.

14 I 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.

21 Questions?

22 I think we're good. Thank you

23 both.

24 We have one more speaker before

25 lunch. Jackie Wilson.
184

1 MS. WILSON: Good morning,

2 everyone. And thank you for allowing me to

3 speak today.

4 I'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.

21 Soot 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

1 I 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.

11 Asthma 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

24 pollutants. 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

4 matter.

5 I 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.

11 We 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.

15 As 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

24 proposed 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

4 matter 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

24 maps 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.

4 The 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

14 provide 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.

21 The 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.

25 With 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

4 micrograms 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.

15 Now 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.

21 We 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.

4 Commenters 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

15 microphone 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

1 As I mentioned, we are

2 transcribing today's hearing, and each

3 speaker's oral testimony will become part of

4 the official record.

5 If 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.

11 We 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.

24 For 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

4 make 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.

15 I 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?

21 MR. BLUM: It's Andrew Blum,

22 B-L-U-M. I'm with Conservation Pennsylvania,

23 a nonprofit group here based in Philadelphia.

24 And I'll be reading on behalf of a friend of

25 mine, who is a geologist, who is unable to
195

1 make 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.

5 Mr. 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.

25 Among 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.

4 The 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.

11 Very few enterprises could hope

12 for a return on investment as positive as

13 those projected by the EPA studies for the

14 proposed NAAQS revision.

15 Based 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.

24 The 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

14 progressive 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.

24 Another 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.

5 MR. 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?

11 MR. BLUM: C-O-N-S-I-D-I-N-E.

12 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

13 Clarifying questions?

14 MR. 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.

21 The 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?

4 PROFESSOR 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.

14 I 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.

21 Setting 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

25 make 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.

11 The 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

21 many 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

1 Yet, 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.

15 It 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

1 more stringent standard was appropriate. And

2 the proposal does not even explain why this

3 recommendation was rejected.

4 Second, 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.

15 Third, 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.

21 Fourth, 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.

5 The 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.

11 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. It's a

12 pleasure being here, a little warm, but it's

13 a pleasure being here.

14 Any questions from the panel?

15 Thank 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.

21 The 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

1 Our staff and consultants include

2 scientists, economists, MBAs, engineers, and

3 attorneys. I appreciate the opportunity to

4 talk with you today.

5 I 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.

5 The 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.

11 EPA 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

1 In anticipation of this PM NAAQS

2 revision, the Clean Air Task Force in,

3 collaboration with Earthjustice and the

4 American 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.

14 Given 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

24 major reductions in other adverse health

25 consequences. That's 20,700 more avoided
209

1 mortalities than the tightest combination of

2 the annual daily standards 12/35 proposed by

3 EPA, and nearly 28,000 more than the weakest

4 proposed.

5 The 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

14 meet the current air quality standard.

15 Further 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

24 purposes, offers no additional protection

25 beyond the current NAAQS.
210

1 As 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

11 more 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

24 Agency's assertion that a near-roadway

25 monitoring 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

4 measured 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.

21 Thank you for the opportunity to

22 speak today.

23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you,

24 Dr. Graham.

25 Questions from the panel?
212

1 The 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.

11 I'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

1 I 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

14 pollution 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.

24 Epidemiological 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

14 many 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.

25 The 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.

15 A 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.

25 Similar improvements were observed
216

1 due to particulate matter reduction during

2 the Beijing Olympics as well.

3 So we know that exposure to

4 particulate 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.

24 Our 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.

5 Questions 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.

14 I 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.

25 Now 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.

4 Unfortunately, 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.

11 According 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.

15 However, 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

1 While we may not know what causes

2 asthma, we do know what can trigger an

3 attack. One such dangerous trigger is fine

4 particulate matter, or soot.

5 Microscopic 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

21 micrograms 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

5 micrograms 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.

14 Onto 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.

24 And 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.

5 For 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

14 problems 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

24 you for being here as well.

25 Questions from the panel?
222

1 MS. 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.

11 I 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.

24 Those 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.

5 Those 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.

21 Taking 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.

25 An 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.

15 Thank 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?

21 MS. 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.

25 I 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.

4 Most 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.

21 I'm also a sailor. And on a

22 recent day of sailing in the Delaware River

23 with a friend, who just returned from

24 Australia, 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.

11 Thank you.

12 Dale Shillito.

13 MR. SHILLITO: Hello, my name is

14 Dale Shillito.

15 Well, 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.

21 The 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

1 The 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.

11 Exposure 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

24 me 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

4 pollution 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.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

23 Questions?

24 Thank you both.

25 I'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.

4 Thank you. God bless.

5 MR. 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

14 millions of other children in the country.

15 My 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.

21 So 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

25 many 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

1 When 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.

5 But 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

22 Any questions? No.

23 Thank you both. We appreciate you

24 being here today.

25 MR. 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.

4 MR. 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.

15 AMS 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.

4 Thousands 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.

11 For 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.

15 MR. 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.

24 Thank you for the opportunity to

25 appear today.
237

1 My 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.

11 Farm 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

1 moving 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.

14 Moreover, 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

25 minor 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.

4 This 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.

24 Driving on unpaved roads and

25 driveways stirs up dust. The primary way to
240

1 mitigate 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

4 presents 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

1 Visitors to our farm understand

2 and expect our farm environment to be a

3 little dusty because, frankly, it's a farm.

4 Mine 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?

25 MR. 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.

4 Thank you.

5 MR. 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.

25 My 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.

21 The 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.

25 I 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.

5 But 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.

11 Well, 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.

14 Down 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

1 Thank you.

2 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, ma'am,

3 for being here with us today. Questions?

4 Thank you both.

5 It 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?

11 MR. KOERBER: It's regarding

12 particulate matter, so the proposal deals

13 with both PM2.5 and PM10.

14 AUDIENCE 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.

25 MR. 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.

4 We 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.

11 It 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.

24 And 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.

5 My 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.

24 We 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

4 peer-reviewed scientific research.

5 These 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.

14 These increased protections are

15 more 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.

21 MS. CLARK: My name is Sara Clark.

22 I'm a college student from Bucks County,

23 Pennsylvania.

24 I'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

1 When you consider Trenton is far

2 smaller than Philadelphia with 84,000

3 population size rather than 1.5 million

4 people, 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.

21 MR. KOERBER: Thank you both.

22 I'd like to call Michael Klusek

23 and Chris Mizes.

24 MR. 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.

21 MR. 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.

21 So, part of that is that lots of

22 heavy-duty diesel truck traffic is driving

23 through the neighborhood. And something that

24 many residents like Mike had pointed out to

25 me 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.

14 So 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.

24 The highway is actually being

25 redeveloped right now.
257

1 And 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.

14 So 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.

4 I'd like to call Tom Au.

5 MR. 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.

11 The Clean Air Board was formed in

12 the fall of 2005 after over a hundred

13 Cumberland County physicians signed and

14 published 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.

24 Increasingly 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.

5 From 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.

14 In 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.

21 In 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

1 But 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.

14 Specifically, 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.

5 What 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.

14 Dr. 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.

21 All 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

4 particulate 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?

11 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Just one

12 comment. It's very helpful to have the

13 peer-reviewed literature as part of our file.

14 We 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?

21 MR. AU: Yes.

22 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: That's the

23 nurse's health study, is that correct?

24 MR. AU: Yes.

25 MS. 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?

5 MS. 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.

15 They 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.

21 The current range is 150

22 micrograms per cubic meter, with a one

23 expected exceedance form.

24 They 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

4 you 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.

14 You'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.

25 MS. HASSETT-SIPPLE: Ms. Rushlau,
267

1 it would help if you speak into the

2 microphone. It would help the court

3 reporter.

4 MS. RUSHLAU: Is this better?

5 First, 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.

11 Now, 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

25 medical residents, who were down to the last
268

1 man, 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.

15 But, 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.

14 So they were trying to keep it

15 moist 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.

21 And it's not a matter of cost.

22 You can't stop the wind from blowing in

23 Kansas, period.

24 When 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.

4 So 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

1 This 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

14 problem, 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.

21 I think that's about it. Thank

22 you.

23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

24 We appreciate your testimony, we

25 appreciate your thoughts. Thank you very
272

1 much.

2 MR. KOERBER: I'd like to call

3 David Low and Pat Healey.

4 MR. 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.

11 So, 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.

15 I 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.

25 And 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.

5 And 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

24 pollution standards.

25 There 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

4 you'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.

11 And, finally, maybe this is kind

12 of the spiritual angle in the whole thing,

13 when you walk around the City, tour the power

14 plants, 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.

21 Thanks. That's all I wanted to

22 say.

23 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank

24 you for many coming today.

25 Did 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.

11 I 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

24 matter in and around Port Richmond.

25 I'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

4 Air 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.

5 For 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.

11 Now, let's just say for the sake

12 of this example that the new proposed

13 particulate level of 12 micrograms per cubic

14 meter 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?

15 If 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?

5 Does 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

24 may 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,

4 probably 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.

24 I 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.

5 MR. 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.

14 MR. 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.

11 But 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

1 This 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.

14 We 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.

24 So 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 _ _ _ _ _ _

5 MR. 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.

14 Our 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

24 particles 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.

14 But, 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

24 milligrams a cubic meter standard would save

25 even more.
287

1 So 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.

14 I 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.

24 I made a little visual here that

25 might 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

5 minus 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.

21 So 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

15 mercury 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.

25 So, 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.

14 And 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

24 particles, 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.

14 So we have a compilation of three

15 major 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.

21 So, 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

1 And 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.

21 So 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?

15 People 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.

21 If 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.

5 REVEREND 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.

21 I'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.

15 Volumes 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.

25 So 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.

24 The major polluters responsible

25 for the soot that's in our air, car
297

1 manufacturers, coal-fired power plants and

2 oil refineries, for example, are flexing

3 their political muscle for the weakest limits

4 possible.

5 But 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.

24 We 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?

15 DR. 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.

24 The brain has been neglected. I

25 support the efforts to reduce the particulate
299

1 matter 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.

11 Providing 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.

25 A 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.

5 I 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.

24 Women 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.

15 Can 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.

21 The research showed that bigger

22 babies were healthier in childhood and

23 adulthood, so fetus size during pregnancy was

24 important.

25 Bigger 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.

15 More 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.

25 I'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?

5 DR. 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.

4 It'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.

11 I'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

1 So, that's something that we

2 definitely are aware is an area for

3 exploration.

4 DR. 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

15 multiple 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

1 Now, 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

5 matter 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.

11 But the Clean Air Act requires us

12 to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards

13 based upon those pollutants that are

14 identified.

15 DR. 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?

21 MS. 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

4 particle pollution or PM, is a complex

5 mixture 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.

14 The 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.

21 Once inhaled, these particles can

22 affect the heart and lungs and cause serious

23 health effects. EPA groups particle

24 pollution 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.

4 Fine 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.

15 People 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.

5 The 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.

15 The 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

1 micrograms per cubic meter.

2 Thank you.

3 MR. KOERBER: Thank you for being

4 here today.

5 Any 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.

5 We 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.

14 We 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.

24 Over 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

1 The tractor trailer, the diesel

2 fuel pumping up out of his exhaust pipe was

3 so bad, everybody had to go in. Sad.

4 There 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.

14 And 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.

21 As 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

25 minutes after the train left.
316

1 When 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.

14 We 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.

24 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

25 Thank 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

4 you see on your windows, are they all black?

5 MS. 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.

14 You 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

1 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank

2 you for being with us today.

3 MS. SAIER: Thank you.

4 MR. 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.

14 So, 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.

24 The 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

5 more 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.

15 We'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.

11 But, 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

14 years 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.

14 So we have the technology, the

15 manufacturing 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.

24 Mr. Little.

25 MR. 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.

4 I 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

4 young, asthma kills them.

5 And 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,

14 you're going to get a lot more soot.

15 And 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?

15 MS. 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.

21 MS. MASTRO: But if it's not being

22 enforced, you should contact the Pennsylvania

23 DEP.

24 MR. SILVERMAN: You mean the

25 police didn't do that --
326

1 MS. MASTRO: Well, the police

2 shouldn't be enforcing that, it's enforced by

3 EPA or the Pennsylvania DEP.

4 MR. 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.

14 As 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.

21 However, 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.

5 I 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.

15 EPA 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

1 Similarly, 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.

11 As 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.

21 In 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.

5 We 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.

14 MR. 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 _ _ _ _ _ _

24 MR. KOERBER: Okay, thank you.

25 It's about a quarter to 6:00, and we have one
331

1 more speaker before we break for dinner. And

2 I'd like to call Dawn Hawkins.

3 Make yourself comfortable.

4 MS. 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.

11 So, 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

15 my 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.

25 So 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.

11 I 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.

21 We 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

1 Thank you.

2 _ _ _ _ _ _

3 this time, a dinner recess was taken at 5:49

4 m. 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.

11 We are here to hear your comments

12 on EPA's proposed revisions to the National

13 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate

14 Matter.

15 The 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

1 The 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

14 you 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.

21 With 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.

25 Also 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.

4 I'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.

14 MR. 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.

4 And 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.

21 In 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.

4 And, 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

14 major contributor to climate change.

15 And 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.

21 And that's all I have to say.

22 MR. KOERBER: Thank you for making

23 the trip.

24 MS. 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.

5 Cost 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.

24 And 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

14 years if I were to stay here.

15 So 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

1 more 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.

14 And 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

4 morning, noon and night.

5 And 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.

21 And 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

1 matter.

2 And that's all I have to say.

3 Thank you.

4 MR. 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.

11 My 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.

14 I 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.

24 I 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.

24 Personally, I'm very frustrated in

25 medicine 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.

11 But 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.

21 Now, 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.

24 Again, you all are probably better versed in

25 this than I am.
346

1 And 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

24 you for making the trip this evening.

25 Dr. Shapiro?
347

1 DR. 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.

11 Poverty 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

1 matter hyperintense lesions, and similar

2 lesions were observed in dogs. They also

3 studied even dogs.

4 So 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.

11 Another 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

24 morphology 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."

5 And 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.

24 Thank you.

25 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.
350

1 Questions 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

5 mentioned, 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

14 provisional 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.

25 DR. 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.

21 I 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

25 me work from home two days a week.
353

1 I 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.

4 And 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.

14 So, 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.

11 MR. 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.

15 I 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.

25 That has been confirmed through
355

1 the Supreme Court.

2 MR. CALLAHAN: In fact, the law is

3 on your side, so to speak.

4 Well, 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.

11 A 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?

14 When 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

21 mean 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.

4 MR. 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.

11 MR. KOERBER: Thank you.

12 MS. PATRONE: You're here very

13 late. We all appreciate you being here.

14 My 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.

25 Well, 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.

11 Our 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

1 To 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.

24 And I can submit some of our

25 written stuff via electronically, right?
360

1 MR. KOERBER: Yes, you can.

2 MS. PATRONE: I will make a little

3 note of that and send the EPA our previous

4 testimony.

5 MR. 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

14 me to speak.

15 My 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.

24 It 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.

21 It'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.

4 You have a severe build up of

5 mucus 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.

4 I 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.

14 So 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?

24 We will sit tight if they show up.

25 We'll just take a little bit of a pause.
364

1 Well, 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.

11 Ms. 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.

15 My 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.

25 I 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.

4 The 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.

11 So, I don't worship this economy.

12 And I feel that some profits are not

13 acceptable.

14 We 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.

24 Our current economy that depends

25 on the right to pollute will have to change.
367

1 I 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.

5 MR. 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.

11 I 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

1 We'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.

5 And 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

24 meter and with a daily standard of 25

25 micrograms per cubic meter.
369

1 I 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

14 your 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

25 missed school or workdays by 1.8 million.
370

1 So, anyway, thanks a lot for

2 giving me the opportunity to speak. Have a

3 good evening.

4 MR. 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.

11 MS. WINTERS: Thank you. Good

12 evening. I am Roberta Winters, Issues and

13 Action Vice-President for the League of Women

14 Voters of Pennsylvania for whom I'm speaking.

15 The 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.

25 Pittsburgh 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.

4 These 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.

15 And 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.

24 It 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.

11 Such 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

24 matters. 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

4 proposed 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.

11 With a number of point sources

12 from industrial development in once rural

13 areas increasing, we must err on the side of

14 caution.

15 We 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.

21 Air 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.

4 We 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.

11 In closing, the League of Women

12 Voters 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.

21 You 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.

25 Is 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.

14 MR. 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.

24 In 2006, December, I was leaving

25 my 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.

21 So, 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.

5 I 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.

14 But 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.

15 Time 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

1 Well, 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.

4 And 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.

21 So 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

4 you'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.

15 So, 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.

24 MR. KOERBER: Thank you, sir. I

25 appreciate you both being here this evening.
382

1 Thank you so much.

2 And I believe our last speaker is

3 Miranda Kramer.

4 Is 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.

15 It'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.

21 And I want to close optimistically

22 by thanking everyone who is listening for

23 supporting the regulation that sets a healthy

24 minimum standard for public health.

25 Thank you.
384

1 MR. KOERBER: Thank you. Thank

2 you for being here this evening. I

3 appreciate it.

4 Any 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.

11 Thank 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