1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING ON

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE 

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

FOR OZONE

SACRAMENTO, CA 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015

9:00 A.M.

Reporter: Peter Petty

Rebecca Hudson
2

INDEX

PAGE

OPENING STATEMENT: 17

By Steve Page, Presiding Officer

MORNING SESSION: 17

Steve Page, Hearing Officer

Deborah Jordan - Panel Member

Susan Stone - Panel Member

Pat Dolwick - Panel Member

Public Testimony Begins 24

AFTERNOON SESSION 167

Steve Page, Hearing Officer

Amy Zimpfer - Panel Member

Susan Stone - Panel Member

Pat Dolwick - Panel Member

Public Testimony Resumes 176

EVENING SESSION 280

Steve Page, Hearing Officer

Amy Zimpfer - Panel Member

Deborah Jordan* - Panel Member

Susan Stone - Panel Member

Pat Dolwick - Panel Member

*Replaced Amy Zimpfer during the evening session

Public Testimony Resumes 280

HEARING ADJOURNED 367

Reporter Certificate

Transcriber certificate
3

APPEARANCES

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Robert Sawyer, 24

American Lung Association

Ted Steichen, 26

American Petroleum Institute

Larry Greene, 30

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Cynthia Cory, 34

California Farm Bureau Federation

Allen Biaggi, 39

Nevada Mining Association

Jaxin Woodward, 43

Student & American Lung Association in California

Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 45

American Lung Association in California

Lisa Hoyos, 49

Climate Parents

Terry Webber, 52

American Forest & Paper Association

American Wood Council

Michael Wang, 56

Western States Petroleum Association

Christopher Emery, 60

ENVIRON International Corp.

Kathleen Karle, 64

San Luis Obispo County Public Health Dept.

Jack Broadbent, 67

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
4

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Amy Mmagu, 68

California Chamber of Commerce

Ann Rothschild, 70

California Interfaith Power & Light (CIPL)

Jimmy Slover 72

Gibbe Parsons, 74

American Thoracic Society

Karina Silvas-Bellanca, 77

Sierra Forest Legacy

Eric Moore, 80

Central Coast Prescribed Fire Council

John Friedrich, 82

Climate Parents

Reverend Will Scott, 85

California Interfaith Power & Light (CIPL)

Victoria Chu, 86

Sierra Club

Susan Stephenson, 89

California Interfaith Power & Light (CIPL)

Michael Monasky 92

Lindsay Stovall, 98

American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Kenneth Champion 102

Evan Gillespie, 104

Sierra Club
5

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Kimberly Garcia, 108

Student 

Oscar Garcia, 111

Student 

Mike Rogge, 114

California Manufacturers & Technology Association (MTA)

Wenya Ma, 117

Student 

Scene Wan, 120

Student

William Wang, 122 

Student

Bill Magavern, 125

Coalition for Clean Air

Yolla Hager, 128

Hager Environmental & Atmospheric Technologies

Gretchen Dahlkemper, 131

Environmental Defense Fund

Adenike Adeyeye, 133

Earthjustice California Office

Sarah Hodgdon, 137

Sierra Club

Betsy Reifsnider, 140

Catholic Climate Covenant

California Interfaith Power and Light (CIPL)

Angelo Logan, 141

East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
6

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Ramon Guerra, 144

Fruitvale ES

Kareta Williams 147

Nancy Reiser, 148

Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend The Environment (RUDE)

Eduardo Martinez, 150

Richmond City Counsel

Sylvia Greg White, 153

CBE & Sierra Club

Amy Lee Anderson 156

Dan Johnson, 158

Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR)

Molly Fay Vallejo McGettian Arthur 162

Jason Holder, 164

Environmental Attorney, California

Evan Shipp 176

Nathan Landers, 178

Sierra Club

Brendan White, 181

California Nurses Association & National Nurses United

(CAN/NNU)

Matthew Elliott 183

California Nurses Association & National Nurses United

(CAN/NNU)

Wendy Ring, MD 185
7

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Larissa Koehler, 188 

Environmental Defense Fund

Tom Fulks, 192

Diesel Technology Forum

Lonnie Cortez Russell, 197

Moms Clean Air Force

Vanessa Warheit, (Video Testimony) 200

Moms Clean Air Force

Emily Reyna, (Video Testimony) 202

Moms Clean Air Force

Carolyn Norr, (Video Testimony) 204

Moms Clean Air Force

Janet Johnson 207

Aliya Wishner 209

Jessica Eckdish, 213

Sierra Club

Rupa Basu, 215

California Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Carter Lavin 218

Ivett Carnes 222

Deborah Drechsler, 223

California Air Resources Board

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, 227

Environmental Justice Program of Catholic Charities
8

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Karen Wells 230

Samuel Sukaton 232

Daryl Gale 237

Joe McLaughlin 239

Dario Herrera 244

Kent Minault 245

James Ralston 247

Michael Acosta Ramos 248

Bianca Padilla, 250

Student

Eve Panush 252

Ronni Soloman

Walker Foley, 253

LA Beyond Coal 

Food and Water Watch 

Jameka Hodnett 257

Felicia Bander 259

Susan Wilke 260

Alex Nagy, 262

Food and Water Watch

Tony Bautista 265

Daniel Kwong 267
9

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Philip Rojc 269

Clayton Heard 271

Claudia Grayson 274

Harry Wang, 276

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)

Kent Pinkerton, 280

UC Davis

Michelle Schnack, 283

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)

Bill Durston, 286

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)

Aura Vasquez, 290

Sierra Club

Marina Barragan, 292

Student

Selene Hernandez, 294

Student

Erik Sauceta 295

Student 

Jose Aoba, 295

Student

Gilbert Gonzalez, 295

Student 

Cristian Garza, 295 & 346

Student
10

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Marlene Torres, 297

Student

Rebecca Ayale, 297

Student

Maria Huerta, 297

Student

Anzel Vega, 300 & 345

Student

Cynthia Portillo, 301

Student

Celina Abolos, 303

Student

Heidy Lin, 303

Student

Filiberto Lopez, 303

Student

Jaime Lopez, 303

Student

Armando Rivera, 304

Student

Victor Valdez, 304

Student

Anthony Ramirez, 304

Student

Jose Diaz, 304

Student
11

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Jonathan Salgado Torres, 305

Student

Diana Monroy, 305

Student

Luz Gutierrez, 307

Student

Jennifer Jimenez, 308

Student

Karen Diaz, 308

Student

Lizbeth Cea, 308

Student

Guadalupe Gonzalez, 308

Student

Victoria Valdez, 308

Student

Yazmin Lopez, 309

Student

Jesus Alvarez, 309

Student

Jose Castro, 309

Student

Moises Castro, 309

Student

Marian Piedo, 311

Student
12

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Isaez Garcia, 311

Student

Jessica Ayon, 311

Student

Jazmeen Corona, 311

Student

Luis Gonzalez, 312

Student

Ricardo Ramirez, 312

Student

Jenny Carbera, 312

Student

Elijah Cervantes, 314

Student

Ruben Garza, 314

Student

Jose Pompa, 317

Student

Alomera Galvez, 317

Student

Kheila Toledo, 317

Student

Marten Valtiera, 317

Student

Luis Valdez, 317

Student
13

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Judith Ramirez, 319

Student

Jose Mendoza, 319

Student

Lourdes Baez, 320

Student

Jessica Dimas, 320

Student

Yasmin Ortega, 320

Student

Christopher Avilla, 322

Student

Raul Zendeja, 322

Student

Jose Alcantra, 328 

Student

Jose Rodriguez, 328

Omar Gastelum, 331

Student

Marisela Acosta, 331

Student

Yesenia Hernandez, 331

Student

Jervoa Reyes, 331

Student

Alejandra Hernandez, 331

Student
14

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Cecilia Dimas, 334

Student

Verania Barraza, 334

Student

Cynthia Ramirez, 335

Student

Guadalupe Perez, 335

Student

Perlama Gana, 335

Student

Miguel Sanchez, 338

Student

Ignacio Serrato, 338

Student

Juan Garcia, 338

Student

Serena Monroy 338, 347

Nestor Nunez, 341

Student

Ignacio Ramirez, 341

Mariano Corrales, 341

Student

Onofre Zanora, 341

Student

Giovanni Villalta, 341

Student
15

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Baldwin Flores, 341

Student

Bernardo Lino, 341

Student

Everlyn Vasquez, 342

Student

Cecilia Gutierrez, 342

Student

Denise Ruiz, 342

Student

Angelica Tellez, 343

Student

Celina Flores, 343

Student

Aloadra Urquiza, 344

Student

Jamilet Felis, 344

Student

Angeles Bautista, 344

Student

Lisbeth Martinez, 344

Student

Melissa Gonzalez, 344

Student

Allen Hernandez, 349

Sierra Club
16

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Craig Thomas, 352

Sierra Forest Legacy

Rick Bettis, 362

Breathe, CA.

Sierra Club

Sarah Matsumoto, 364

Sierra Club
17

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 9:00 a.m.

3 Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the 

4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS)

5 February 2, 2015

6 Sacramento, California

7 Steve Page, Presiding Officer

8 * * *

9 MORNING SESSION

10 MR. PAGE: As you get seated we want to welcome 

11 you to this proposed ozone hearing, the hearing for the 

12 proposed NAAQS standards. 

13 My name is Steve Page and I'm from the U.S. 

14 Environmental Protection Agency. And we have some 

15 announcements to make, which is a formal part of these 

16 proceedings. We've got a long day ahead of us; we're going 

17 to be going from now until 9:00 o'clock tonight, which is a 

18 good thing. 

19 We really appreciate people turning out for these 

20 hearings. Many of us -- all of us on this panel, I know, 

21 consider this to be one of the most important aspects of 

22 our job. Which is after we take science that's developed, 

23 not only within the EPA, but universities and other

24 research institutions across the country, it's our job to 

25 put it into proposals. But it's really an important step 
18

1 in the process to hear what the public thinks about the 

2 proposals and the options that we've identified. So your 

3 being here makes that process happen, so thank you very 

4 much.

5 I want to let the panels introduce themselves. 

6 As I said I'm Steve Page, I'll be your Chair for the panel 

7 today. I'm the Director for the Office of Air Quality 

8 Planning and Standards. We're actually based in North 

9 Carolina, but we're a national office. And among other 

10 things that my office does, we are the ones in the EPA that 

11 are charged with pulling the science and the policy 

12 together for the NAAQS proposals for the EPA 

13 Administrator's decision.

14 And with that:

15 MS. JORDAN: Good morning, everyone. I'm Debbie 

16 Jordan. I'm Director of the Air Division at the EPA's 

17 Regional Office in San Francisco.

18 MS. STONE: I'm Susan Stone. I'm a Senior 

19 Environmental Health Scientist with the Office of Air & 

20 Radiation and the project lead for this review.

21 MR. PAGE: Good. Okay, so here are some 

22 housekeeping items and a little bit of background for 

23 everybody's benefit. And I promise I'll move through this 

24 as quickly as I can and then we'll start hearing from you 

25 all.
19

1 The first thing that I've been asked to state is 

2 that for safety reasons, please note the emergency exit to 

3 the rear of the room. In the event of a fire alarm we are 

4 required to evacuate this room immediately and go 

5 downstairs and out of the building. When the all-clear 

6 signal is given we will return to the hearing room and 

7 resume the hearing.

8 So we're here today to listen to your comments on 

9 the proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

10 Standards for Ozone. EPA announced this proposed rule on 

11 November 25, 2014, and it published in the Federal Register 

12 on December 17, 2014.

13 Today's hearing is the third hearing that we've 

14 done. One was done in Washington D.C. last week and 

15 another hearing in the Dallas-Fort Worth Area. This will 

16 be the third and final hearing.

17 EPA’s proposal for revising the ozone standard is 

18 based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone’s 

19 effects on public health and welfare. The proposed updates 

20 will improve public health protection, particularly for 

21 children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung 

22 diseases such as asthma, as well as improve public welfare 

23 protection, particularly related to ozone-sensitive trees 

24 and other plants in protected forested ecosystems, such as 

25 national wilderness areas. 
20

1 We've proposed to strengthen both the primary 

2 ozone standard to protect public health, and the secondary 

3 ozone standard to protect public welfare. 

4 We are proposing to set the levels of the primary 

5 and the secondary standards in a range of 65 to 70 parts 

6 per billion. These standards would be met when the 3-year 

7 average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

8 average ozone concentration is at or below the new level. 

9 The proposal would also extend the ozone 

10 monitoring season for many states, and update the Air 

11 Quality Index to ensure people are informed about their air 

12 quality.

13 These proposed standards do not establish 

14 emission control requirements for any particular industry. 

15 Each state, as needed, will determine how to best meet the 

16 standards in a way that makes the most sense for that area. 

17 That is the way the Clean Air Act is written.

18 States will have time to develop and implement 

19 plans to meet revised standards. Existing and proposed 

20 federal rules will help the vast majority of areas meet the 

21 proposed standards by 2025.

22 I’d like to thank you all of you again, for 

23 taking time out of your day today to join us and share your 

24 comments. We will accept comments on all aspects of the 

25 proposal, including on retaining the existing standards.
21

1 Before we get started, I’ll like to go through a 

2 few more housekeeping items and ground rules that will help 

3 the hearing run smoothly.

4 First, everybody in the room should have checked 

5 in at the registration desk -- even if you are not planning 

6 to speak today. And if you signed up to speak online or by 

7 phone but haven’t told us that you’re here, please step out 

8 to the registration desk and let the EPA staff there know 

9 that you’ve arrived, so we can get you registered in line 

10 to speak. 

11 All right, here’s how today’s hearing is going to 

12 work: I will call speakers up in pairs. When your name is 

13 called, please come to the table at the front of the room 

14 and remain at the table until both speakers have completed 

15 their comments. 

16 When I call on you to speak, please state your 

17 name, and spell it for the court reporter. Your comments 

18 will be transcribed and included in the official record of 

19 comments, or the docket, on the proposed rule. 

20 Each speaker will have five minutes to give 

21 comments. We have a light right here in front to help you 

22 know how much time you have left to speak. When the light 

23 turns from green to yellow, that means you have one minute 

24 remaining. When it turns red, that’s a signal to wrap up 

25 your testimony. The light will flash red and beep when you 
22

1 have spoken for five minutes, and it is time to stop. 

2 When you are finished speaking, please remain at 

3 the table until the person next to you has completed his or 

4 her testimony. 

5 We are here to listen to you today; however, a 

6 panel member may ask questions to clarify your comments.

7 I will then call up the next pair of speakers, 

8 and so on.

9 If you have a written copy of your testimony, 

10 please give it to the staff at the registration desk before 

11 you leave today. We will put any written comments 

12 submitted today in the official docket for the proposed 

13 rule.

14 If you have additional comments you would like to 

15 make, you can submit them in writing until March 17, 2015. 

16 Instructions for submitting additional written comments are 

17 available at the materials table near the registration 

18 desk.

19 We're going to take a break today from about 1:00 

20 to 2:30 and a 20-to-30 minute dinner break towards evening. 

21 We plan on going until 9:00 o'clock this evening, as I 

22 mentioned earlier. We also may take occasional short 

23 breaks throughout the day as needed and we’ll just keep you 

24 posted as we go.

25 If you have any questions during the day, please 
23

1 see the staff at the registration desk and someone will try 

2 to help you.

3 We will have Spanish translation, Gentleman 

4 Carlos, would you please make the announcing for the folks 

5 that don't speak English?

6 (Spanish announcement re: translation services.)

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you, Carlos.

8 Finally, I want to ask each of you to be 

9 respectful of everyone who speaks today. We have people 

10 with a wide variety of views in the audience, and we want 

11 to hear from all of you. So we can do that -- and to be 

12 fair to everyone –- we ask that everyone listen quietly. 

13 Even applause can slow things down and we want to hear from 

14 everyone who has signed up to speak.

15 Thank you again for taking the time today to 

16 share your comments on EPA’s proposed rule. Let’s get 

17 started. 

18 PUBLIC TESTIMONY

19 I'm going to call the first two folks up: Bob 

20 Sawyer and Ted Steichen.

21 Again, just as a reminder if you will please 

22 state your name and spell it that would be great. And if 

23 you want to indicate the organization you're representing 

24 that would be fine.

25 All right. Mr. Sawyer.
24

1 ROBERT SAWYER

2 MR. SAWYER: Good morning. My name is Robert 

3 Sawyer, S-A-W-Y-E-R. I'm a professor of energy emeritus at 

4 the University of California Berkeley, served as chairman 

5 of the California Resources Board from 2005 to 2007 and now 

6 serve as a member of the Board of the American Lung 

7 Association in California.

8 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor 

9 of strengthening the national standard for ozone pollution 

10 to better protect the health of millions of Americans. 

11 I commend the EPA for aggressively pursuing 

12 science-based air quality standards as mandated by the 

13 Clean Air Act. I join with the American Lung Association 

14 in support of a national air quality standard of 60 parts 

15 per billion to protect the health of our most vulnerable 

16 populations including the elderly, children and those 

17 living with chronic respiratory illnesses such as asthma, 

18 which is a significant concern here in Sacramento and 

19 throughout the State of California. 

20 It is appropriate to hold this discussion in 

21 California where we face severe ozone pollution and its 

22 health impacts.

23 Our enactment of strong emission control 

24 regulations for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have 

25 reduced our peak ozone levels by more than a factor of 4 
25

1 from the levels experienced when I was growing up in 

2 Southern California. 

3 We know fully that stronger air quality standards 

4 require emission reductions that produce cleaner air and 

5 drive technical innovation. The modern automobile is 

6 largely the result of technologies introduced to reduce 

7 emissions. The combination of California's strict 

8 passenger vehicle tailpipe standards, zero emission vehicle 

9 requirements, heavy-duty truck and bus rules and clean 

10 fuels programs reduce transportation impacts on our air and 

11 our climate. 

12 While we have made progress far too many 

13 Californians continue to suffer the impacts of ozone 

14 pollution. We are particularly concerned, because we know 

15 that the impacts fall disproportionately on our most 

16 vulnerable residents: on our children, the elderly, our 

17 low-income communities, communities of color and those with 

18 heart and lung disease.

19 In the most recent American Lung Association's 

20 State of the Air Report six California cities made the list 

21 of the ten communities most impacted by ozone pollution 

22 including all of the top five. Sacramento ranked fifth, 

23 Los Angeles remains ranked as the nation's most ozone24 polluted metropolitan area where some residents in inland 

25 parts of the region still experience an average of over 100 
26

1 unhealthy days per year at the current standard.

2 Adopting an ozone air quality standard based on 

3 the best science available is essential to protecting our 

4 most vulnerable citizens. Failing to bring our ozone 

5 standards down to 60 parts per billion misses clean air 

6 opportunities. Meeting such a standard will be difficult 

7 in California, but California has shown that it can take on 

8 difficult tasks. 

9 We welcome the opportunity to continue to protect 

10 the health of our citizens. Therefore, the EPA must take 

11 this opportunity to strengthen the ozone standard to 60 

12 parts per billion to address this issue here across 

13 California and the nation to protect the public's health.

14 We urge you to adopt the strongest standard to 

15 continue California and the EPA's partnership to clean the 

16 air and protect the public health from ozone pollution. 

17 Thank you.

18 TED STREICHEN

19 MR. STREICHEN: Good morning. I am Ted Steichen,

20 S-T-E-I-C-H-E-N, and I'm a senior policy advisor at the 

21 American Petroleum Institute. 

22 API represents about 265 oil and natural gas 

23 companies, leaders in technology-driven industry that 

24 supply most of America’s energy, support 9.8 million U.S. 

25 jobs and 8 percent of the U.S. economy. Since 2000, it has 
27

1 invested $2 trillion in U.S. capital to advance all forms 

2 of energy, including alternatives.

3 API’s members engage in all aspects of the oil 

4 and natural gas industry, operate facilities, and produce 

5 products impacted by regulations adopted by the National 

6 Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act. The 

7 oil and gas industry has made significant contributions to 

8 cleaner air.

9 Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has invested 

10 more than $285 billion to improve products and processes.

11 America’s abundant supply of natural gas has contributed to 

12 lower criteria and greenhouse gas emissions. A combination 

13 of cleaner gasoline and diesel fuels, modernized equipment 

14 and facilities, and more fuel-efficient vehicles have 

15 helped reduce emissions of air pollutants by 62 percent 

16 between 1980 and 2013 -- even as vehicle miles traveled 

17 gone up 95 percent. 

18 Progress is clear -- ozone concentrations under 

19 the current ozone rules have dropped by 18 percent since 

20 2000.

21 These improvements are impressive, and will 

22 continue. In 2008, the ozone standards were set to the 

23 most stringent levels ever, and these standards are only 

24 now being implemented by states and businesses. 

25 Ironically, some of the guidance to meet these 
28

1 2008 standards is still under review by the Obama 

2 Administration. OMB is looking at that and has not 

3 released to help the states meet these current standards.

4 Nonetheless, EPA has now proposed to further tighten the 

5 standards with the potential for far-ranging negative 

6 impacts. 

7 If EPA chooses to unnecessarily lower ozone 

8 standards, hundreds of billions of dollars in annual U.S. 

9 overall economic output and millions of American jobs could 

10 be lost. The degree and range of potential impacts from 

11 these change or these standards highlight the need for a 

12 robust debate about the science EPA is using to justify 

13 these regulations.

14 Regarding this proposal, API offers four points 

15 that should guide the EPA Administrators decision-making 

16 process.

17 First, new ozone standards are simply not needed. 

18 Careful analysis of the health studies indicate that the 

19 current standard of 75 ppb are working to protect air 

20 quality and public health. Again, we urge the Agency to 

21 carefully review our forthcoming written comments to 

22 understand our understanding of the limitations and the 

23 lack of significance in the health studies.

24 Second, the 2008 standards have not been met over 

25 a vast portions of the country. From a public policy 
29

1 perspective, it makes no sense to impose more requirements 

2 on states and businesses until further progress is made 

3 toward achieving compliance with the present standards.

4 And third, the negative economic impacts of a

5 lower ozone standard could have such a catastrophic to 

6 businesses and families that the EPA would do more harm 

7 than good by adopting them. Depending on the level 

8 selected, decreasing the ozone standards could put almost 

9 the entire country out of compliance. Specifically, 

10 standards of 65 ppb today would indicate non-attainment in 

11 45 of the lower 48 states. Furthermore, tightening the

12 standards could cause our economy to nosedive and people to 

13 lose their jobs. Again, these requirements are to be 

14 considered as we look at the health science.

15 Fourth, such standards could be virtually 

16 unattainable given the very high levels of peak background 

17 levels of ozone, which can approach 70 ppb. As proposed, 

18 the new standards would impose unachievable emission 

19 reduction requirements on virtually every part of the 

20 country including rural and undeveloped areas. Even 

21 pristine areas where there is no industrial activity such 

22 as national parks would be out of attainment. Unattainable 

23 standards are not smart public policy or good government.

24 Together we have made great progress in cleaning 

25 up our air and we will continue to do so with the existing 
30

1 ozone standards. Any option to tighten the standards and 

2 impose additional burdens on states, localities and 

3 businesses should be rejected. The EPA Administrator has 

4 the discretion to affirm the current ozone standards; we 

5 strongly urge her to do so. We need policies that make 

6 sense. And we need to let them work before adding more 

7 unnecessary burdens on states, businesses both large and 

8 small, and citizens.

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.

10 Our next two speakers, Larry Greene and Cynthia 

11 Cory. Good morning.

12 MR. GREENE: Good morning.

13 MR. PAGE: Thank you all for being here. Mr. 

14 Greene, you're up first.

15 LARRY GREENE

16 MR. GREENE: Okay. I am Larry Greene, 

17 G-R-E-E-N-E. 

18 Good morning. I'm Larry Greene, Executive 

19 Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

20 Management District and a past president of NACAA -– the 

21 National Association of Clean Air Agencies. The national,

22 non-partisan, non-profit association of air pollution 

23 control agencies in 41 states, the District of Columbia, 4 

24 territories and 116 metropolitan areas. I'm pleased to 

25 testify today on behalf of NACAA on EPA's proposed National 
31

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.

2 NACAA welcomes this EPA proposal to revise the 

3 current ozone NAAQS, which were established in 2008. In 

4 particular, NACAA supports EPA’s use of the scientific 

5 evidence to establish a primary ozone NAAQS that protects 

6 public health based on the agency’s assessment that the 

7 current standard is not adequate to do so.

8 The serious threats to public health from 

9 exposure to ozone are well documented. For example, in the

10 Integrated Science Assessment for this NAAQS review, EPA

11 concluded, among other things, that ozone pollution causes 

12 respiratory harm, is likely to cause premature death and 

13 adverse cardiovascular impacts, and may cause damage to the 

14 central nervous system and reproductive and developmental 

15 effects.

16 EPA’s independent science advisors who comprise

17 the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee also believe 

18 the primary ozone NAAQS must be more protective to public 

19 health. As the committee stated in its June 26, 2014 

20 letter to EPA on the agency’s Second Draft Policy 

21 Assessment, "CASAC finds scientific justification that 

22 current evidence and the results of the exposure and risk 

23 assessment call into question the adequacy of the current 

24 standard. Furthermore, there is clear scientific support 

25 for the need to revise the standard. The CASAC supports 
32

1 the scientific rationale presented in the Second Draft PA 

2 on these points.” 

3 CASAC also went on to say that it, “...further 

4 concludes that there is adequate scientific evidence to 

5 recommend a range of levels for a revised primary ozone 

6 standard from 70 ppb to 60 ppb.”

7 NACAA, therefore supports EPA’s proposed revised 

8 primary NAAQS within the range of 65 to 70 parts per 

9 billion, which is at the upper end of the science-based 

10 range recommended by CASAC.

11 With respect to the secondary ozone NAAQS, NACAA 

12 is continuing to review EPA’s proposal as well as CASAC’s 

13 recommendations to the agency and will provide a 

14 perspective in our written comments.

15 On the issue of the Air Quality Index, NACAA 

16 supports EPA’s proposal to revise the AQI at the same time 

17 that it finalizes the revised ozone NAAQS. The AQI is a 

18 risk communication tool developed by EPA to keep the 

19 general public informed about its local air quality and to 

20 help make informed decisions about exposure to air 

21 pollutants. The effectiveness of the AQI as a public 

22 health tool will be undermined if EPA undertakes regulatory 

23 changes to the ozone NAAQS without simultaneously revising 

24 the AQI. Therefore, we are pleased that EPA has proposed 

25 to move forward with revisions to the NAAQS and the AQI at 
33

1 the same time.

2 Finally, while NACAA firmly believes EPA must 

3 maintain a strong firewall between standard-setting

4 issues and implementation issues, we do acknowledge that 

5 whatever decisions EPA makes on the primary and secondary 

6 ozone NAAQS will have a profound impact on the work of 

7 state and local air pollution control agencies. EPA must 

8 also recognize this and take timely actions on several 

9 fronts.

10 First, EPA should commit to, and follow through 

11 on, proposing the implementation rule for the revised ozone 

12 standards at the same time it issues the final revised 

13 standards and issuing the final implementation rule within 

14 one year following this proposal. It is imperative that 

15 development of the implementation rule and any related 

16 guidance be done in close collaboration with state and 

17 local air agencies. EPA should also work in close 

18 partnership with state and local air agencies to increase 

19 efficiencies in the planning process.

20 Second, EPA should take timely action to adopt, 

21 or further strengthen, federal measures to control a range 

22 of emission sources. It is extremely important that these 

23 measures be adopted and implemented in time for the 

24 associated emission reductions to contribute to the 

25 attainment by the specified deadlines. Further, EPA should 
34

1 ensure that states are able to take credit for federal 

2 measures that achieve real emission reductions.

3 Third, in order to fulfill our responsibilities 

4 to attain more protective ozone standards by the prescribed

5 deadlines, state and local air agencies will need more 

6 resources than we currently have. This is especially true 

7 since many areas of the country will face nonattainment 

8 status for the first time and will require additional

9 training and resources to develop and implement state 

10 plans. EPA must assist states and localities in this 

11 regard and request additional, adequate federal funding to 

12 enable us to successfully fulfill our statutory

13 responsibilities and our obligation to provide our citizens 

14 with clean, healthful air as expeditiously as practicable.

15 In the coming weeks, NACAA will continue to study 

16 the proposal and will offer written comments by the March 

17 17 deadline. In the meantime, we appreciate the 

18 opportunity to provide comments today and look forward to 

19 working with EPA so that this rule is promulgated in final 

20 form by October 1st. Thank you.

21 CYNTHIA CORY

22 MS. CORY: Good morning. Cynthia Cory, C-Y-N-T23 H-I-A C-O-R-Y, California Farm Bureau Federation. Welcome 

24 to California and thanks for saving the best for last. 

25 I'm happy to say that Californians are now 
35

1 breathing the cleanest since we started recording 

2 measurements. And that is despite many, many more people 

3 driving many more cars farther than we've ever driven them 

4 before. And that is thanks to ARB and local air districts 

5 and all the work they've done. We had first stage alerts 

6 in the '70s. We had 200 a year, now we're down to 10 a 

7 year. That's phenomenal.

8 ARB and the local air districts have continued to 

9 do cutting-edge research. We do things that are not done 

10 anywhere else in the world. We do community health 

11 programs. We do indoor air quality assessments, consumer 

12 product regulations, stationary and mobile regulations. We 

13 have a toxic air contaminant program. California has the 

14 cleanest fuel in the nation and we're about to require that 

15 everybody that's driving something a little bit bigger than 

16 a large pickup needs to have a 2010 engine standard in the 

17 next eight years. We're about to embark on a rule that's 

18 going to require farmers to replace their equipment with 

19 clean air equipment in the central part of the state. We 

20 are the only state in the nation that has a real mandatory 

21 greenhouse gas program and we're about to impose mandates 

22 of electrification in our goods movement. 

23 So these are all very impressive and that's why 

24 we have clean air in California, but they all come at a 

25 cost. And we're getting down to the point where we've got 
36

1 the APCO of the Central Valley, and you might not know, not 

2 being from California, that we're the number one 

3 agricultural state in the nation. We've been that way for 

4 60-plus years. We supply all your wonderful fresh fruits 

5 and vegetables and the Central Valley is the most important 

6 agricultural area in the nation. 

7 And the APCO down there has said that you could 

8 basically stop all fuel combustion from transportation in 

9 commerce and you will not meet the proposed standard. I 

10 think that's really important, because that means we can 

11 sit at home and we cannot go to school, and we cannot go to 

12 work, and in all fairness we shouldn't be using our 

13 computers or watching television if we really want to 

14 improve air quality. And we can't get there, so that's 

15 obviously not an option.

16 So what we propose is that EPA looks at 

17 incorporating more flexibility into their air quality 

18 oversight and take advantage of the air quality monitoring 

19 that's now available to update EPA's computer modeling. We 

20 want to better reflect what's going on in California 

21 especially, because we believe as always that we're pretty 

22 unique. With our 39-plus million people spread across 

23 various eco systems we've got a challenge and having a one24 size-fits-all approach from Raleigh or D.C. is -- you know, 

25 we need to like look at this a little harder.
37

1 We ask that you reevaluate and include more 

2 accurate modeling designs that reflect the scientifically 

3 justifiable fraction of ozone that is coming from biogenics 

4 and international transboundary emissions. 

5 If we continue to regulate commerce in our state 

6 while the dramatic increases are coming from China and 

7 Asia, from fossil fuel consumption, and being transported 

8 in the troposphere, this is becoming our responsibility to 

9 clean up. And it is simply not fair and it's not 

10 sustainable. We cannot continue to do that. 

11 You might be aware of significant air quality 

12 monitoring that's going on right now on the West Coast 

13 that's showing that a large percentage of the ozone in our 

14 air sheds is being generated by -- that is not being 

15 generated by stationary and mobile sources that are under 

16 the Clean Air Act control in our air sheds. It's coming 

17 from outside.

18 The NOAA 2010 CalNex Study found that 80 percent 

19 of the ozone in the bottom three kilometers of the 

20 atmosphere in the Central Valley is not from North American 

21 anthropogenic sources, but instead is a composite of 

22 biogenic and trans-boundary ozone being transported via the 

23 free troposphere. And for the L.A. Basin and nearby area 

24 that's 63 to 76 percent is baseline coming from outside 

25 sources. 
38

1 So this simply cannot be ignored. We cannot 

2 continue to ratchet down on our sources when it is not our 

3 fault. Obviously, we've got to deal with it, but we've got 

4 to look with a different approach. This means that Section 

5 179B of the Clean Air Act is more important than ever, 

6 because it deals with these issues. So we ask you to take 

7 a careful evaluation of that for California specifically.

8 We strongly disagree as said in the rule, that if 

9 the standards are lowered to 70 parts per billion that 

10 background ozone would not be a problem to implement -- for 

11 implementation challenges for implementing and meeting 

12 attainment of the NAAQS. We clearly do not believe that's 

13 the case in California. Once baseline and international 

14 emissions are more equitably recognized then making 

15 reasonable further progress can be supported instead of 

16 being penalized in Section 185.

17 We can't continue to demand unrealistic 

18 expectations of our resources and we ask that you continue 

19 to look at California and our challenges. Thank you.

20 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

21 Our next speakers are Allen Biaggi and Jaxin 

22 Woodward. And please correct my pronunciation if I've not 

23 pronounced your name correctly, when you spell it for the 

24 court reporter. Thank you.

25 Welcome, good morning.
39

1 MR. BIAGGI: Good morning.

2 MR. PAGE: Mr. Biaggi, you're up next.

3 MR. BIAGGI: And you pronounced it very well. 

4 Thank you.

5 MR. PAGE: Okay. All right.

6 ALLEN BIAGGI

7 MR. BIAGGI: My name is Allen Biaggi. That's 

8 spelled A-L-L-E-N, last name is Biaggi, B-I-A-G-G-I.

9 I'm here today representing the Nevada Mining 

10 Association. For background, the Association has been in 

11 operation for 102 years and was formed to address workplace 

12 safety and environmental issues. The Nevada Mining 

13 Association has hundreds of members representing mining 

14 operators, expiration professionals and vendors who serve 

15 the industry. 

16 The Nevada Mining Association has great concerns 

17 with EPA's revisions to the existing ozone standards. We 

18 believe the proposed rule, as written, will harm Nevada's

19 economy through the designation of inappropriate and 

20 technically inaccurate nonattainment areas, the imposition 

21 of stringent permit requirements and expensive emission 

22 controls with little or no concurrent public health 

23 benefits.

24 Nevada is one of the states hardest hit by the 

25 Great Recession. One area of the state that remained 
40

1 strong was rural Nevada, thanks in great part, to the 

2 presence of minding. The proposal will impact rural 

3 economies, stifle new and existing commerce and industrial 

4 activity and impact tax revenues that support education, 

5 social programs and public safety.

6 Mining is 1 percent of Nevada's workforce. It's 

7 6.1 percent of Nevada's economy and provides 7.4 percent of 

8 taxes generated for the state General Fund. Mining in 

9 Nevada and in the U.S. is in global competition. The cost 

10 of doing business and regulatory uncertainty are factors 

11 that weigh heavily in to a decision to mine in the U.S., 

12 South America, Africa or other mineralized areas of the 

13 world. The proposed rule, as written, will limit business 

14 and mining expansion in Nevada and elsewhere in the U.S. 

15 Nevada is a lightly industrialized state with few 

16 ozone or ozone precursor emitting facilities. And Nevada, 

17 like many western states have elevated background, ground18 level ozone concentrations and is impacted by transport 

19 from areas outside of the state. Yet this rule as 

20 proposed, even in its upper-boundaries of 79 parts per 

21 billion, will result in significant areas of the state 

22 being classified as nonattainment. 

23 Instate businesses and industries will bear the 

24 burden of achieving attainment through mandated NOx and VOC 

25 reductions even though those businesses and industries are 
41

1 not the cause of the problem. In fact, instate businesses 

2 might be unable to achieve compliance under any 

3 circumstances given the high background levels. The rule, 

4 if implemented as proposed, will have a chilling effect on 

5 Nevada's economy now and into the future.

6 And from a scientific and technical perspective 

7 the proposal has shortcomings. Research has strongly 

8 suggested elevated naturally occurring ozone levels occur 

9 throughout the West due to native vegetation. Other 

10 natural-occurring phenomenon such as wildfire also make 

11 contributions. The goal of the Clean Air Act is to control 

12 anthropogenic sources of air pollution that may impact 

13 public health. It is poor public policy to impose 

14 restrictions on manmade sources to compensate for naturally 

15 occurring conditions.

16 Nevada sits in the inner-mountain west and within 

17 the basin and range province. Our state is the most 

18 mountainous in the Union with more than 250 mountain 

19 ranges, some topping more than 13,000 feet. Preliminary 

20 research suggests the spatial placement of air quality 

21 monitors plays a significant role in ozone readings. 

22 Monitors placed on a valley floor have markedly different 

23 results than those placed at altitude. This has 

24 fundamental implications to the findings of the presence of 

25 ground-level ozone and ultimately to public health.
42

1 A basic precept of the Clean Air Act is the need 

2 for scientifically valid data on which regulatory decisions 

3 are made. This is obviously not the case with regard to 

4 ozone monitoring in mountainous terrain. Until the science 

5 of low concentration ozone monitoring in complex terrain is 

6 better understood this rule is premature.

7 Preliminary research also suggests weather, 

8 temperature and atmospheric density phenomenon can 

9 influence ground-level ozone concentrations by the movement 

10 of upper-level atmospheric ozone to the ground surface. 

11 This phenomenon is not well understood, but may have 

12 significant impacts to ozone concentrations within the 

13 Great Basin. 

14 Again, before the new rule is put in to place, 

15 and Nevada businesses and industry forced to make expensive 

16 and ineffective emission reductions, the relationship 

17 between upper-atmospheric and ground-level ozone must be 

18 better understood.

19 Finally, ozone transport into the Great Basin is 

20 well known. While it will be rural Nevada that will be 

21 likely impacted and triggered for ozone nonattainment, the 

22 sources of those air pollutants will be transported 

23 hundreds or thousands of miles away from California, from 

24 Mexico or from Asia. Yet under the proposed rule, the 

25 businesses and industries within those nonattainment areas 
43

1 will be saddled with the burden of emission reductions and 

2 will suffer the economic impacts. It is grossly unfair to 

3 burned rural, instate industry with regulatory controls, 

4 because of the failures of some distant, urban jurisdiction 

5 to control those emissions.

6 The Nevada Mining Association therefore calls up 

7 EPA to put aside the proposed rule and undertake a 

8 reevaluation of the science underlying ozone, ozone 

9 monitoring, ozone transport and reconsider the economic and 

10 public health implications.

11 I want to thank you for providing this meeting 

12 today and the Association will be providing additional 

13 written comments prior to the March 17th deadline. Thank 

14 you.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. Ms. Woodward, 

16 you're our first student today. 

17 JAXIN WOODWARD

18 MS. WOODWARD: Hello. My name is Jaxin Woodward, 

19 J-A-X-I-N. I am 12 years old and I have asthma. This is 

20 my second opportunity to speak to the EPA about the impact 

21 pollution has on my ability to breathe clean air.

22 Ozone pollution is very serious for me as an 

23 asthmatic preteen and athlete. I take medication daily to 

24 control my asthma symptoms, so I am able to be outdoors 

25 daily to play with my friends and train for my sport of 
44

1 track and field. 

2 Although I take my medication smog still triggers 

3 my asthma symptoms and when I inhale my nose starts to 

4 sting and I quickly cover my mouth and nose. As you can 

5 imagine getting a full breath of clean air becomes an 

6 immediate priority for me. Smog poses a threat to my 

7 health as it alters my ability to be an active person.

8 My long-term goal is to compete in cross-country 

9 and track in high school and college. My short-term goal 

10 is to bring home two USA track and field youth championship 

11 medals in the 800 meter and 1500 meter runs this summer 

12 from Illinois.

13 To accomplish this I must follow my asthma 

14 treatment plan, which means taking a singular pill and a 

15 puff of Advair daily. Although I take my medications and 

16 follow my treatment plan, smog keeps my respiratory system 

17 vulnerable especially during the summer months.

18 When I am competing at championship levels I 

19 would like to continue playing outdoors and competing in 

20 cross country and track and field. Strengthening the air 

21 quality standards will help me to achieve my goals. Thank 

22 you.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you both, very much.

24 All right. Our next speakers are Bonnie Holmes25 Gen, I believe it is, and Lisa Hoyosi. (phonetic) Again, 
45

1 please correct my pronunciation if you will.

2 MS. HOLMES: Good morning.

3 MR. PAGE: Good morning. Come on up. Ms. 

4 Holmes-Gen, you're up first.

5 BONNIE HOLMES-GEN

6 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning. My name is Bonnie 

7 Holmes-Gen and I am Senior Director for Air Quality and 

8 Climate Change with the American Lung Association in 

9 California. 

10 I am pleased to speak today in support of 

11 strengthening the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

12 for Ozone and pleased to join my colleagues from across the 

13 country who have been speaking to you. I know you've seen 

14 them at other hearings.

15 I'm also pleased to join Dr. Robert Sawyer, a 

16 member of our state Governing Board. And he spoke earlier 

17 today about how ozone harms health and that the Clean Air 

18 Act requires the federal EPA to set standards that protect 

19 public health and protect health for everyone. 

20 In California, with the dirtiest air in the 

21 country, the added health protection from this proposed 

22 standard is especially important. Everyone, including 

23 children, seniors, people suffering from lung and heart 

24 disease and people in all communities have a right to 

25 clean, healthy air. 
46

1 You have an important opportunity today to save 

2 thousands of lives across the country by adopting a 

3 stronger standard that will drive stronger pollution clean4 up efforts. We have testified before you before as you've 

5 heard. Remember back in 2010 we sat here also and gave you 

6 similar testimony, but now it's important to for you to 

7 act.

8 The Clean Air Act requires the standards be set 

9 at levels that do not harm health, and include an adequate 

10 margin of safety. The clear intent of Congress has been 

11 affirmed by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. 

12 Now, it's important that EPA moves forward and sets a 

13 standard at 60 parts per billion over 8 hours. And move 

14 quickly to implement that standard.

15 You have already heard from opponents today 

16 saying that economic considerations should be placed before 

17 the public’s health. And you've heard some outrageous 

18 claims, I think, about the costs of cleaning up the air. 

19 But the law is clear that the standard must be based solely 

20 on one question: at what level does ozone harm health? The

21 public has a right to know the answer to this question.

22 And evidence has continued to mount up about the 

23 health dangers posed by ozone below the existing standard

24 as you are well aware. These health dangers impact 

25 everyone, even healthy adults, but especially children and 
47

1 individuals with compromised lung health. Newer evidence 

2 warns that inhaling dangerous smog worsens heart disease, 

3 causes harm to the central nervous system, and increases 

4 the risk of low birth weight in newborns in addition to 

5 worsening lung illnesses. 

6 Unfortunately, ozone pollution can also lead to 

7 early deaths. You will hear many more stories today like 

8 the story you just heard from Jaxin Woodward about the 

9 personal effects of living in polluted air. You'll hear

10 from brave individuals who deal with asthma, COPD and other 

11 conditions as part of their daily lives.

12 The benefits of a stronger standard are clear. 

13 The standard set at 60 parts per billion, for example, will 

14 prevent up to over 7,900 premature deaths, 1.8 million 

15 asthma attacks in children and 1.9 million missed school 

16 days each year. It will certainly provide essential public 

17 health protection. The costs of maintaining the status quo 

18 are unacceptable. The health benefits from adopting a 

19 stronger standard add up to from $6 to $38 billion or more 

20 by 2025 and more after that.

21 Striving for clean, healthy air is personal for 

22 me and my family. My husband and I have two active 

23 children that play soccer constantly for club and school 

24 teams, and these activities keep us constantly on the run 

25 almost every day. However, my son Lucas has seasonal 
48

1 asthma that sometimes slows him down on the field. And 

2 when his asthma kicks in, he has to gasp for breath until 

3 he can get to his inhaler. It is a scary feeling for him 

4 and I don’t want him to have to experience this any longer.

5 I worry about him during hot smoggy days, because I know 

6 smog can make his asthma worse. 

7 The Clean Air Act requires that the ozone 

8 standard protect all children whose lungs are still growing 

9 and developing.

10 In California, as you know, we have many tools in 

11 place to help meet strong new standards. We have cleaner 

12 cars and fuels, cleaner power plants, additional plans to 

13 clean up carbon pollution and all climate pollutants. And 

14 we are moving to clean up all climate pollutants and we are 

15 moving forward to transition away from dirty petroleum 

16 fuels and to meet our federal air quality standards and our 

17 climate goals. But we need you to set a standard that 

18 truly protects public health.

19 In closing, we are depending on you. Please 

20 remember that setting a standard of 60 parts per billion 

21 will provide more certainty, cleaner air, and avoid 

22 billions of dollars in health costs. 

23 The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone 

24 Review Panel -– 20 esteemed and independent scientists -–

25 looked at the evidence from over 2,000 studies. These 
49

1 scientists unanimously concluded EPA must set a standard 

2 between 60 and 70. And, as you know, they wrote that the 

3 lower bound of 60 would offer more public health protection 

4 and would provide an adequate margin of safety.

5 On behalf of the American Lung Association in 

6 California, I urge you to follow the law and the science, 

7 and set standards that will truly protect the lives of all 

8 residents of California, decrease lung emergencies and 

9 decrease health care costs faced by our residents every 

10 day. 

11 A standard of 60 parts per billion will help 

12 everyone breathe easier in California and across the 

13 country. Thank you for your consideration.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

15 MS. WEBBER: Thanks, Bonnie.

16 LISA HOYOS

17 Hi. My name is Lisa Hoyos and I'm the director 

18 and co-founder of a national organization called Climate 

19 Parents. 

20 We represent 50,000 parents and grandparents 

21 across the country and we want to thank you, the EPA, for 

22 your leadership in calling for a strengthened standard for 

23 ground-level ozone.

24 We're here to call on you to ensure that you pass 

25 a final standard that is strong enough to protect the 
50

1 health of our kids and communities. And as Bonnie just 

2 said, according to the recommendations of the Clean Air 

3 Scientific Advisory Committee whose recommendation your 

4 agency sought, that standard is 60 parts per billion.

5 Climate Parent's members live in every state. We 

6 cross all demographics and economic classes. We all have 

7 one thing in common, which is that we want to cut fossil 

8 fuel pollution toward the end of securing two essential 

9 outcomes for our kids. 

10 One is ensuring that the air is kid safe. In 

11 other words, that it doesn't cause asthma or other 

12 respiratory diseases that are harming our kids and other 

13 high risk groups while costing our society of billions of 

14 dollars a year in health care costs. And two, ensuring 

15 that we do all we can in a time where so many communities 

16 are suffering from droughts, wildfires, sea level rise and 

17 super storms, to take bold steps to restore a world for our 

18 kids that is climate safe.

19 We also want to highlight the roll of ozone as it 

20 relates to climate change. Not only is ozone a harmful 

21 climate pollutant that we need to dramatically reduce, but 

22 the actual warming impacts of climate change as you know, 

23 make dirty air even more hazardous and lethal to breathe.

24 We know you'll be hearing, and have heard 

25 already, from fossil fuel interests telling you that we 
51

1 can't afford to be bold enough to implement what the EPA is 

2 proposing and far less, the 60 parts per billion that is 

3 necessary and that advocates and people who have asthma are 

4 recommending. But as we all know, we stand at a precipice. 

5 Parents and impacted communities who can't afford to 

6 advertise during the Super Bowl like the fossil fuel 

7 companies do, are urging you to take the urgent action our 

8 kids deserve. And to pass that 60 parts per billion 

9 standard.

10 I've already touched on the links between ozone 

11 standard and climate change, but to make that link even 

12 deeper we've been strong supporters as Climate Parents and 

13 other groups you'll hear from today like Moms Clean Air 

14 Force, of the President's and the EPA's Clean Power Plan. 

15 A 60 parts per billion ozone standard will help us make the 

16 greatest strides on both fronts.

17 Since the EPA hearings you all held in Texas and 

18 D.C. last Thursday, 4,000 more of our members have 

19 submitted comments and will continue to submit them until 

20 the March deadline. In a June 2014 letter submitted to the 

21 EPA by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee it was 

22 stated, "The recommended lower bound of 60 parts per 

23 billion would certainly offer more public health protection 

24 than levels of 70 parts per billion or 65 ppb and would 

25 provide an adequate margin of safety."
52

1 I want to end with a quote by EPA Administrator 

2 Gina McCarthy. "Fulfilling the promise of the Clean Air 

3 Act has always been EPA’s responsibility. Our health 

4 protections have endured because they’re engineered to 

5 evolve, so that’s why we’re using the latest science to 

6 update air quality standards –- to fulfill the law’s 

7 promise, and defend each and every person’s right to clean 

8 air.”

9 In that spirit please implement the 60 ppb 

10 standard that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

11 asserts is the most protective to our kids and our 

12 communities. Thank you.

13 MR. PAGE: Thank you both, very much for being 

14 here today with us. Thank you.

15 Terry Webber and Mike Wang.

16 Welcome gentlemen, Mr. Webber you're up.

17 TERRY WEBBER

18 MR. WEBBER: Great, so it's Terry Webber, T-E-R19 R-Y W-E-B-B-E-R.

20 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

21 I'm Terry Webber, Director of Government Affairs for the 

22 American Forest and Paper Association and the American Wood 

23 Council. We're the national trade associations 

24 representing wood products, pulp, paper, packaging, 

25 manufacturing.
53

1 Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must update its 

2 assessment of the latest science and consider whether any 

3 changes are needed to the National Ambient Air Quality 

4 Standards at least every five years. The Administration 

5 has significant discretion in determining what is requisite 

6 to protect public health when setting NAAQS. In fact, in 

7 2011 EPA started a process to reconsider the ozone NAAQS,

8 but President Obama intervened and asked Administrator 

9 Jackson to withdraw the rule, which she did.

10 States should proceed with implementing the 2008 

11 ozone standard first before EPA moves the ozone goal posts 

12 yet again. California, of all states, knows how 

13 challenging it is to meet the ever tighter limits with its 

14 many serious, severe and extreme nonattainment designations 

15 in the South Coast and the Central Valley, including right 

16 here in the Sacramento area. 

17 EPA’s ill-timed attempt to tighten ozone NAAQS in 

18 2011 drew focus away from the important tasks of 

19 designating areas as non-attainment and then identifying 

20 additional controls from mobile and stationary sources 

21 through state implementation plans. States, EPA and 

22 regulated entities should focus on those designation 

23 efforts. Constantly moving these air quality goal posts 

24 creates significant business uncertainty for investments 

25 that are critical to our global competitiveness.
54

1 Air quality has gotten significantly better over 

2 the last several years and will continue to improve due to 

3 other EPA rules on the books, such as Boiler MACT, even if 

4 the ozone NAAQS is not changed. NOx and volatile organic 

5 compound emissions from pulp, paper and wood product mills 

6 continue to decline. In fact, NOx emissions are down by 

7 over 25 percent from 2000 to 2012 at pulp and paper mills.

8 We are pleased the EPA has chosen not to set a 

9 secondary standard more stringent than the primary standard 

10 as well as not propose a new cumulative form of the 

11 secondary standard instead keeping to the 8-hour form. Our 

12 analysis concludes that any cumulative form of the 

13 standard, such as the W126 mentioned in the EPA support 

14 documents, is redundant with the 8-hour form and not based 

15 on any tree growth data. 

16 In addition, forestry and potential biomass loss 

17 from ozone exposure have not been demonstrated at current 

18 concentrations so the current standard is adequately 

19 protective of trees.

20 AF&PA and AWC support clean air and realistic, 

21 science-based air quality standards. However, the health 

22 effect evidence for ozone has not changed significantly 

23 since EPA tightened the ozone NAAQS in 2008, so a further 

24 change is not justified. EPA continues to rely on studies 

25 that reinforce their concerns while ignoring or giving 
55

1 little weight to negative or ambiguous studies.

2 Specifically, there is a lack of definitive 

3 evidence linking low levels of ozone exposure, those below 

4 the current standard, to adverse health impacts. The 

5 evidence on which EPA relies today is no stronger than it 

6 was the last time the standard was reviewed in 2008.

7 Furthermore, EPA’s new conclusions are not 

8 consistent with the majority of the science on the subject.

9 EPA's analyses show that few, if any, people would be 

10 adversely affected by ozone at the current standard.

11 U.S. ozone levels are increasingly attributable to natural 

12 sources and pollution from other countries, which must be 

13 considered when EPA reviews the ozone limits. 

14 Some ozone is generated naturally from plants, 

15 fires, and ozone from the stratosphere that comes into the 

16 troposphere. The proportion of ozone coming from other 

17 countries as far away as China is steadily increasing and 

18 becoming part of the background. In some places background 

19 concentrations, ozone that originates from natural sources 

20 or transported international emissions, contribute to over 

21 80 percent of total ozone. Even EPA’s advisory committee 

22 notes the lack of clarity regarding how ozone standards are

23 impacted by background concentrations.

24 Finally, while EPA cannot consider costs when 

25 setting the NAAQS, the costs of mistakenly tightening the 
56

1 standard are significant when there is such scientific 

2 uncertainty. 

3 EPA’s own cost benefit analysis would make the 

4 ozone rule one of the most expensive air regulations ever 

5 at over $15 billion. More complete industry assessments 

6 put the economy-wide annual cost many times higher with 

7 significant energy cost increases and job losses. The 

8 revisions could place most of the country in nonattainment, 

9 putting five times more paper and wood product mills at 

10 risk. Our industry has already invested billions of 

11 dollars to help make our air cleaner while making products 

12 essential for everyday life.

13 Given the significant scientific uncertainties 

14 and large economic impacts, AF&PA and AWC recommend that 

15 EPA retain the current standard of 75 parts per billion as 

16 protective of public health and not set a different 

17 secondary standard. Thank you.

18 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

19 MICHAEL WANG

20 MR. WANG: Good morning. My name is Michael 

21 Wang, W-A-N-G, and I am with the Western States Petroleum 

22 Association.

23 I would like to state at the outset and not have 

24 this time allotted to me, that somebody dropped a phone 

25 here -- one of the previous speakers -- so I get credit for 
57

1 finding it. Thank you.

2 MR. PAGE: A good Samaritan and your full time, 

3 yes.

4 MR. WANG: Thank you, very much. WSPA is an 

5 organization that represents 25 companies that explore for, 

6 develop, refine, market and transport petroleum and 

7 petroleum products in the Western United States. Our 

8 members will be affected by any change to the current ozone 

9 standard as many regions in the west, particularly in 

10 California, are already doing everything possible to attain 

11 the current Ambient Air Quality Standards.

12 WSPA supports the option EPA included in the 

13 proposal to retain the current ozone -- the primary 

14 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone at the 

15 level of .075 parts per million. Further, WSPA supports 

16 EPA's proposal to retain the form of the secondary standard 

17 equal to the primary standard and again supports the level 

18 of .075 ppb for the NAAQS.

19 Recognizing that our oral comments are limited we 

20 will highlight three issues here and provide written 

21 comments as EPA has requested. 

22 First, we see that no new confirmed and 

23 applicable data have been provided. We understand that no 

24 new confirmed and applicable data have been provided beyond 

25 what was reviewed as part of the previous ozone setting. 
58

1 While we understand that the previous review 

2 indicated a range of options, we question why EPA would 

3 propose a new, more stringent level, that relies upon only 

4 two small studies that have been based upon assumptions 

5 inapplicable to the public, that have not been confirmed by 

6 other studies, and that compound areas and assumptions by 

7 assuming the most conserved decision for all parameters.

8 Therefore, with no real additional substantiating 

9 documentation given that much of the nation, especially 

10 urban areas, will be required to do much more to reduce 

11 emissions with little resulting increase in health 

12 protection. 

13 The proposed tightening of the already health 

14 protective standard makes little sense.

15 EPA needs to conduct further analysis of the 

16 safety and uncertainty factors used in the ozone risk 

17 assessment, because any further reduction in the standard 

18 would be significantly more difficult and expensive to 

19 comply with. The sensitivity and accuracy of those factors 

20 should be firmly established and confirmed. A small change 

21 in just one risk or uncertainty factor could mean the 

22 difference between an achievable standard and one that 

23 could cast the whole country into nonattainment for a long 

24 period of time. 

25 We note that a new standard will not provide 
59

1 demonstrable in addition to health protection. EPA should 

2 make clear that standard setting by itself does not provide 

3 additional health protection to the public. Additional 

4 health protection is only provided when that level is 

5 achieved. We recognize that standard setting is a 

6 scientific exercise, but science doesn't take into 

7 consideration the uncertainty in achieving the standard.

8 The challenge facing the United States is that 

9 each successive tightening of a health standard assumes 

10 that zero risks or zero health impacts is an achievable 

11 goal and that efforts to achieve that standard can be 

12 reasonably undertaken. However, our collective experience 

13 is that attaining increasingly stringent standards is 

14 becoming increasingly costly and potentially unfeasible in 

15 the short-term.

16 Finally, a lowered standard can approach 

17 background ozone levels making attainment a virtual 

18 impossibility irrespective of the control strategy chosen 

19 or level of health protection. We note here that 

20 background ozone makes a substantial contribution to 

21 observed ozone at concentrations greater than 50 ppb in the 

22 spring and summer, especially in the U.S. 

23 Recent model results suggest that background 

24 ozone has greater contributions from stratospheric sources 

25 than earlier models suggest, especially relative to Asian 
60

1 transport component. And you've heard about that earlier, 

2 already. 

3 We understand that the North American background 

4 is largely in the 50 to 80 ppb range of observed total 

5 ozone concentration. In California where WSPA has much 

6 experience clean ocean air might have background 

7 concentrations of 35 to 40 ppb. Even more problematic for 

8 California and the West, the Asian pollution component can 

9 add 3 to 10 ppb to background levels.

10 Again, thank you for allowing us to speak and 

11 we'll submit our comments for the record. Thank you.

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much Mr. Wang.

13 Our next speakers are Christopher Emery and 

14 Kathleen Karle.

15 Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being here 

16 today and Mr. Emery, you're up first.

17 CHRISTOPHER EMERY

18 MR. EMERY: Good morning. My name is Chris 

19 Emery, E-M-E-R-Y, and I am a Senior Manager at ENVIRON 

20 International Corporation. I developed the photochemical 

21 model called CAMx, which was the model used by EPA in their 

22 Regulatory Impact Analysis.

23 My comments today to relate to four specific 

24 technical issues that I've identified so far in my review 

25 of the RIA and given my short time today I will include 
61

1 additional supporting detail in the written docket.

2 Number one, ozone is a unique problem and 

3 presents unique challenges. Ozone is formed from complex 

4 nonlinear chemical interactions and ozone background or the 

5 amount not formed from U.S. sources can approach or even 

6 exceed alternative ozone standards of 60 to 70 ppb, 

7 particularly in areas of the Western U.S. 

8 One, it'll be difficult and costly to reduce 

9 ozone concentrations that are already near background. And 

10 two, exceedences of the standard may be exacerbated by an 

11 increasing global background, particularly the 

12 contributions from Asia on the Western U.S. EPA is 

13 assuming an unchanging background in the RIA, regardless 

14 the RIA states itself that the ozone at 20 of 26 remote 

15 rural sites in the Western U.S. show practically zero ozone 

16 response to emission reductions in the U.S.

17 Number two, EPA simulated a series of incremental 

18 region specific emission reductions applied to 2025 

19 projections of U.S. wide air quality. These reductions 

20 comprise various known and unknown controls with associated 

21 cost estimates. The incremental loads and response from 

22 each test were linearly added until a standard was reached 

23 in each exceeding area. I and others found the description 

24 of the approach very difficult to follow and so I suggest 

25 that EPA carefully revise it for clarity. EPA recognizes 
62

1 limitations in this approach, particularly the linear 

2 assumption and the lack of co-benefits from transport among 

3 regions. A final verifying model simulation should be 

4 conducted to correctly account for these effects.

5 Number three, EPA projects a 6 million ton per 

6 year reduction in U.S. NOx emissions from 14 million in 

7 2011 to 8 million in 2015. This 14-year forecast involves 

8 numerous assumptions and uncertainties and yet it remains 

9 insufficient to meet the current 75 ppb standard. Further, 

10 deep NOx cuts of several million tons per year by 

11 admittedly unknown means are estimated to meet standards 

12 between 60 and 70 ppb. Our own NOx estimates to meet these 

13 standards differ from EPA's by about 1 million tons per 

14 year, which is about a 25 percent difference at 60 parts 

15 per billion. 

16 While our analysis used the same model version 

17 and all the same inputs that EPA used our approach did 

18 deviate from EPA's in certain respects. We can't say 

19 which, if any, of these estimates are correct. But this 

20 finding illustrates the uncertainty resulting from modeling 

21 assumptions and techniques. Such uncertainty associated 

22 with deep unidentified reductions raises concerns about the 

23 feasibility of meeting lower ozone standards.

24 Number four, the vast majority, about 75 percent 

25 of the reported total benefit of alternative ozone 
63

1 standards is actually associated with the PM2.5 co-benefit.

2 A simple benefit per ton of NOx reduction was set 

3 according to prior EPA analyses from last year based on 

4 older modeling projections for a different set of years. 

5 EPA acknowledges limitations with the approach such as 

6 ignoring nonlinear relationships between NOx and PM2.5. 

7 This effect is likely significant in areas expecting very 

8 deep cuts by 2025 in California, for example. EPA admits 

9 that uncertainty related to air quality projections cannot 

10 be quantified for this co-benefit. This presents a major 

11 weakness in the cost benefit analysis, which should be 

12 addressed with explicit PM2.5 modeling with the same 2025 

13 scenarios.

14 The RIA suggests that the approached estimate 

15 PM2.5 co-benefits reduces uncertainty, relative to more 

16 spatially-refined estimates, but provides no evidence or 

17 argument to support this statement. Elsewhere the RIA 

18 suggests that uncertainty increases when dollar pretend 

19 benefits are applied outside the specific scenario used in 

20 their derivation such as this case. Arguments about 

21 directionality are in conflict, demonstrating the need to 

22 improve confidence ranges for the PM2.5 co-benefit. Thank 

23 you for your time.

24 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

25 //
64

1 KATHLEEN KARLE

2 MS. KARLE: Hello. My name is Kathleen Karle, 

3 Kathleen with a K, Karle, K-A-R-L-E. I am the division 

4 manager for health promotion at the San Luis Obispo County 

5 Public Health Department, a county of about 275,000, 300 

6 miles south of Sacramento. 

7 In my work I manage programs, which promote the 

8 good health of our residents including tobacco control, 

9 obesity prevention, injury prevention, oral health, WIC and 

10 climate change messaging. I am also here today 

11 representing the nearly 3,000 local health departments 

12 across the nation that work every day to protect health. 

13 I'm an active member of the Climate Change Work Group of 

14 the National Association of County and City Health 

15 Officials. 

16 It took me about five hours to get here today, 

17 but I made the trip, because I thought it was an important 

18 issue to the health of people in my county. For example, 

19 on code orange and code red unhealthy ozone days vulnerable 

20 people like children and the elderly can be limited in 

21 their outdoor activities. And this can impact their health 

22 and well-being.

23 Currently, San Luis Obispo County is designated 

24 as nonattainment of the federal ozone standard in the 

25 eastern part of our county. The eastern part of our county 
65

1 is rural with no major developments, few people and little 

2 traffic on surrounding roads. Exceedences of the federal 

3 ozone standard in this area are due to transport of 

4 pollution from Californian metropolitan areas and the San 

5 Joaquin Valley. If air quality improves in these areas our 

6 air quality stands to improve as well.

7 Breathing ozone causes shortness of breath, 

8 wheezing, coughing and asthma attacks. It's also linked to 

9 numerous respiratory-related health concerns from increased 

10 risk of infections to more frequent emergency department 

11 visits and hospitalizations. 

12 Research has shown that concentrations of ozone 

13 above 60 parts per billion cause risk to many healthy 

14 adults as well. And most critically to vulnerable 

15 populations: children, seniors, people with asthma and 

16 other chronic heart and lung disease. Research also 

17 indicates that long-term ozone exposure may cause premature 

18 death. 

19 We are all well aware of the obesity epidemic in 

20 our country. In California, 60 percent of adults are 

21 either overweight or obese. The health educators I 

22 supervise in my division are continually educating our 

23 community about the importance of regular exercise and 

24 active transportation as a means to combat obesity. 

25 The content of the air we breathe, especially 
66

1 when we are exercising and exerting our body, is very 

2 important, because our air intake increases as much as 10 

3 to 20 times our level at rest. Ozone levels typically rise 

4 between May and October when higher temperatures increase 

5 sunlight and stagnate atmospheric conditions transform air 

6 pollutants into ozone. Rising temperatures from climate 

7 change will make it harder to reduce ozone, so it is very 

8 important that the standards set by the EPA be as strong as 

9 possible. 

10 I am here today to applaud the new ozone standard 

11 proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

12 current standard is out-of-date and is long overdue for 

13 revision. There's been evidence since at least 2008 that 

14 the current standard is not sufficient to protect the 

15 public's health. As a co-benefit updating the ozone 

16 standard will also improve protection for trees, plants, 

17 agriculture and ecosystems that are sensitive to ozone 

18 pollution. 

19 I stand with the public health and medical 

20 community in asking EPA to adopt the most protective 

21 standard recommended by independent doctors and scientists 

22 of 60 parts per billion. Strengthening the ozone standard 

23 will go a long way toward reducing pollution and improving 

24 the health of people in my county as well as across the 

25 nation. Thank you.
67

1 MR. PAGE: Thank you all for being here.

2 Mr. Jack Broadbent and Amy Mmagu.

3 Good morning, Jack. Mr. Broadbent, you're up 

4 first.

5 JACK BROADBENT

6 Mr. BROADBENT: Good morning. Again, my name is 

7 Jack Broadbent and I serve as the executive officer and air 

8 pollution control officer for the Bay Area Air Quality 

9 Management District. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

10 here this morning to speak to you at this important fact 

11 finding and, of course, ultimate decision by EPA.

12 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is 

13 the local air pollution control agency for the Greater San 

14 Francisco Bay Area. We are home to over 7 million, also 

15 with a wide variety of sources including 5 million vehicles 

16 and a diversity of stationary sources including over 100 

17 Title 5 sources.

18 In partnership with the EPA and the State of 

19 California we have made significant progress in reducing 

20 ozone concentrations over the last several decades. And 

21 this is actually in spite of the fact that we've had a 

22 significant growth over the last several decades and also a 

23 growth in terms of VMT, Vehicle Miles Traveled. That being 

24 said, we believe that -- and today we find ourselves with a 

25 design value of in the low 70s. So what we expect to see, 
68

1 of course, with a lower ozone standard is continuing 

2 nonattainment with regard to federal ozone standard.

3 That being said we believe, and strongly believe 

4 and support, EPA's action with regard to lowering the ozone 

5 standard. We believe that it makes sense to be able to 

6 establish this standard on the best science, which I know 

7 that's what is being proposed today. So with that being 

8 said we believe that it makes sense for EPA to move forward 

9 expeditiously and reestablish the standard. And that's 

10 what I'm here for today, to express our support.

11 So thank you very much and we continue to look 

12 forward with EPA and the State of California to be able to 

13 continue to make progress in reducing ozone concentrations 

14 in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, so thank you.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 MS. STONE: Excuse me, I have a question, so are 

17 you supporting the entire range?

18 MR. BROADBENT: We would not necessarily take a 

19 position to say it should be a specific number, but instead 

20 encourage EPA to be able to establish the standard based on 

21 the best science.

22 AMY MMAGU

23 MS. MMAGU: Good morning. Amy Mmagu, A-M-Y M-M24 A-G-U, here on behalf of the California Chamber of 

25 Commerce. Cal Chamber is the largest broad-based business 
69

1 organization in the state representing over 10,000 

2 businesses who are directly or indirectly affected by this 

3 regulation. 

4 I am here today to voice opposition to the EPA's 

5 proposal to lower the National Ambient Air Quality 

6 Standards, rather whether maintain where it is now. We do 

7 not believe the scientific evidence supports a lowering of 

8 the standard. EPA's existing ozone standard of 75 parts 

9 per billion through a series of significant control 

10 programs will continue to provide ample protection of 

11 public health not to mention there are numerous questions 

12 surrounding the science to justify a lower standard.

13 Air quality has significantly improved and 

14 continues to improve with new voluntary and regulatory 

15 programs in place. And there are others still being 

16 implemented in the coming years for the regulations will be 

17 implemented, therefore further reducing our air quality 

18 problems. 

19 Lowering the ozone standards will impede 

20 industries in the state and will strain the economy by 

21 putting much of California out of attainment. New 

22 facilities and expansion in nonattainment areas cannot 

23 precede until emissions are offset and offsets are not 

24 always available. Industries located in nonattainment 

25 areas face increased operating costs, permitting delays, 
70

1 and restrictions on building or expanding. 

2 The current ozone standard is the most stringent 

3 and has not been fully implemented across the United 

4 States. We feel that EPA should focus on implementing the 

5 current standard and helping industries reach attainment of 

6 this standard before considering a lower standard. 

7 We appreciate your time and consideration. Thank 

8 you.

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

10 Okay, great. Mr. Slover, Jimmy Slover, and Ann 

11 Rothschild are our next speakers.

12 Mr. SLOVER: I'm a gentleman and I'll let you go 

13 first.

14 ANN ROTHSCHILD

15 MS. ROTHSCHILD: Hello. My name is Ann 

16 Rothschild, R-O-T-H-S-C-H-I-L-D. I'm a mother and a 

17 grandmother and a teacher and a member of a church 

18 environmental group from Trinity Episcopal Cathedral here 

19 in Sacramento. 

20 And I would like to add my voice to speak for the 

21 faith community and ask that you hold to the 60 parts per 

22 billion recommended by scientists and health professionals. 

23 We have the technology, it's not hard to do. And I think 

24 you for your work. You are our protectors and thank you 

25 for this opportunity.
71

1 Children, of course, as you have heard are the 

2 most vulnerable to air pollution and apparently asthma is 

3 the number on health issue that causes missed school days. 

4 How appalling that some children cannot play outside, 

5 because of bad air. Moving the standard to 60 parts per 

6 billion would prevent approximately 1.8 million asthma 

7 attacks, 1.9 million missed school days, and 6,400 

8 premature deaths every year. And that's according to your 

9 own reports.

10 Smog also disproportionately affects communities 

11 of color. African Americans are more likely to live in 

12 counties with worse smog pollution. They have nearly two

13 times the rates of current asthma than white children and

14 are four times as likely to die from it. This is 

15 appalling. There is no excuse. I believe we cannot allow 

16 this kind of health disparity to exist. We must act with 

17 justice in mind and not let such persons of discrimination 

18 exist. 

19 We must act for those who are underrepresented: 

20 the poor, the children, the asthmatics and the diverse 

21 populations among us. Our shared earth and the air we 

22 breathe is a sacred responsibility and I believe we must 

23 care for all that has been entrusted to us. I urge the EPA 

24 to adopt the standard for ozone recommended by our health 

25 professionals, no more than 60 parts per billion.
72

1 If a standard does not protect the most 

2 vulnerable amongst us, the children, the elderly and those 

3 with asthma then it's not strong enough. And I understand 

4 that oil and gas companies and the fracking industry are 

5 exempt from critical statutes in the Safe Drinking Water 

6 Act and the Clean Air Act. Is that still the case? If it 

7 is this unconscionable. These industries are the precise 

8 ones that should be held most accountable. I urge you to 

9 close all loopholes for large polluting industries. Thank 

10 you, so much.

11 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

12 Mr. Slover?

13 JIMMY SLOVER

14 MR. SLOVER: Good morning. My name is Jimmy 

15 Slover. Excuse for my voice, but I have severe COPD, stage 

16 4 emphysema, so I don't get to dictate how I feel. It just 

17 comes when it comes. 

18 I'm here this morning to try to get my message 

19 out there for not just me, but the millions like me who are 

20 suffering daily from our ozone. We are right now -- most 

21 people don't know this -- but we are right now on day 33 of 

22 bad air days in Sacramento County. Not good, by anyone's 

23 standards, just not good. 

24 I cannot speak you for someone else, but I can 

25 tell you here and now this morning that the ozone affects 
73

1 me daily. I have to get up every morning and I have to go 

2 through a routine to where I have to punch up what the air 

3 is going to be today, what the pollen's going to be today, 

4 before I can even step one foot out the door. I spend more 

5 time inside than I do outside, not fair. Not fair to me or 

6 to the millions that are suffering like me, so we so need 

7 your help. We really need it to be 60 parts per billion. 

8 I'm going on year 15. I truly believe with your help I can 

9 see another 15 years just by being able to breathe cleaner 

10 air.

11 I like the most here that said this morning about 

12 their kids. I have grandkids that have to breathe the 

13 dirty air as well and it's just not healthy for them. Now, 

14 they've got asthma problems and they're on a machine just 

15 like I am daily. And that's just not fair for a baby to be 

16 in the same capacity that I am. So we really need to see 

17 60 million or 60 parts per million. (sic) 

18 Many people do not realize the warming 

19 temperatures caused by pollution are increasing pollen 

20 levels and ozone can actually exacerbate allergic 

21 conditions just like high pollen levels can. It's not fair 

22 that I have to spend, again, more days inside than out. 

23 In closing, I would just like to say that I have 

24 made it 15 years with this disease and with the help of you 

25 guys and mankind I'll get to see another 15 hopefully. 
74

1 Thank you.

2 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much for coming today.

3 Mr. Gibbe Parsons and Karina Silvas-Bellanca. 

4 Mr. Parsons, you're first up.

5 GIBBE PARSONS

6 MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name 

7 is Gibbe Parsons. I'm a pulmonary critical care physician 

8 and a professor emeritus at UC Davis Health System. I've 

9 been at UC Davis 44 years, volunteered for American Lung 

10 Association and I'm a member of ATA, American Thoracic 

11 Society, which I represent here. This is 15,000 

12 professionals that treat pulmonary disease. And I'm a 

13 delegate to the AMA House of Delegates representing 

14 American Thoracic Society.

15 So I have statements I will leave here, but we 

16 all know ozone is a potent oxidant that damages airways and 

17 lungs, especially in asthmatics, young children and other 

18 susceptible populations. And the most recent standard for 

19 ozone in an 8-hour level of 75 parts per billion was last 

20 revised in 2007-2008. 

21 And the main comment is that during those years 

22 science has progressed and there's new information that 

23 needs to be reviewed, that would in our view, support the 

24 60 parts per billion.

25 Pediatric asthma emergency department visits, 
75

1 there's a long-term study of air pollution and health 

2 effects ongoing in Atlanta, Georgia since 1993 that 

3 monitors daily ozone and other pollutants and takes daily 

4 counts of emergency department visits for asthma and 

5 wheezing among children ages 5 through 17. Increased ED 

6 visits occurred with warm season ozone levels of 55 parts 

7 per billion and during cold seasons of 34 parts per 

8 billion; levels well below the current standard of 75. 

9 A newer review of these data showed that children 

10 born preterm and children born to African-American mothers 

11 had an especially high rate of visits for asthma and 

12 wheeze.

13 Data from the 17-year Atlanta study also shows 

14 that preschool children ages 0 to 4 had increased 

15 susceptibility for pneumonia with increasing levels of 

16 ozone. For each 30 parts per billion increase in the 

17 three-day average for ozone there was an 8 percent higher 

18 risk of pneumonia. 

19 The San Joaquin Valley in California ranks very 

20 high in the terms of bad air quality. And its residents 

21 report some of the highest rates of asthma and asthma22 related ED visits and hospitalizations in California. This 

23 clearly is a pressing issue for California.

24 Even in normal adults ozone exposure causes 

25 measurable changes. And a study done at UC Davis enrolled 
76

1 31 adult healthy volunteers to spend 6.6 hours in a chamber 

2 in which they either breathed clean air or ozone at 60, 70, 

3 80 or 87 parts per billion. I'm not sure why you would 

4 choose to do that, but they then performed a forced 

5 expiratory volume in one second, which is a pulmonary 

6 function test. And they compared that to the FEV one after 

7 exposure to clean air and there was a measurable decline in 

8 the volume of air exhaled in one second at 70 parts per 

9 billion ozone or above for 6.6 hours. And this is in 

10 normal, non-sick, non-asthmatic adults. 

11 So the review of the ozone standard is entirely 

12 appropriate at this time as there's been substantial new 

13 scientific data published since 2007 when this was reviewed 

14 that led to this 75 parts per billion standard. 

15 In some, there's evidence that ozone pollution at 

16 levels permitted by the current standard is damaging to 

17 human lung and contributes to disease. And we strongly 

18 encourage the EPA and the Administration to move forward 

19 with a strong standard of 60 parts per billion to protect 

20 our nation's health from the known health effects of ozone. 

21 Thank you.

22 MR. PAGE: Thank you, Dr. Parsons.

23 MS. STONE: Dr. Parsons, would you ensure that we 

24 have all of the background information that you're 

25 referring to?
77

1 Mr. PARSONS: Right.

2 MS. STONE: Thank you, so much.

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. Karina?

4 KARINA SILVAS-BELLANCA

5 MS. SILVAS-BELLANCA: Karina Silvas-Bellanca and 

6 that's K-A-R-I-N-A, last name, S-I-L-V-A-S-B-E-L-L-A-N-C-A. 

7 Hi, and thank you for having us today, so I'm 

8 Karina Silvas-Bellanca again. I'm here representing Sierra 

9 Forest Legacy. We're an environmental conservation group 

10 that promote protecting conservation values for wildlife 

11 species and the resiliency of our ecosystems. 

12 I'm also here today to represent the Southern 

13 Sierra Prescribed Fire Council where we use fire to 

14 maintain landscapes for longevity of forest ecosystems, 

15 both for the forest animals as well as for people to use in 

16 the future. So more stringent ground ozone standards as 

17 proposed, will dramatically increase the areas in the U.S. 

18 that fail to meet the standards. 

19 In California, as well as other states, there are 

20 many ecosystems that are fire dependent where it may become 

21 difficult to use fire under the changes that are proposed. 

22 Fire is used to maintain fuel loading, plant and wildlife 

23 habitat quality, sustain the forest and rangeland 

24 resources, as well as provide for increased safety for 

25 human and health. 
78

1 An increase in these standards from 75 parts per 

2 billion to 70 parts per billion would result in a doubling 

3 of federal and nonfederal acres that would be in 

4 nonattainment nationally. That's 140 million acres 

5 currently that are in nonattainment and that would increase 

6 to 280 million acres. 

7 In California that would be nearly two-thirds of 

8 the state that would fall under nonattainment if the EPA 

9 determines that 60 parts per billion would be the new 

10 standard.

11 Many of the nonattainment areas will be in the 

12 Sierra Nevada range, the Coastal range, as well as the 

13 Klamath regions of California, which are fire dependent. 

14 And these standards could lead to control strategies at the 

15 state that would make it more difficult to use fire to 

16 decrease the susceptibility of high-intensity wildfires.

17 These uncharacteristic wildfires produce long duration and 

18 widespread smoke events that have widespread negative 

19 impacts on the communities, both from a health perspective 

20 as well as an economic impact as well. 

21 Prescribed fire activities are vital to maintain 

22 are vital to maintain and enhance the resiliency of these 

23 ecosystems and to prevent the long duration severe impacts 

24 of wildfires. The proposed rule -- in the proposed rule 

25 EPA acknowledges the complex interrelationship of 
79

1 wildfires, prescribed fires and fuels, but there is no 

2 specific language to ensure prescribed fire activities will 

3 be treated differently than any other contributing 

4 industrial source in nonattainment areas. 

5 Wildfire is noted as a natural background 

6 condition, but no clear statements have been made to 

7 outline how prescribed fire and fire-adapted ecosystems fit 

8 into the natural background. This is concerning, because 

9 California is in a fire deficit and we're in a fire deficit 

10 of good fire; fire that promotes ecosystem resilience to 

11 stressors such as climate change and uncharacteristic 

12 wildfires. 

13 The EPA does not address the current changes in 

14 climate trends and increasing wildfires; although they do 

15 point out that the trends could result in more stringent 

16 requirements to meet programs towards nonattainment. 

17 We urge the EPA to take a closer look at these 

18 standards, these trends and relationships, and smoke events 

19 that are produced by large and uncharacteristic wildfires,

20 such as the Rim Fire of last year or the King Fire, versus 

21 short-duration impacts from prescribed fire activities. 

22 And the cost benefits that those will have for the 

23 ecosystems and for people.

24 Additionally, the proposal outlines the 

25 exceptional event policy and this is a risky strategy to 
80

1 rely on, because the cost of monitoring is currently high 

2 and it's not user-friendly. So we would like to see the 

3 policies, you know, clearly consider how natural fire plays 

4 a role in our ecosystems and how fuels accumulations will 

5 be considered in fire-dependent ecosystems for California 

6 and nationally. Thank you.

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you all both, for coming today.

8 Mr. Eric Moore and John Friedrich.

9 MR. PAGE: Welcome to both of you, thank you for 

10 coming. Mr. Moore, you're first up.

11 ERIC MOORE

12 MR. MOORE: Hello. My name is Eric Moore, E-R-I13 C M-O-O-R-E. I'm here today for the Central Coast 

14 Prescribed Fire Council. I'm also an asthmatic with a 

15 heart condition.

16 And I wanted to start out with just a little 

17 history. The earliest Europeans to come to California, 

18 such as Juan Crespi, one of the original missionary 

19 fathers, recorded large amounts of fire on our landscape.

20 Scientific studies show that before the arrival of the 

21 Europeans, an average of 10 percent of California burned 

22 every year. The majority of these fires were set by 

23 humans, who've been doing this since the end of the last 

24 Ice Age. 

25 These frequent fires created a fire-dependent 
81

1 ecology in California. Many plants such as the fire poppy 

2 and the California lilac, and the animals that feed upon 

3 them, only thrive after fires. Many of California’s rare 

4 and endangered species need fire to survive. These species 

5 started going into decline as modern fire suppression 

6 policies were introduced. Both of California’s famous 

7 redwood species are pyrophytes whose seeds germinate best 

8 after a fire. 

9 Modern fire suppression’s legacy is that 

10 California currently has the largest fuel load it's had in

11 the last 12 thousand years. Firefighting agencies are 

12 increasingly unable to suppress large fires due to this 

13 legacy fuel load. If we don't get rid of it we're just 

14 going to get worse, bigger fires. It's demonstrated by the 

15 current mega-fires such as the Rim Fire and the massive 

16 impacts these things have on air quality.

17 These fires can also sterilize large tracts of 

18 land and eradicate endangered plants and animal populations

19 there.

20 The only practical way to restore fire to the 

21 ecosystem and enhance the survivability of these endangered 

22 plants and animals is through the use of controlled burns.

23 Anything else involves massive quantities of diesel. It's 

24 also the most effective. Controlled burns are also the 

25 only way that catastrophic air quality impacts from mega-
82

1 fires can be mitigated. For these reasons, controlled 

2 burns need to be considered as part of the natural 

3 background levels in this regulation.

4 Should the EPA choose not to do so, the agency 

5 must accept the liability and responsibility for forcing 

6 many of California’s rare and endangered species closer to 

7 extinction.

8 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

9 JOHN FRIEDRICH

10 MR. FRIEDRICH: Hello. I am John Friedrich with 

11 Climate Parents, a group of parents and grandparents 

12 working for a healthy climate for our children and 

13 grandchildren. And I'm one of those parents with an eight14 year-old daughter who motivates my work.

15 We support the EPA's initiative to set stronger, 

16 clean air protections against ground-level ozone pollution 

17 or smog. However, we urge the EPA to go further than 

18 proposed to adequately protect the most vulnerable 

19 breathers. 

20 Former Senator Hubert Humphrey once said that, 

21 "The moral test of government is how that government treats 

22 those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who 

23 are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are 

24 in shadows of life, the sick, the disabled." This moral 

25 test clearly applies to the standard for smog, which causes 
83

1 the most harm to children, the elderly and those with 

2 respiratory diseases. So it's crucial that EPA set a 

3 standard that is sufficient to protect these most at-risk 

4 groups.

5 EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

6 provides clear guidance on the smog limit needed to protect 

7 our children, grandparents and others most at-risk to 

8 respiratory illnesses. The Committee noted that children 

9 are especially at-risk to ozone pollution. School-age 

10 children spend an increased amount of time outdoors in high 

11 levels of activity, which increases air intake.

12 In a letter sent to EPA on June 26, 2014 the 

13 Clean Air scientists advised EPA to set the level of the 

14 standard lower than 70 parts per billion. The Committee 

15 said that based on the scientific evidence, a level of 70 

16 parts per billion provides little margin of safety for the 

17 protection of public health, particularly for sensitive 

18 subpopulations. In other words, the upper end of EPA's 

19 proposed range will not protect kids from the pollutants 

20 fueling asthma and other devastating diseases. 

21 The Committee concluded that 60 parts per billion 

22 would certainly offer more public health protection than 

23 levels of 70 or 65 parts per billion, and would provide an 

24 adequate margin of safety. The Committee said that the 

25 frequency of lung ailments and premature mortality from 
84

1 short-term exposure to ozone decreases when the standard is 

2 lowered to 60 parts per billion. There is scientific 

3 support that 60 parts per billion is an appropriate 

4 exposure of concern for asthmatic children. Translated, 60 

5 parts per billion means fewer children suffer, fewer 

6 children die, and it's the right thing to do.

7 So we urge EPA to take the advice of its 

8 Scientific Advisory Committee and set the smog standard at 

9 a level that puts our children first. Establishing a lower 

10 limit for ground-level ozone will compliment EPA's proposed 

11 Clean Power Plan, which for the first time will set limits 

12 on power plant pollution that is both harming lungs and 

13 driving climate change. 

14 A lower limit on smog will incentive clean energy 

15 policies and practices that we need right now to avoid 

16 catastrophic climate change. A tough limit on smog is not 

17 a burdensome regulation, it is an important market signal 

18 to continue moving from dirty to clean energy, from choking 

19 skies to a clear new dawn of possibilities. 

20 Given the stakes for our children and 

21 grandchildren with the health of their planet and 

22 themselves this is not a time for meek measures. So 

23 therefore we urge EPA to do the right thing for our 

24 children, communities and climate by setting the new 

25 standard for smog at 60 parts per billion or lower. Thank 
85

1 you, very much.

2 MR. PAGE: Thank you both, for coming today.

3 Our next speakers are Reverend Will Scott and 

4 Victoria Chu.

5 REVEREND WILL SCOTT

6 REVEREND SCOTT: Hi. My name is Will Scott. I'm 

7 the program director for California Interfaith Power and 

8 Light.

9 The world’s religious traditions all speak of the 

10 air we breathe as sacred. Yet our actions have not always 

11 honored this gift, and industrial air pollution creates 

12 serious health consequences for too many of our 

13 communities. Our most vulnerable members -- children, the 

14 elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such 

15 as asthma -- are most endangered, and lives are lost 

16 unnecessarily every year. 

17 California Interfaith Power and Light, and our

18 640-member congregations across the state, believe we have 

19 a moral responsibility to advocate for our neighbors and 

20 our children’s future. If we love our neighbor, we won’t 

21 pollute our neighbor’s air and will strive to improve the 

22 quality of life for all people. 

23 We urge the EPA to adopt the standard for ozone 

24 recommended by health professionals -- no more than 60 

25 parts per billion. If a standard does not protect the most 
86

1 vulnerable among us –- children, the elderly, and those 

2 with asthma –- then it’s not strong enough.”

3 As a minister, my colleagues and I hear stories 

4 every day of families struggling with the consequences of 

5 poor air quality whether it’s asthma or emphysema. We see 

6 children and grandchildren, parents and grandparents 

7 hurting just to take a breath. We have a responsibility to 

8 work together for the common good, to ensure that those 

9 whose job it is to protect public and environmental health 

10 are supported in their efforts. 

11 Today, I stand here in the names of those in my 

12 life for whom breathing is difficult: Betty Sue, Eva, Burt, 

13 Sam. Please remember them, remember us as you undertake 

14 the sacred work of protecting our air. Thank you.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 VICTORIA CHU

17 Good morning. My name is Victoria Chu, C-H-U, 

18 and I work as an energy analyst at the Sierra Club in 

19 Washington D.C. 

20 Thank you for the opportunity to share my 

21 testimony today. I am here in support of a strong ozone 

22 NAAQS of 60 parts per billion consistent with the standard 

23 of protecting public health. My statement today takes a 

24 dual approach -- understanding the deeply emotional 

25 connection I have with this issue locally and expanding it 
87

1 to the scale across my own understanding and expertise. 

2 As a 23-year-old Vietnamese American I have the 

3 opportunity to view my world with a dual lens. 

4 In the aftermath of the Vietnam War my parents 

5 escaped their homeland from the violence that devastated 

6 their country. For years they endured refugee camps and 

7 reeducation camps before finally being sponsored to the 

8 United States. Their goal in combating these great odds 

9 was to ensure that when they started their family it would 

10 be under conditions that offered the greatest opportunities 

11 and freedom. They came here to breathe the free air. 

12 My dad worked tirelessly as a gardener to provide 

13 the best education and opportunity for his three daughters. 

14 In his work he gave me the greatest gift that I will ever 

15 treasure and that is the direct connection of my identity 

16 with the earth. In losing him to respiratory illness a 

17 week before his 50th birthday I came to appreciate the 

18 spirit behind this movement, providing safeguards for 

19 people in all walks of life, for stronger standards to 

20 protect our planet. 

21 I sit here today as one of three daughters who 

22 have been blessed to learn from a truly great man. Our 

23 greatest lessons were to live a life of conviction, 

24 strength and to fight for what we have in this life. I am 

25 here, fighting for clean air.
88

1 With my dual lens I have a keen understanding of 

2 the disproportionate impacts that smog pollution has on 

3 communities of color, and impoverished communities across 

4 this nation. I know it too well. As a native Californian 

5 born and raised 20 miles north of downtown, and graduate of 

6 the University of Southern California I am no stranger to 

7 the effects of ozone pollution. As a student of

8 Paleoclimatology and Environmental Science I not only knew 

9 this pollution in the deep sense that touched the edges of 

10 our campus, but in the loss of my greatest inspiration.

11 The duality of already persistent ozone pollution 

12 coupled with global climate change has a lasting 

13 synergistic effect on our economy, environment and 

14 communities. As temperatures increase across the globe 

15 days conducive to ozone formation will be more frequent. 

16 And since the U.S. has already increased an average of 1.3 

17 to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century due to 

18 anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and heat-trapping gases our 

19 futures in our ability to mitigate and reduce future 

20 emissions to stop a feedback loop between warming 

21 temperatures and ground-level ozone.

22 The benefit of acting now is that both ozone 

23 pollution and climate change are fundamentally linked by 

24 our actions to use dirty fossil fuels to generate 

25 electricity. Let us address both issues by investing in 
89

1 more fuel-efficient cars, using more renewable energy 

2 sources like wind and solar, and revolutionize our own 

3 ability to breathe clean air.

4 I compel the EPA to seize the opportunity today 

5 to lower the precursor pollutants leading to ground-level 

6 ozone, so that health impacts do not escalate further. The 

7 choices we make today about the way we live, the energy we 

8 use, and the pollution we emit impact the health and well9 being of the future. The benefits of pushing for the 

10 strongest ozone standard will be a win for climate, air 

11 quality, public health and economy. Thank you. 

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you both for your comments.

13 Our next speakers are Susan Stephenson and Mike 

14 Monasky. Ms. Stephenson, you're first up.

15 SUSAN STEPHENSON

16 Good morning. My name is Susan Stephenson and 

17 I'm representing Interfaith Power and Light. You've heard 

18 from some of my colleagues already today and also at the 

19 other hearings in other parts of the country. 

20 I appreciate you holding this hearing on these 

21 important ozone standards. Reducing ozone pollution, which 

22 is the main ingredient in smog, will improve the health of 

23 people across the country. The proposed stronger 

24 regulations would especially help children who are at 

25 greatest risk from air pollution. In addition, studies 
90

1 have shown that smog pollution disproportionately affects 

2 communities of color.

3 These regulations were last updated in 2008. 

4 That year, the Bush Administration rejected the 

5 recommendations of expert scientists and medical health 

6 professionals, who warned that the now current 75 parts per 

7 billion standard was insufficient to protect public health.

8 In November 2014, EPA proposed lowering the 

9 standard to somewhere in the range of 65 to 70 parts per 

10 billion, while also accepting comment on 60 parts per 

11 billion. We're here to comment today in support of 60 

12 parts per billion. We believe the body of peer-reviewed 

13 science makes clear that to adequately protect public 

14 health the smog standard should be set no higher than 60 

15 parts per billion. 

16 Interfaith Power and Light works with 15,000 

17 faith communities around the country reaching 5 million 

18 people of faith. We advocate for a safe climate and a 

19 clean energy future. Our members are diverse in faith, but 

20 all bound together by our shared religious mandate to care 

21 for the gift of Creation and to love and protect the most 

22 vulnerable members of our society. 

23 We feel we have a moral duty to advocate for 

24 those who are in need, those unable to advocate for 

25 themselves. While these hearings are appreciated, they are 
91

1 being held only in three cities around the country and only 

2 for one day each. That leaves many millions of people 

3 without any opportunity to testify before you. 

4 Even those who live nearby may need to be at work 

5 or school or may be ill or unable to attend. But although 

6 they may be underrepresented in this hearing today, we know 

7 that children, the elderly, and those with asthma or 

8 respiratory illness are over-represented as sufferers of 

9 ozone pollution. 

10 So that's why I'd like to urge you to adopt an 

11 ozone standard no greater than 60 parts per billion. If we 

12 reduce the standard to 60 parts per billion we can save 

13 almost 7,000 lives and prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks 

14 and prevent 1.9 million missed school days.

15 We know that children are at the greatest health 

16 risk from air pollution. Asthma strikes nearly one out of 

17 every ten school children in the United States and is the 

18 number one issue causing kids to miss school.

19 Smog also disproportionately affects communities 

20 of color. African Americans are more likely to live in 

21 counties with worse smog pollution, have nearly two times 

22 the rates of current asthma than white children, and are 

23 four times as likely to die from it. We cannot allow this 

24 kind of disparity to continue.

25 I urge the EPA to adopt the standard for ozone 
92

1 recommended by health professionals —- 60 parts per 

2 billion. If a standard does not protect the most 

3 vulnerable among us –- children, the elderly, and those 

4 with asthma –- then I believe it’s not strong enough. And 

5 I urge you to use that test as you set the new standards. 

6 Thank you. 

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

8 MICHAEL MONASKY

9 MR. MONASKY: Good morning. My name is Michael 

10 Monasky and I'm here to give testimony on the proposed --

11 MR. PAGE: Spell that last name, please?

12 MR. MONASKY: It's spelled M-O-N-A-S-K-Y. I'm 

13 here to speak on the proposed changes to human ozone 

14 exposure standards as proposed by the U.S. EPA.

15 Low-level ozone, a highly active molecule with 

16 three oxygen atoms, is created when the sun energizes 

17 manmade smog in the atmosphere. It inflames and excoriates 

18 the tiny air sacs of the lung, decreases the volume of air 

19 we can take into our lungs, and worsens asthma and chronic 

20 lung disease. Excess ozone at ground level harms 

21 susceptible human populations of infants, elderly, those 

22 with compromised immune systems and those persons with 

23 fragile cardiopulmonary systems.

24 According to U.S. OSHA standards -- and that's of 

25 course Occupational Safety and Health -- the output of 
93

1 ozone generators otherwise used to disinfect water is 

2 limited to 50 parts per billion. Measured ozone in the 

3 Central Valley of California frequently exceeds the U.S. 

4 EPA limits set at 80. If that's the case why should the 

5 general atmosphere be allowed to exceed 50 parts per 

6 billion? Shouldn't we be advocating a 50 parts per billion 

7 exposure level instead 60, 75, or 80 parts per billion? 

8 And as we heard from Dr. Gibbe Parsons, a pulmonologist 

9 here at UC Davis, that in cold weather 34 parts per billion 

10 actually caused a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 

11 one second. 

12 Excessive ground-level ozone interferes with 

13 physical activities of healthy persons who exert themselves 

14 at work and play. Physical exertion and the presence of 

15 ozone poses a three-fold risk of asthma, decreased lung 

16 capacity and lung disease in otherwise healthy persons. 

17 A lower ozone exposure level will lead to better 

18 overall public health outcomes with fewer episodes of 

19 exertional and episodic asthma, as we heard of happening to 

20 young, otherwise healthy children during exercise; less 

21 exacerbation of chronic lung disease in afflicted 

22 individuals; and fewer cases of chronic intrinsic asthma, 

23 which is what we really should be concerned about in the 

24 long run. Less ground-level ozone will lead to cost 

25 savings due to less expenditure of public funds for 
94

1 otherwise preventable lung disease. 

2 Ozone seems to be part of the business plan. 

3 Central Valley has been called the salad bowl of the 

4 nation. There are physical and monetary costs to those who 

5 become afflicted with lung disease due to excessive ground6 level ozone exposures. Those costs are external to 

7 commercial businesses that grow plants in the Central 

8 Valley, which are then sold throughout the nation. There's 

9 a web of deleterious effects between individuated 

10 transportation systems of cars, trucks propelled by 

11 internal combustion engines, highways engineered to support 

12 sprawling communities in the suburbs. 

13 Food from the salad bowl of California trucked an 

14 average 1,500 miles, served on plates throughout this 

15 nation and the world, disappearing glaciers in our national 

16 parks, disrupted weather patterns of drought and flood that 

17 breech and exceed all known meteorlogic records. 

18 A consumer society drunken with the gluttony of 

19 faster and bigger vehicles fed by the availability of 

20 progressively cheaper fossil fuels through what I consider 

21 the obscene gesture called fracking. The government tends 

22 to stand by the very businesses that guarantee economic 

23 growth and financial resources at any cost. 

24 I applaud the agency in its efforts to reduce the 

25 adverse effects of air pollutants upon our people and 
95

1 planet by applying more stringent enforcement regulation of 

2 smog and ozone production. And I did give testimony three 

3 years ago on soot and there have been more stringent 

4 standards applied since then.

5 And I'd like to close -- well not close, but 

6 further state the social justice role in the faith 

7 community in mitigating global warming and other 

8 externalities. We live in a worrisome world where today's 

9 children deserve better than floods, droughts, maelstroms 

10 and economic mayhem. They deserve clear skies, clean 

11 water, nutritious food. Smog is an old curse and now an 

12 unfunny joke played upon the unsuspecting and the 

13 unprepared.

14 There are no sharp lines delineating our water, 

15 air and soil. Carbon dioxide warms our atmosphere and 

16 acidifies our oceans in the water cycle, which replenishes 

17 our soil and aquifers. Ozone is essential to the 

18 atmosphere, but intensely destructive of life at the 

19 surface of the earth. Our pollution has caught up with us 

20 and we are embattled in retreat. We must act now, not on 

21 behalf of future generations, but on behalf of our own 

22 children today. 

23 Human ozone exposure is an alarming problem, but 

24 planetary warming has already taken hold as the ice pack of 

25 Greenland and the western ice shelf of Antarctica melt low 
96

1 lying coastal and inland regions will drown under water 

2 including Bangladesh, the Netherlands, Long Island and 

3 Manhattan, New York, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, New 

4 Orleans, the list long and indiscriminate. I am discussing 

5 these and other issues of great interest and effect with my 

6 local faith community and I'm encouraged by the Interfaith 

7 Power and Light endeavors.

8 Right now we're actually reading "The Collapse of 

9 Western Civilization," which is a rather interesting tome 

10 on -- it's a science fiction tome on what happens in the 

11 next hundred years or within the next hundred years. And 

12 our next book after that will be Naomi Klein's "This 

13 Changes Everything," of course on bestseller lists.

14 I'm encouraging them to submit that my fellow 

15 folks in faith -- to submit their concerns and remarks to 

16 this agency before the March 2015 deadline as they become 

17 more informed about how various chemical byproducts of 

18 carbon combustion including ozone affect our atmosphere, 

19 our climate, our flora and fauna and human health and 

20 safety. 

21 There is still much more to be said and done 

22 regarding economic and externalities, the unaccounted for 

23 costs of doing business as usual that have been mentioned 

24 before by other witnesses, and our carbon combustion 

25 society. 
97

1 The foulest outcome afflict the poorest among us, 

2 communities of color suffer most, the cost of treatment for 

3 asthma and other lung diseases is not included in the price 

4 of commodities such as petroleum fuels and agricultural 

5 produce. Blacks and Hispanics have two-to-three-fold 

6 incidents of lung disease compared to white population and 

7 that's because they tend to live under great stress in 

8 areas with high pollution and low access to health care 

9 resources.

10 MR. PAGE: Sir, I'm sorry, your time is up.

11 MR. MONASKY: Okay. I'll leave the remainder 

12 with -- but I think we've run out of time.

13 MR. PAGE: Yeah, great.

14 MR. MONASKY: Frankly, not only have I run out of 

15 time, my last comment was we are out of time. Thank you.

16 MR. PAGE: If you'll leave your full statement 

17 with us we'll make sure we get it.

18 MR. MONASKY: Yes, Okay. Thank you.

19 MR. PAGE: Okay. Very good, thank you. Thank 

20 you very much for coming today.

21 Our next speakers are Mr. Robert Boughton and 

22 Lindsay Stovall. Mr. Robert Boughton, I think?

23 Mr. Boughton is not here. Ms. Stovall, why don't 

24 you go ahead?

25 MS. STOVALL: Okay. 
98

1 MR. PAGE: All right.

2 LINDSAY STOVALL

3 MS. STOVALL: Good morning. My name is Lindsay 

4 Stovall and I'm with the American Chemistry Council. We 

5 represent the leading companies engaged in the business of 

6 chemistry. We apply the science of chemistry to create 

7 products and services that make people's lives better, 

8 healthier and safer.

9 The U.S. chemical industry is a key element of 

10 the economy providing hundreds of thousands of skilled, 

11 good-paying jobs across the country, and is a leader in 

12 exports and investments in research and development. ACC13 member companies make a wide range of solutions such as 

14 plastics and insulation products, which help save energy in 

15 vehicles, homes and businesses. The energy savings result 

16 in lower emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone 

17 precursors. 

18 I am here to voice our opposition to EPA's 

19 proposal to lower the ozone standard. ACC believes in 

20 appropriately peer-reviewed sound science. We do not 

21 believe the scientific evidence supports a lowering of the 

22 standard. EPA's existing ozone standard of 75 parts per 

23 billion will continue to provide ample protection of public 

24 health. 

25 Moreover, there are numerous questions about the 
99

1 science being used to justify a lower standard. Some 

2 recent health studies contain inconsistent or conflicting 

3 findings while others are re-analyses of previous studies 

4 that rely on outdated information. As per EPA the nation's 

5 air quality has significantly improved and continues to 

6 improve. Voluntary and regulatory emission reduction 

7 programs including cleaner fuel and utility regulations 

8 will continue to yield benefits for decades to come.

9 ACC members understand and value the importance 

10 of clean air. And we support protecting public health in 

11 the environment. Our commitment is reflected in our 

12 significant and continued progress in reducing emissions 

13 due to a combination of voluntary member company 

14 initiatives such as responsible care and regulatory 

15 requirements. A lower ozone standard could impede 

16 manufacturing growth in many areas of the country. EPA's 

17 proposal to lower the ozone standard would result in much 

18 of the U.S. being unable to meet a lower standard.

19 Currently, 222 counties covering a population of 

20 over 120 million people are classified in non-attainment 

21 with the 75 parts per billion standard. If EPA revises the 

22 standard to the lower end of the proposed range, we 

23 estimate that more than 2,000 counties -- both urban and 

24 rural -- would be in nonattainment based on modeling and 

25 current monitoring data. 
100

1 Nonattainment is not a new concept to much of 

2 California. Southern California counties have the highest 

3 measure concentrations of ozone in the U.S. Many areas in 

4 the South Coast Air Quality Management District as well as 

5 Fresno and Sacramento all have 2011 to 2013 design values 

6 greater than 90 parts per billion. None of these areas are 

7 projected to attain the current ozone standard in the near 

8 future, let alone meet a lower ozone standard. 

9 Indeed, EPA is well aware of this. When EPA 

10 announced this proposal it also noted that EPA has analyzed 

11 costs and benefits for California separately, because a 

12 number of California counties would likely have attainment 

13 dates ranging from 2031 to late 2037 based on current ozone 

14 levels.

15 Furthermore, EPA acknowledged the need to work 

16 with California as it continues to explore regulatory

17 strategies and technologies to reduce pollution and improve 

18 public health protection. California has faced a uniquely 

19 difficult attainment task due to the combination of adverse 

20 meteorology and topography, population growth and the 

21 pollution burden associated with mobile sources.

22 Communities designated as nonattainment have a 

23 hard time attracting and retaining industry and sustaining 

24 economic activity and growth. Manufacturing growth could 

25 slow or stop in states that find themselves in 
101

1 nonattainment as industry located in nonattainment face 

2 increased operating costs, permitting delays, and 

3 restrictions on building or expanding facilities. New 

4 facilities and expansions in nonattainment areas cannot 

5 proceed until emissions are offset. Offsets are not always 

6 readily available and increase in price as they become 

7 scarce. 

8 Offset prices in Southern California 

9 nonattainment areas are approaching 125,000 per ton of NOx. 

10 Facilities located in counties designated as in severe or 

11 extreme nonattainment will face significant Section 185 

12 fees for emissions in their area even though many of these 

13 facilities have already spent many millions of dollars or 

14 emission reduction technologies. From 2010 to 2013 the San 

15 Joaquin Valley residents and businesses were subject to a 

16 29 million per year penalty under Section 185. Similarly, 

17 the South Coast Air Quality Management District has been 

18 required to collect fees under Section 185 since 2010.

19 In conclusion, the current ozone standard of 75 

20 parts per billion is the most stringent ever and has not 

21 yet fully been implemented across the U.S. particularly 

22 for California, EPA and states should focus on fully 

23 implementing and attaining the existing standard before 

24 contemplating a lower standard -- an approach that will 

25 continue to provide necessary health protection.
102

1 As the science develops further EPA will have the 

2 opportunity to determine whether any additional actions 

3 might be warranted in the future. Thank you, very much for 

4 your time.

5 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

6 Has Mr. Boughton returned to the audience, Robert 

7 Boughton? All right, we'll try to work him in later if he 

8 returns.

9 How about the next speakers then? Mr. Ken 

10 Champion and Evan Gillespie? Welcome gentlemen, thank you 

11 for being here this morning.

12 Mr. Champion, you're up first.

13 KENNETH CHAMPION

14 MR. CHAMPION: Okay. Mr. Champion, I'm a retired 

15 transportation planner and my name is K-E-N-N-E-T-H, 

16 Kenneth Champion, C-H-A-M-P-I-O-N.

17 What I've come to bring to the attention of some 

18 future discourse is in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento, we 

19 have a air cargo base. It provides a lot of heavy body 

20 jets that can go to many places throughout the world or the 

21 United States. And it's underutilized at the current point 

22 and time. What is important is if we could get some more 

23 industry in the Sacramento County region that would be 

24 green energy oriented. 

25 A proposal to put before you is to consider 
103

1 having an assembly parts corporation for methane 

2 concentrators of the best designs; those for dairy barns 

3 where methane from flatulent cows occurs, also from all the 

4 different landfill garbage pits throughout the United 

5 States and other countries, if they have a need for methane 

6 concentrator technology. And the universities and the 

7 research and development bioengineering industry, I would 

8 hope, would enter into this.

9 And I would hope from you standpoint maybe there 

10 could be some federal grants or federal programs that would 

11 act as incentives for the design and patenting of the best 

12 of the methane concentrator applications such as in the 

13 dairy barns; perhaps something in the roof of these barns 

14 if the methane rises. 

15 Also, at Keifer Landfill near Sacramento there is 

16 a possibility of using their model of methane concentrator 

17 capture where they have actually reused the methane. It 

18 remains to be seen how many different after-uses of the 

19 methane could be done, but I would look to the 

20 Infrastructure Bill which is before the U.S. Congress. 

21 There are 69,000 bridges in the United States that are in a 

22 critical condition and they need to be repaired. And a lot 

23 of these bridges may have welding involved in that repair, 

24 so that would be a huge use of the acetylene gas of which 

25 methane is a part of. 
104

1 The economics remain to be worked out as to how 

2 the systematic use of capture through these dairy barns and 

3 wet garbage landfill bins, if they were standardized, for 

4 all the different landfills to have a design for these 

5 methane concentrators for two or three or four 

6 applications. One for dairy barns, one for landfills, one

7 for perhaps where they drill down into coal bed although 

8 they have pockets of methane and we're trying to get away 

9 from the coal industry. But for the time period in which 

10 coal is still being used they could still use methane 

11 capture at those mining sites as well. So I'm trying to 

12 give you specific examples of methane that is released into 

13 the air.

14 Now, there's 153 percent more methane in the air 

15 globally according to the National Meteorological 

16 Association than there was at the beginning of the 

17 industrial revolution in the early 1800s. This is quite a 

18 bit, methane is reburnable, and I don't know how much BTUs 

19 through the burning of welding machines and things that we 

20 might put into the atmosphere. But I would like to leave 

21 this for you for future discourse and future and 

22 possibility for grants.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Gillespie?

24 EVAN GILLESPIE

25 MR. GILLESPIE: great, thank you so much. My 
105

1 name is Evan Gillespie. I work for the Sierra Club and 

2 live in Los Angeles.

3 MR. PAGE: Spell your name, Mr. Gillespie?

4 MR. GILLESPIE: Sure, G-I-L-L-E-S-P-I-E.

5 So I wanted to just start off with a personal 

6 appeal and then respond to some comments that were made 

7 earlier. 

8 As I mentioned I live in Los Angeles. My wife 

9 and I have a two-year-old son and as a child I grew up with 

10 childhood asthma. We're expecting a second child this May 

11 as the smog season ramps up and health is obviously a chief 

12 concern as a parent. And we moved back to Los Angeles, my 

13 wife grew up there, it's a place that we both love, our

14 family is there. And living in Los Angeles, as other 

15 commenters have noted, it's the dirtiest region in the 

16 country. And so the science is very clear, statistics are 

17 very clear, when you live in a region like Los Angeles you 

18 are more likely to die at an early age. 

19 And so as a family we're forced to make a choice 

20 between living in a place that we love, living near the 

21 people that we love, and enabling our children to live the 

22 life that they deserve. And as a family, as a dad, that's 

23 a heartbreaking decision to be forced to make. And so I 

24 want to appeal that you please set a standard that is as 

25 health protective as is humanly possible. 
106

1 I was reflecting on some of the comments that 

2 were made earlier and I did just want to just square away a 

3 couple of quick things. On those on background ozone 

4 pollution, air pollution needs to be reduced to levels that 

5 do not harm human health. 

6 When EPA sets the standard by law it must base 

7 that decision solely on what it takes to protect public 

8 health with an adequate margin of safety. In other words, 

9 the only legitimate concern that we really need to be 

10 talking about here is what is going to protect public 

11 health, what's going to protect people like my son.

12 Having said that, background ozone levels are not 

13 a significant or major issue here. Looking at just the 

14 natural levels of ozone in spring and summer means, for 

15 example, they're found to range between 15 and 35 parts per 

16 billion including high elevation sites where natural ozone 

17 levels are more likely to occur at a higher level. And 

18 then on average they range between 20 and 25 parts per 

19 billion. So even including manmade emission sources from 

20 international regions background levels are only slightly 

21 higher with the mean levels typically falling between 30 

22 and 35 parts per billion.

23 So to give a specific example even in Denver, 

24 which is a major metropolitan level at a very high 

25 elevation level manmade emissions are still responsible for 
107

1 about 45 percent of total ozone in the region. So I say 

2 this to make a point that there's a lot of room for further 

3 action. And even though background ozone levels are not an 

4 issue here I think it's just worth pointing it out that EPA 

5 can't actually set standards based upon attainability. It 

6 has to be based on public health. 

7 So a little bit of history here, in 1979 the City 

8 of Houston sued EPA challenging the 120 parts per billion 

9 standard and the court rejected that, so we've heard this 

10 argument before from industry. And I think that's one 

11 other point that I wanted to make is that time and time 

12 again industry comes out and they say look, we can't meet 

13 this standard. The sky is going to fall, the economy is 

14 going to collapse, we can't do it. 

15 And yet we've eliminated lead from gasoline. 

16 We've dealt with acid rain. We have phased out CFCs and 

17 the economy has grown and grown and grown, so we can do 

18 this. We can innovate and we can hit these standards in a 

19 way that both grow the economy and protect public health.

20 Two other just quick points here. Next time I 

21 would really encourage you to set this hearing in an 

22 impacted community, so somewhere like the Central Valley or 

23 Los Angeles. There are people who got on a bus at 1:30 

24 this morning to come up here and you'll be hearing from 

25 them later today, but it's a huge burden for impacted 
108

1 communities to come all this way. And so next time we'd 

2 love to have you out back out in California again, eight of 

3 the eleven dirtiest regions of the whole country are here 

4 in California, so we love that you're coming to California, 

5 but we want to make sure that it's a little bit easier for 

6 people to get out here.

7 Lastly, we get hammered with ozone pretty much 

8 here in parts of the region almost year-round and so we'd 

9 really encourage you to think about extending the ozone 

10 monitoring season to go a little bit further than it is 

11 today. I think that's it for my -- thank you, very much.

12 MR. PAGE: All right. Thank you both very much 

13 for being here today.

14 Our next speakers are Kim Garcia and Oscar 

15 Garcia.

16 All right. Kim, you're first up.

17 KIMBERLY GARCIA

18 MS. GARCIA: Hello. My name is Kimberly Garcia. 

19 I'm a senior at Innovations High School in Reno, Nevada. I 

20 plan to go to college right after high school and pursue a 

21 degree in a STEM career. When I'm not at school I love to 

22 be outdoors and take long walks.

23 One way that the air pollution impacts me is that 

24 like many of us I have a close friend with asthma, Janessa.

25 (phonetic) I can't put myself in her shoes, but I do see 
109

1 how much she suffers. Having a friend at school with 

2 asthma has made me realize what the world is capable of. 

3 And by that I mean how much damage we can cause just by 

4 living our daily lives, buying our stuff, using electricity 

5 for everything and driving around.

6 Her asthma has often made her miss school and 

7 fall further and further behind. 

8 The American Lung Association states asthma 

9 causes more than 14 million missed school days every year. 

10 With numbers like this we should take every chance to 

11 reduce the amount of air pollution that affects kids. If 

12 you do not ensure the health and safety of our future, who 

13 will? 

14 Many people think my generation is not capable of 

15 doing anything to make a difference. I am here today to 

16 challenge that way of thinking. I am a young woman driven 

17 to make a difference and I have. I have worked with 

18 Alliance for Climate Education to ensure better air quality 

19 in my city. 

20 ACE came into my leadership class and gave a 

21 presentation on engine idling and air pollution. I learned 

22 that children were most affected by idling cars, because 

23 their lungs are still developing and they are close to car 

24 tail pipes. I knew at that moment I wanted to make a 

25 difference, not just for myself, but for the kids and 
110

1 everyone else who is affected by air pollution, for my 

2 friend Janessa who suffers from asthma.

3 I was going to make schools in Washoe County 

4 School District commit to being idle free. Today I am very 

5 proud to say my fellow classmate, Oscar Garcia, and I have 

6 made both our own school, Innovations High, as well as 

7 Palmer Elementary School an idle-free school. 

8 At this point you might be asking yourself, what 

9 is an idle-free school? It is a program in Washoe County, 

10 Nevada that teaches students, parents, teachers and school 

11 staff about the harmful effects of car exhaust and strives 

12 to get schools to reduce vehicle and bus idling.

13 To make Palmer Elementary School idle free I gave 

14 an assembly presentation to the whole school about the 

15 health environmental impacts of engine idling. I thought 

16 the kids would just ignore me, since I'm not much older 

17 than they are. But they were all waving their hands, 

18 asking questions, asking for stickers. These are the 

19 stickers. They say, "Turn your key and be idle free."

20 To make sure the students understood about idling 

21 and air pollution I asked them to submit their drawings for 

22 an art contest. Here are some of their drawings. This is 

23 a picture of a boy going into Jack In The Box with his 

24 family, turning off the engine while going through the 

25 drive-through. 
111

1 So let's think for a couple of minutes and figure 

2 out what we really want our future to be like. Young 

3 people deserve to grow up breathing clean air and not 

4 suffer from the health effects of smog pollution. If I can 

5 make a difference to work for the health and safety of 

6 future generations in my community, what can't you ensure 

7 the same thing for the people in this country? On behalf 

8 of young people across the country, I am asking you to 

9 lower the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion. Thank 

10 you.

11 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

12 MS. STONE: Thank you.

13 MR. PAGE: Mr. Garcia?

14 OSCAR GARCIA

15 MR. GARCIA: Hello. My name is Oscar Garcia. 

16 Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a senior at 

17 Innovations High School in Reno, Nevada. I will be 

18 starting college this summer at Truckee Meadows Community 

19 College. 

20 I would like to major in a field that allows me 

21 to help people. I haven't decided how, but I do know that 

22 I want to help as many people as possible.

23 In my free time I like to hike and be outdoors. 

24 I care about the issue of ozone, because I want to be able 

25 to walk out of my house and see the bright green mountains. 
112

1 I want to be able to breathe fresh air and hike the 

2 beautiful trails in the Half Acre Hills near my home. 

3 Sometimes when I look outside and see the mountains across 

4 the valley while the sun is shining, the bright colors 

5 stand out. But more often than not, when I look outside 

6 the mountains are blanketed in a dark thick haze. The haze 

7 is affecting my view of Reno, just like it affected my view 

8 in Los Angeles, my home town, which has the worst smog in 

9 the country. 

10 But the effects of smog are not just aesthetic, 

11 there are health issues as well. Thus, smog and air 

12 pollution severely impacted my little nephew, Gabriel while 

13 we lived in Los Angeles. No one ever wants to see their 

14 loved ones in the hospital, but my family did. Gabriel had 

15 asthma attacks constantly. One or two or sometimes even 

16 three asthma attacks per week. He was in the hospital a 

17 few times a month and this kept him from attending school. 

18 My sister was stressed and sometimes had sleepless nights. 

19 The fact that Gabriel was in and out of the hospital caused 

20 my sister to miss work. Not only did this affect her 

21 emotionally, but it affected her financially.

22 We used to visit Reno, Nevada every once in 

23 awhile until my parents decided they wanted to leave the 

24 L.A. area. That summer while we were visiting Reno my 

25 parents and sister noticed that Gabriel had fewer asthma 
113

1 attacks. This was because he was breathing fresh air. 

2 Thankfully, since moving to Reno my little nephew has not 

3 had an asthma attack since.

4 Your agency has the power to prevent people like 

5 my sister and nephew from suffering from the adverse health 

6 effects of ozone pollution. If young high school students 

7 have the ability to make a difference in our own 

8 communities then I believe you, the EPA, has the ability to 

9 make a difference for our nation.

10 I was introduced to the Idle Free Campaign by a 

11 representative of the Alliance for Climate Education, 

12 Rebecca Anderson. The presentation about climate change

13 triggered something inside me. I decided I wanted to help 

14 my community by trying to make the air cleaner. 

15 To start the Idle Free Campaign students at six 

16 high schools in the Washoe County School District in Reno 

17 monitored how much idling was currently happening at our 

18 schools. Then we educated classmates about the health, 

19 money and environmental benefits of not idling by 

20 distributing fliers and stickers like these. And then this 

21 tells them all the information, okay? Oh, and installing 

22 idle free signs outside of the schools like these, at least 

23 three to every school.

24 Okay. Then we monitored idling outside of our 

25 schools again to see how much less people were idling. 
114

1 Overall across the six schools we reduced the average 

2 idling time by 38 percent. Pretty cool, huh?

3 MR. PAGE: Uh-huh.

4 MR. GARCIA: Therefore as a student on behalf of 

5 Washoe County Schools I am asking that you lower your ozone 

6 standards to the strongest possible standard of 60 parts 

7 per billion. 

8 Think of the children like my nephew Gabriel who 

9 suffer from asthma and those who have respiratory issues. 

10 Think of the young people like those you are hearing from 

11 this morning, who are working for a cleaner air in their 

12 own lives. You owe it to them, to us, to our future and 

13 yours to protect our health and well-being. Thank you.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you for coming today.

15 Let's take Mike Rogge and Wenyu Ma. 

16 Mike, you may have to help me with that 

17 pronunciation.

18 MR. ROGGE: Rogge.

19 MR. PAGE: Rogge, okay. Thank you. Welcome to 

20 both of you, thank you for coming. 

21 Mr. Rogge, you're up first.

22 MICHAEL ROGGE

23 MR. ROGGE: Okay. Good morning. I am Mike 

24 Rogge, Environmental Quality Policy Director for the 

25 California Manufacturers and Technology Association. 
115

1 That's CMTA. 

2 CMTA is California's largest trade association. 

3 Our mission is to improve and preserve a strong business 

4 climate for California's over 25,000 small, medium and 

5 large manufacturers, processors, and technology-based 

6 companies. CMTA strongly supports reasonable efforts to 

7 improve air quality and protect public health. However, we 

8 are deeply concerned about the Environmental Protection 

9 Agency’s proposal to drop the 8-hour ozone standard to 65 

10 parts per billion or lower.

11 To do so will place virtually the entire state in 

12 nonattainment: everything except a little strip along the 

13 Northwest Coast, along the border with Oregon, and two 

14 small patches of down the Central Coast. A significant 

15 portion of this area is rural with negligible industry and 

16 little traffic. These standards do not take into 

17 consideration background, the fact that the Grand Canyon 

18 would be a nonattainment makes that readily apparent. 

19 This proposal will unnecessarily burden the 

20 economy at a time when the country, and California in 

21 particular, are finally starting to recover from the 

22 recession. A substantial portion of compliance with the

23 new standard will come from controls that are unknown, even 

24 to EPA. and if these controls are not invented in

25 time, manufacturers will be forced to consider scrapping 
116

1 plants and equipment. A National Ambient Quality Standards 

2 process that does not allow the administrator to consider 

3 cost or technical feasibility is no longer productive. 

4 California has made monumental strides in 

5 reducing air pollution emissions in the last 40 years with 

6 an approximate 80 percent reduction. Incremental 

7 improvements in the ozone are now coming at an exponential 

8 cost. The financial burden on manufacturers, the economy 

9 and low-income families has been significant. California 

10 has 11 percent of U.S. manufacturing, but we attracted only 

11 1.5 percent of the country's manufacturing investment in 

12 2013. It looks like only about 2 percent in 2014.

13 Since 2011, the country's manufacturing grew by 

14 more than 6 percent while California's manufacturing job 

15 base grew by less than 1 percent. If we want to retain and 

16 attract manufacturing jobs we need to improve our 

17 manufacturing investment climate. Manufacturing provides 

18 tremendous opportunities for California's working class, 

19 middle class families. An average salary in California's 

20 manufacturing pays $77,000 a year. 

21 In order to meet the new EPA requirements, states 

22 will impose costs on all entities, large and small and 

23 limit permits for construction and manufacturing. Small 

24 companies will suffer from higher costs and the reduction 

25 in business activity from the large companies that will be 
117

1 displaced. Companies building new facilities or performing 

2 major modifications to existing facilities in or near a

3 nonattainment area will be required to install the most 

4 effective emission reduction technology, regardless of 

5 cost. Most will undoubtedly pick another state or country 

6 to locate their jobs.

7 The current ozone standard of 75 parts per 

8 billion is the most stringent ever and has not been fully 

9 implemented in Southern California and throughout the 

10 Central Valley, but progress continues to be made. The EPA 

11 and the states should focus on fully implementing and 

12 attaining the existing standard before contemplating a 

13 lower standard. A decision can be made at a later date to 

14 determine if additional actions are warranted. This is an 

15 approach that will continue to provide necessary health 

16 protection and continue improvements.

17 When policy makers push beyond the limits of what 

18 is technologically feasible the critical balance between 

19 environmental improvement and economic growth is lost to 

20 manufacturers and the economy will suffer. Thank you for 

21 the opportunity to speak today.

22 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

23 WENYU MA

24 MS. MA: Good morning. My name is Wenyu Ma and 

25 I'm a senior at John F. Kennedy High School here in 
118

1 Sacramento.

2 MR. PAGE: Could you spell your name for 

3 reporter?

4 MS. MA: Yes. Wenyu, W-E-N-Y-U, Ma, M-A.

5 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

6 MS. MA: I plan to study chemical engineering in 

7 college this fall, to advance renewable energy and energy 

8 efficiency developments.

9 I'm here today to ask you to limit ozone 

10 pollution levels to the strongest of 60 parts per billion. 

11 Even though attainment might be difficult and it will not 

12 be a quick and easy journey, I believe in achieving the 

13 impossible as an American.

14 Growing up in Zhongshan, China I witnessed 

15 firsthand how devastating air pollution can be. I never 

16 understood as a child how to count stars or imagine 

17 constellations, because of the thick smoke that covered all 

18 the stars. It might be difficult to imagine in here how 

19 many stars can be covered, but when I came to the United 

20 States it was almost impossible to believe the sheer amount 

21 of stars that are visible in the sky. To this day, it is 

22 always gratifying to look up and see there are skies -- has 

23 been protected and undisturbed. I do not want to see any 

24 more children to be robbed of the right to admire a star, 

25 admire a sky. I do not want to see my seven-year-old 
119

1 sister to not be able to play outside anymore because of 

2 high-level ozone pollution. I do not want to see my 70-

3 year-old grandparents not be able to take their morning 

4 walks, because of poor air quality. 

5 I envision a future with clean air. That is why 

6 I volunteer with Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant 

7 Trails, a local nonprofit that is dedicated to clean air 

8 where I serve as a Clean Air Committee Chair on its Youth 

9 Advisory Board and currently I'm organizing anti-idling 

10 campaigns at different local high schools. This is why I 

11 plant trees with the Sacramento Tree Foundation, to help 

12 our city to live up our name as a city of trees and to 

13 improve our air quality. This is why I founded an 

14 environmental club and started a recycling program at my 

15 school: to educate, to empower, and to provide the means 

16 for students like me to take action.

17 Although many individuals, even young people, 

18 have already contributed to the environmental movement in 

19 small and large ways, but large scale and long-term change 

20 must come from the government. As clean air is a 

21 fundamental right, our government is responsible for 

22 protecting its citizens. As the clean air is a survival 

23 investment our government is responsible for future 

24 generations. 

25 America has always been prized for its progress 
120

1 in the world, but we must not foreshore our environmental 

2 protection. We must lower our ozone standard to 60 parts 

3 per billion and serve as a model for other nations. 

4 As a student and environmental club president, as 

5 a granddaughter and a sister and as a star admirer I'm 

6 asking the EPA to lower the ozone standard and ensure a 

7 clean air future for all. Thank you.

8 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both, for coming 

9 today.

10 Scene Wan and William Wang are our next speakers. 

11 Welcome, thank you for being here. Mr. Wan is up first.

12 SCENE WAN

13 MR. WAN: Hello, my name is Scene Wan, S-C-E-N-E, 

14 like the movie, scene, you know, scenery. And Wan, W-A-N.

15 So yes, I am a senior at John F. Kennedy High School in 

16 Sacramento. There I like to use math and science, so I'd 

17 like to be an engineer and build things in the future. 

18 But today I'm here to build a future and ask you, 

19 the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to lower the 

20 ozone standards to 60 parts per billion. So why 60 and not 

21 say, you know, 70 or something? 

22 Well, the fact is the negative effects of ozone 

23 can be felt as low as 60 parts per billion in regular 

24 people like you and me and others who don't have asthma. 

25 So with the current standard at 75 parts per billion, like 
121

1 all of us in this country, healthy or ill, we all stand to 

2 lose. 

3 While I'm fortunate I don't have a respiratory 

4 illness I have an older brother who does have asthma. You 

5 know, I've known him all my life, because he's my older 

6 brother. It'd be weird if I don't. Yeah, this is my older 

7 brother, who's in the picture. He's the one who's not a 

8 baby, because that'd be awkward right? 

9 Yeah, so he's always worked hard to achieve all 

10 his potential, you know? Right now he's an engineer. 

11 That's part of the reason why I want to be an engineer too. 

12 And he still helps our family out, and me, financially. 

13 Here's him graduating. 

14 So my brother is not alone, there are so many 

15 like him, who have so much potential and want to achieve 

16 what they want to do in life. But due to prior conditions 

17 or like their poor health, they just can't do it. And, you 

18 know, thanks to this poor air quality many have to miss 

19 school and miss connections and miss life. They can't go 

20 to school or go find friends or graduate from college. 

21 An air standard of 60 parts per billion, the 

22 opportunities and saved health care costs given back to 

23 these people amount to approximately 44 to even $74 billion 

24 in gain. As things stand though, thousands of lives are 

25 lost. 
122

1 In our country, you know, people are said to have 

2 undeniable rights in life to certain things. We ought to 

3 have a home, right? We all ought to have a meal. We all 

4 ought to as you guys obviously need, have some water, you 

5 know? But shouldn't we also all get to breathe clean?

6 You know, every day what kicks off my day is 

7 getting a breath of fresh air, you know? The fresh chill, 

8 the lifting breeze, it clears my mind. And it brings me 

9 peace. And for all of us, air brings us life. 

10 I'm pretty sure right now we're breathing air, 

11 you know? We will always need to breathe air, but we can't 

12 always control what we're breathing. We can't, "Oh, I feel 

13 like I got 60 percent carbon that time, or 20 percent 

14 oxygen right now." We can't -- our bodies can't filter 

15 ourselves like that. That's why we need regulations and 

16 limits just like right now what we're proposing.

17 It's a real blow when what's supposed to bring us 

18 life instead suffocates us to death. So in short, I'd like 

19 to breathe a bit easier myself. So please help me and 

20 millions of other people, young and old, breathe easier by 

21 lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion. Thank 

22 you.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Mr. Wang.

24 WILLIAM WANG

25 MR. WANG: Hi. My name is William Wang and I'm a 
123

1 junior at John F. Kennedy High School.

2 I'm sure you've all heard enough about why air 

3 pollution is a terrible thing and the statistics on the 

4 subject. So I'll try to freshen the subject a bit.

5 A little bit about myself. I'm a junior in high 

6 school, as I said before. I'm a tennis player, performer, 

7 procrastinator and aspiring comedian. I have three friends 

8 who have asthma and half my family lives in China and are 

9 forced to breathe heavy smog created from all the factories 

10 and traffic nearby. So I'd say air quality is pretty high 

11 up there in the things that I care about. It affects the 

12 lives of the ones I love and that's why I'm here today.

13 So for my story, I'm sure many of you have gone 

14 to San Francisco before? My family likes going there and I 

15 just went there recently, my first time in about a year 

16 actually. But, you know, the first thing I noticed when I 

17 got there, the delicious food. So the second thing I 

18 noticed after I ate lunch was that the city was covered in 

19 smog. I knew Sacramento had a smog problem and that day 

20 San Francisco had it worse. It was sunny, but there was 

21 like this layer of brownish gray that was between me and 

22 the blue sky. So my first thought went back to my family 

23 in China and how they had to deal with worse pollution than 

24 I ever had to deal with. But I digress.

25 The reason why I went to San Francisco that day 
124

1 was to meet up with one of my friends named Janine. Janine 

2 brought her inhaler and I discovered she had asthma that 

3 day. It was news to me, because it never came up and when 

4 I asked her about it she says she carries around her 

5 inhaler a lot, because of all of the air quality problems 

6 and because she's prone to asthma attacks. And that really 

7 struck home to me, because I've seen what asthma attacks 

8 can do and how really scary they can be. 

9 One of my friends that I mentioned earlier, he 

10 had an asthma attack in PE once and it just terrified me to 

11 see him laying on the ground. I didn't know what to do at 

12 all. The thought of Janine having an asthma attack while 

13 we were hanging out just disturbed me to say the least. My 

14 fear was unfounded, thankfully, but I don't think anyone 

15 deserves to live in a place where asthma is a major 

16 disease. 

17 Janine isn't alone either and I hate to be a 

18 politician here and bring up numbers, but nearly every one 

19 out of ten kids in the country have asthma. That's just 

20 wrong. Lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion 

21 will prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks per year and that's 

22 great. If we can do that, that'd be awesome. And how can 

23 you turn your back on something like that?

24 So that's my story. Air quality is important to 

25 me and it frightens me to think that one of the people I 
125

1 love could potentially die from something like that. 

2 America is one of the leading super powers in the world. 

3 We've got some of the busiest cities, greenest trees and 

4 smartest minds. People look up to America as one of the 

5 best and as one of the best, we have a responsibility to 

6 ensure that we maintain a green world. We can solve this 

7 problem. It may take years, decades or even a century, but 

8 I believe we can do it. 

9 And with that I would like to leave you with a 

10 thought. Why wait for the problem to get worse when we can 

11 start solving it now? Thank you.

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you both very much for coming 

13 today.

14 And our next speaker is Bill Magavern, I think it 

15 is, and Yolla Hagar.

16 All right, is it Mr. McGovern? (phonetic)

17 MR. MAGAVERN: Magavern.

18 MR. PAGE: Magavern, sorry.

19 BILL MAGAVERN

20 MR. MAGAVERN: Good morning. My name is Bill 

21 Magavern. I live here in Sacramento. It is M-A-G-A-V-E-R22 N. I live in the Southside Park neighborhood in downtown. 

23 We're bordered on both the west and the south sides by 

24 freeways, so we live close enough that we're always hearing 

25 the sound of that traffic. And as you know, Sacramento is 
126

1 one of the most polluted areas for air pollution, so thank 

2 you for having this hearing today. 

3 And I'm the Policy Director for the Coalition for 

4 Clean Air, which is a California organization which was 

5 born out of the smog crisis in Los Angeles is the early 

6 70s. And we now work statewide to try to provide clean and 

7 healthy air to all Californians. 

8 We applaud U.S. EPA's long-delayed proposal to 

9 revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

10 ozone. As you know, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to 

11 create standards that are protective of public health based 

12 on the latest science. And the science shows that the 

13 current standards underestimate the health impacts of smog, 

14 so this update is very necessary.

15 In California over three-quarters of us breathe 

16 unhealthy air, about 25,000 people a year die from it. in 

17 fact, there are twice as many people in California who die 

18 from traffic-related air pollution than die from traffic19 related accidents. So that shows the urgency of the task 

20 we have at hand. We think that the proposal that you're 

21 considering moves in the right direction, but you should 

22 consider the full range of pollution limits that have been 

23 recommended by credible independent scientists including 

24 your own scientific advisers. And that means that a 60 

25 parts per billion level should be included in the analysis.
127

1 Contrary to the predictable cries that we here 

2 from the fossil fuel and chemical industries of looming 

3 economic catastrophe, decades of history that we have with 

4 air quality standards starting of course here in 

5 California, demonstrate that clean air protections provide 

6 benefits that far outweigh their cost. And the U.S. can 

7 and must continue the progress that we've already made in 

8 reducing emissions from power plants, vehicles and other 

9 sources of pollution. 

10 And we know that we have solutions available 

11 including energy efficiency, renewable power, electric 

12 vehicles, public transit and improved land use planning. 

13 There are efforts underway in this state in all of those 

14 areas. We need to do better and I think the rest of the 

15 country could also learn a lot from what California has 

16 done successfully so far. 

17 We've had in California the worst smog in the 

18 nation and so we've also taken the lead in finding ways to 

19 reduce ozone pollution. So we know that other state and 

20 local governments already look to our state for solutions 

21 and we think the federal government should do the same as 

22 it already has in the area of motor vehicles for example.

23 All Americans deserve air that is healthy and 

24 safe to breathe. Vulnerable populations like children, the 

25 elderly and those with sensitive respiratory systems are 
128

1 particularly in need of greater protections from lung2 searing ozone. And it's particularly encouraging to me to 

3 see the number of young people, students that have come 

4 today to talk with you. So thank you again for listening.

5 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

6 YOLLA HAGER

7 MS. HAGER: Hi. Let me begin by thanking the EPA 

8 for the opportunity to testify at this hearing.

9 My name is Yolla Hager and I'm the president of 

10 Environmental and Atmospheric Technologies located in 

11 Knoxville, Tennessee. We are a remote sensing company 

12 focused on vehicle emissions with a solution to help clean 

13 the air with less hassle and less cost.

14 Today, you're hearing from manufacturers and the 

15 fossil fuel industry that these regulations would impose a 

16 heavy burden on the economy. You're also hearing from 

17 public health advocates who say the ozone is causing 

18 millions of people to have health issues, which increase 

19 health costs and death rates. 

20 As an asthma sufferer and an entrepreneur, I'm 

21 here today in support of lowering the ozone standards.

22 At the 2014 Climate Summit President Obama said 

23 he had confidence in the ability of the technological 

24 entrepreneurs and scientific innovators to lead the way. 

25 The President is right. I'm here today to let you know 
129

1 that the United States does not have to look into the 

2 future for solutions that will not burden manufacturers or 

3 motorists when it comes to identifying and testing 

4 emissions. 

5 As you are aware vehicles are one of the leading 

6 causes of ground ozone. And while the newer vehicles are 

7 cleaner their emission levels will change in a relatively 

8 short period of time. One of the ways to ensure the 

9 reduction of ozone caused by vehicle emissions is to be 

10 able to assess emissions in real time by using newer 

11 technologies like remote sensing.

12 Hager Environmental was founded by molecular 

13 physicist, Dr. John Stewart Hager, to develop and advance a 

14 unique technology aimed at revolutionizing the emissions 

15 industry. Prior to starting Hager Environmental, Dr. Hager 

16 worked with NASA Langley on the ASCENDS satellite, which 

17 will soon be orbiting the earth to measure the earth's CO2 

18 column abundances.

19 Our remote sensing technology is referred to 

20 EDAR, which is an acronym for Emission Detection and 

21 Reporting. EDAR can remotely detect, read and analyze 

22 exhaust coming from virtually any moving vehicle. It is an 

23 unmanned multi-lane system that sits on a pole beside the 

24 road. This technology can help states achieve a lower EPA 

25 ground-level ozone standard and reduce cost, time 
130

1 requirements and frustrations for the motorist.

2 I sit before you in support of lowering the ozone 

3 standard and ask that you show the same confidence 

4 President Obama has shown in the ability of the 

5 technological entrepreneurs and innovators to help lead the 

6 way. 

7 The most important issue here today is to clean 

8 the air in order to ensure a better environment for 

9 generations to come. It's not about costs and industry. 

10 It's about saving lives.

11 In Governor Brown's recent inaugural address he 

12 stated that he wants to take significant amounts carbon out 

13 of California out of the economy of California without 

14 harming its vibrancy. Hager Environmental can assist the 

15 EPA and Governor Brown in achieving its contemplated new 

16 standards with the attributes of less cost and less hassle, 

17 which will result in less pollution.

18 Across this country there are companies like 

19 Hager Environmental that stand ready to help the EPA clean 

20 the air without costing our country jobs or our country's 

21 economic growth. Thank you.

22 MR. PAGE: Thank you, both.

23 All right, Gretchen Dahlkemper and Adenike 

24 Adeyeye. Welcome, thank you for being here. 

25 Gretchen, you're first.
131

1 GRETCHEN DAHLKEMPER

2 MS. DAHLKEMPER: Good morning. Thanks for having 

3 me. I tried to get the hearings last week, but I had the 

4 flu. So I'm happy to be here this morning talking to you. 

5 And I'm not contagious any more.

6 Good morning. My name is Gretchen Dahlkemper and 

7 I'm the national field manager for Moms Clean Air Force. 

8 We are a group of 410,000 parents who are working together 

9 to protect America's children from air pollution. Today 

10 I'm here to speak on behalf of all of those families and 

11 the millions of children whose lives will be positively 

12 impacted by EPA moving forward with a strong ozone standard 

13 rooted in the best science available. 

14 I am also here for my own three children. 

15 They're one, three and five, especially for my three-year16 old Fiona. Fiona was not yet one the first time her lips 

17 turned blue and she struggled to take a breath. Watching 

18 your child fight for every breath has to be one of the most 

19 scary moments as a parent. For myself and other parents of 

20 children with asthma we rely daily on EPA's Air Quality 

21 Index to inform our schedules and protect our precious 

22 children.

23 From the first moment I learned I was going to be 

24 a mom I did everything to protect my kids. I took my 

25 prenatals, gave up deli meat, wine and tuna fish. Once my 
132

1 babies were born I put them in the safest car seat I could 

2 find, covered the outlets of my home, tested our new home 

3 for lead and radon and hold their hand every time we cross 

4 the street. Do you know what I can't protect my children 

5 from? Air pollution.

6 The science is unequivocal that smog is bad for 

7 our health. Smog harms babies in utero, it harms children 

8 interfering with their lung development and triggering 

9 asthma attacks. It cuts our children's lives short and it 

10 causes people to die prematurely. Fiona is not alone. 

11 Approximately one in ten children across the United States 

12 suffers from asthma and in many places like my own 

13 neighborhood as many as 25 percent of our children are 

14 suffering from this national epidemic.

15 In addition to the nearly daily suffering of 

16 children with asthma the costs of treatment is a burden on 

17 American families like mine and also on the American 

18 economy. The effects of days lost from school and work are 

19 enormous, costing our society more than $30 billion each 

20 and every year. An extensive and growing body of 

21 scientific evidence shows that smog causes measurable 

22 serious health impacts at a level commonly found in 

23 metropolitan areas across the United States from here in 

24 California to my home state of Pennsylvania. 

25 I am here today in support of your efforts to 
133

1 move forward in strengthening these vital public health 

2 protections. But the proposed range of 65 to 70 parts per 

3 billion is not strong enough to protect developing lungs in 

4 children like mine who are suffering from asthma.

5 Clean Air Advisory Panel has concluded that the 

6 adverse health effects of smog are apparent at levels as 

7 low as 60 parts per billion. Parents just like me agree 

8 with the weight of the science and urge you here today to 

9 set a standard of 60 parts per billion in order to 

10 adequately protect our nation's most precious resource, our 

11 children.

12 Parents have the right to know whether the air 

13 our children are breathing is safe. There are some here 

14 today that will claim, as they do each and every time your 

15 agency moves to protect our families, that improving the 

16 current standard will cost us jobs in the economy. Like 

17 before, that's simply not true. We do not have to choose 

18 here in America between clean air and strong economy. All 

19 Americans have the right to breathe clean, healthy air. 

20 Children like my Fiona have the right to enjoy each and 

21 every day without breathing dangerous levels of smog. 

22 Thank you for your time.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

24 ADENIKE ADEYEYE

25 MS. ADEYEYE: I guess for the recording my name 
134

1 is spelled A-D-E-N-I-K-E and last name A-D-E-Y-E-Y-E.

2 So good morning. Thank you for allowing me to 

3 testify. My name is Adenike Adeyeye and I'm a research and 

4 policy analyst at Earthjustice. 

5 And Earthjustice is a nonprofit environmental law 

6 firm. We represent clients in the San Joaquin Valley and 

7 we're also a member of the Central Valley Air Quality 

8 Coalition or CVAQC and I work with fellow CVAQC members to 

9 improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley.

10 And so I'd also like to second what Evan 

11 Gillespie said earlier that it would be nice for them to 

12 have the hearing in Fresno or L.A., because it was hard for 

13 others from the coalition to make it here today.

14 I'm here to testify, because the science strongly 

15 supports setting the new ozone standard at 60 parts per 

16 billion to protect public health and make the air safe to 

17 breathe for everyone. EPA's own scientific advisors 

18 recommended setting a 60 to 70 parts per billion ozone 

19 standard way back in 2008 and since then the data in 

20 support of a 60 parts per billion ozone standard has only 

21 gotten stronger.

22 There are studies showing adverse affects like 

23 constricted and painful breathing and lung inflammation at 

24 ozone levels as low as 60 parts per billion, which is far 

25 below the current standard. EPA itself has estimated that 
135

1 in some cities tens of thousands of more asthmatic children 

2 will struggle to breathe at a 65 or 70 parts per billion 

3 ozone standard. 

4 The American Lung Association and other medical 

5 societies have supported setting the standard at 60 parts 

6 per billion due to the data that shows the negative health 

7 impacts at that level. The data shows that the risk 

8 associated with ozone levels at 60 parts per billion are 

9 real and EPA must set the new standard no higher than 60 

10 parts per billion to ensure the absence of adverse health 

11 effects.

12 The people who have testified from the oil and 

13 gas industry and other major polluters have argued that 

14 there is no point in strengthening the standard when areas 

15 like the San Joaquin Valley have not even met the 1-hour 

16 ozone standard that was adopted much further back in 1987.

17 Not only does this argument lack any legal basis, but like 

18 others have said I believe that we can attain these 

19 standards. 

20 California has done really tough things to 

21 improve environmental quality and this, very well could be 

22 one of them. But it also ignores another key function of 

23 the national standards. A 60 parts per billion standard, 

24 based on current science, gives people vital information 

25 that they need to protect themselves when air quality is 
136

1 poor. Under the current standard people really don't have 

2 a good idea of when they're putting their health at risk 

3 simply by going for an afternoon jog or just showing up at 

4 soccer practice. 

5 And nowhere is there more true than in the San 

6 Joaquin Valley, which is where rates of asthma-related 

7 hospitalizations and emergency room visits are far higher 

8 than other parts of the state. People in the San Joaquin 

9 Valley actually truly do rely on the Air Quality Index.

10 For example, schools use color-coded flags to 

11 alert children and their parents the day's air quality 

12 forecast, to schedule school sports practices, and to even 

13 decide whether or not kids can go outside for recess. And 

14 right now, in the San Joaquin Valley people are putting 

15 their health in jeopardy without even realizing it, because 

16 the current standard does not accurately define when the 

17 air is safe to breathe.

18 A 60 parts per billion standard is necessary 

19 again to give people the knowledge that they need to 

20 protect themselves as best they can. So Earthjustice and 

21 our colleagues urge EPA to do the right thing and to set a 

22 standard that lets everyone breathe freely. Thank you.

23 MR. PAGE: All right, thank you both for coming 

24 today.

25 Yes, please pass that on to Pat. Thank you. 
137

1 Thank you very much. Our next speakers are Sarah 

2 Hodgdon and Betsy Reifsnider. And you'll tell me if it's 

3 pronounced Reefsnider.

4 MS. HODGDON: No, it's not.

5 MR. PAGE: I was right the first time. Okay. I 

6 should've stuck with that. Yeah, all right Ms. Hodgdon.

7 SARAH HODGDON

8 MS. HODGON: Okay. My name is Sarah Hodgdon, 

9 S-A-R-A-H H-O-D-G-D-O-N. And I am the national program 

10 director for the Sierra Club. Thank you for this 

11 opportunity.

12 On behalf of my organization and our 2.4 million 

13 members and supporters, I would like to commend the EPA’s 

14 effort to reduce smog pollution nationwide and ask that the 

15 Agency finalize a rule that will truly protect public, 

16 environmental, and economic health.

17 In 2008, the former Administration finalized a 

18 smog standard that has proven to be inadequate. The 

19 failure of that rule is evident in California, which has 

20 the nation's five most smog-polluted cities. Statewide, 

21 smog pollution is responsible for 25,000 premature deaths 

22 annually. In the Los Angeles region alone, where smog 

23 concentrations far surpass all other U.S. regions, the 

24 death toll is 5,000 a year.

25 Every year, air pollution costs federal, state, 
138

1 and private health insurers in California over $193 

2 million, as millions suffer from lung cancer, asthma, 

3 cardiovascular disease, and other health problems. In the 

4 state's South Coast region, which includes Greater Los 

5 Angeles, workers miss 400,000 days of work every year, and 

6 in total air pollution costs the region’s economy $22 

7 billion annually. 

8 However, this dirty air does not affect us all 

9 equally. In Southern California, Black and Latino youth 

10 are two-to-six times more likely to die from asthma than 

11 their white counterparts. Nationwide, people of color are 

12 breathing air that contains 38 percent more nitrogen oxide 

13 pollution. 

14 At 1:30 this morning, three 50-passenger buses 

15 departed the Inland Empire in Southern California. All of 

16 the passengers were of Latin-American descent, and many of 

17 them are the sons and daughters of migrant farm workers. 

18 At 3:00 a.m. two more buses departed from Los Angeles, 

19 representing diverse communities. We have individuals here 

20 from Fresno, Bakersfield, Oakland, and Richmond. They have 

21 are here to participate in today’s hearing because this is 

22 more than just a public, economic, and environmental health 

23 issue. It is also an issue of racial inequality.

24 Now, I know that air quality has gotten better in 

25 the United States and in California, largely thanks to the 
139

1 work of the EPA and other air regulators. However, we 

2 still have a long way to go before every person is 

3 breathing safe, clean air. The Clean Air Act mandates that 

4 if air protections aren’t doing enough to protect public 

5 health, then they must be strengthened. That is why the 

6 EPA has proposed that the current standard be changed from 

7 75 parts per billion to a range of 65-70 parts per billion. 

8 That's a great step in the right direction but, 

9 according to a committee of EPA science advisors, it is not 

10 enough. They recommended a 60 parts per billion standard 

11 to adequately protect our health. I, along with many 

12 others in this room, stand by that scientific assessment.

13 This level would result in enormous benefits nationwide, 

14 save hundreds of lives, millions of dollars, and reduce the 

15 toll from smog-related diseases. Will it be easy? No. 

16 But is it achievable? Absolutely. 

17 A stronger standard will also lead to greater 

18 deployment of clean energy and electric vehicles, which in 

19 turn will create jobs, further reduce air pollution, and 

20 grow the tax base. Expanding our clean energy economy will 

21 create significant job growth in California and across the 

22 nation. 

23 I understand that change is hard, but it is also 

24 necessary. We owe it to the thousands of people whose 

25 lives and health are at stake not to settle for less than 
140

1 the best we can achieve. If the science and the statistics 

2 are not sufficiently persuasive, then listen to the stories 

3 of any of the hundreds of people who have come here today.

4 It is time to move forward to a future where no matter what 

5 community you come from, no matter who you are, you will be 

6 free to breathe clean air. 

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

8 BETSY REIFSNIDER

9 MS. REIFSNIDER: Good morning. My name is Betsy 

10 Reifsnider spelled R-E-I-F-S-N-I-D-E-R. I'm a member of 

11 the nationwide Catholic Climate Covenant. And my own 

12 parish here in Sacramento is a member of California 

13 Interfaith Power and Light.

14 You've already heard scientific, public health 

15 and faith-based reasons to adopt an ozone standard no 

16 higher than 60 parts per billion and I'd just like to add 

17 my own story.

18 I grew up in Glendora in the 1960s, one of the 

19 smoggiest towns in all of L.A. County. The smog was so bad 

20 that I couldn't see the mountains that were literally just 

21 a mile from my home. And walking home from my elementary 

22 school, my chest burned every day.

23 California began phasing out lead in gasoline in 

24 the 1970s and completely banned it in 1990. The auto 

25 industry did not go out of business nor did the oil 
141

1 companies. In fact, they adapted and flourished. When we 

2 learned that lead in gasoline caused permanent and 

3 debilitating health effects we banned it. Now, scientists 

4 and health professionals tell us we need to reduce the 

5 current ozone standard to prevent 6,400 premature deaths.

6 Mother Theresa once said, "It is poverty to 

7 decide a child must die, so you may live as you wish." 

8 Some businesses claim that reducing the ozone standard will 

9 be a terrible economic burden. Pope Francis has said, "A 

10 person who dies is not a news story, but a 10-point drop in 

11 the stock market is a tragedy." So people are discarded as 

12 if they were trash. 

13 By reducing the ozone standard down to 60 parts 

14 per billion we can make this country richer in what 

15 matters: healthier children and better protections for 

16 elderly and vulnerable people. Thank you.

17 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for coming 

18 today.

19 All right, we've got some kids from Fruitvale 

20 Elementary School. And the next seven speakers are with 

21 them. How about if we call up Angelo Logan and Ramon 

22 Guerra?

23 Good morning, Mr. Logan, okay.

24 ANGELO LOGAN

25 MR. LOGAN: Thank you. My name is Angelo Logan, 
142

1 A-N-G-E-L-O L-O-G-A-N. I'm with the East Yard Communities 

2 for Environmental Justice and we're an environmental health 

3 and justice community-based organization in East Los 

4 Angeles and Long Beach. 

5 I'm here to support the strengthening of the 

6 ozone standards. The communities that we represent and 

7 that we live in, have disproportionate impacts in terms of 

8 respiratory illnesses. And my own son, Cesar, is asthmatic 

9 and is a soccer player. And as I am here today testifying 

10 before you, I can hear him gasping for air as he runs down 

11 the field. He's one example of many children in our 

12 communities that suffer from asthma and other respiratory 

13 illnesses. 

14 As a matter of fact, we work with a partner 

15 organization called Partner Play, which are school-aged 

16 children. There's about 60-plus children in this 

17 organization. They are located just downwind from the 

18 Ports of Long Beach. Of these members about one-in-five 

19 participants are asthmatic and as we engage in physical 

20 activities most of the participants avoid physical 

21 activity, so that they do not have an asthma attack. 

22 It's very dramatic when you have an asthma attack 

23 and you rush off to the emergency room, especially amongst 

24 your peers. And when you have no ability to really -- the 

25 resources to get back into shape it's very difficult. And 
143

1 they do that, not just for their own sake, but for the sake 

2 of their family and so they don't pull their parents out of 

3 work and cause more financial burden on their families. 

4 These are just some examples of the respiratory illnesses 

5 and impacts to our communities, because of exposure to air 

6 pollution and to ozone specifically.

7 That's why I'm here today to urge the EPA to move 

8 towards the most stringent ozone standards and that we move 

9 towards no more than 60 parts per billion for ozone. 

10 As you know the most significant sources of ozone 

11 are mobile sources. And of those mobile sources freight is 

12 probably the most significant contributor in our 

13 communities. Freight facilities such as sea ports, rail 

14 yards, logistics centers, tend to be cited in working 

15 class, working poor communities of color. And these 

16 particular communities are overburdened like I mentioned 

17 earlier with respiratory illnesses.

18 Again, that's why I want to urge the EPA to move 

19 towards the most stringent standards, no more than 60 parts 

20 per billion. With that said, I'd like to request or 

21 recommend some specifics. 

22 I think the EPA should require the states to 

23 include significant sources in their implementation plans. 

24 The EPA needs to make it absolutely clear that the Clean 

25 Air Act requires state to demonstrate attainment or include 
144

1 all feasible measures. 

2 We think that including freight facilities in 

3 these plans is necessary. Especially if we're going to be 

4 having more stringent standards we need to look at all the 

5 significant sources and look at every source that can bring 

6 us an attainment, so that we can protect public health and 

7 meet our standards.

8 And furthermore, the solution to this problem is 

9 not only health protective, but it can also be an economic 

10 opportunity. And that's why I also want to encourage the 

11 EPA to require in the guidance, the states move towards 

12 implementing zero emission technologies. This will both 

13 move us towards healthier air and job opportunities and 

14 development of zero emission technologies. Thank you.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 RAMON GUERRA

17 MR. GUERRA: Hey, there. My name's Ramon Guerra, 

18 I'm a fifth-grade teacher from Fruitvale Elementary in 

19 Oakland, California. I'm here to represent my family --

20 MR. PAGE: I'm sorry. Would you spell your name 

21 for the court reporter?

22 MR. GUERRA: Sure. R-A-M-O-N G-U-E-R-R-A.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

24 MR. GUERRA: I'm here today to represent my 

25 students, their families and my own family. My brother 
145

1 suffered from asthma when he was younger, had difficulties 

2 breathing. Coming from a low-income family it was often 

3 difficult for us to purchase the medicine he needed for 

4 that, so he often had to stay away from sports and 

5 different recreational activities.

6 I myself, am an avid biker. I bike about 16 

7 miles per day: 8 miles to work from Berkeley and 8 miles 

8 back in an attempt to not contribute to, you know, the 

9 emissions being put out into the air by cars and whatnot. 

10 So I myself have to deal with those issues in the morning, 

11 passing by various trucks, buses and different things like 

12 that, which often leaves me very tired and gasping for air 

13 by the time I get to work and home from work. 

14 So I bike from Berkeley and into Oakland past 

15 many trucks, trains, different things like that, that often 

16 put out these harmful chemicals and particles and smog into 

17 the air. And I bike into these low-income communities that 

18 are surrounded by much development, many buildings, many 

19 businesses, factories that also produce these same effects. 

20 And I speak on behalf of many of my students 

21 suffering from asthma. As you guys probably know asthma is 

22 one of the leading causes of absenteeism among students. 

23 And with schools like mine, low-income schools that already 

24 lack the funding they need for resources and experiences 

25 like this, taking field trips, trying out new things, 
146

1 gaining new experiences, it's important for us to have all 

2 of our students attending school on a daily basis. It 

3 makes it difficult if they're struggling breathing or they, 

4 themselves, can't afford the same sort of medication that 

5 my brother required when he was younger. 

6 So I'm here just to bring awareness to you guys 

7 and have them also bring awareness to everyone around here. 

8 And let you guys know that we're trying to push for more 

9 clean air, cleaner laws, because it's important for these 

10 guys. They're the future, the future of our great country 

11 here. And I think it's important to be watching out for 

12 their best interests even over my own, so thank you for 

13 hearing me out. And yeah, I hope some good stuff gets 

14 passed.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all very much.

16 So where is Fruitvale Elementary School, where is 

17 Fruitvale located?

18 MR. GUERRA: East Oakland.

19 MR. PAGE: East Oakland, Okay. Thank you.

20 Very good, our next speakers are Kareta Williams

21 and Nancy Reiser. Welcome.

22 MS. WILLIAMS: I guess it's just me.

23 MR. PAGE: Just you, you're Kareta Williams.

24 MS. WILLIAMS: Kareta Williams, K-A-R-E-T-A, last 

25 name Williams.
147

1 MR. PAGE: And Nancy Reiser?

2 MS. REISER: Here.

3 MR. PAGE: Ah, good. Thank you for joining us. 

4 Ms. Williams, you're first.

5 KARETA WILLIAMS

6 MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name is Kareta 

7 Williams. I've lived in Oakland my whole life. I was an 

8 asthma sufferer from age 12 to age 18, but unfortunately 

9 some kids who cannot overcome asthma. I was just one of 

10 the lucky ones.

11 But I came just to let you know that I work for 

12 Alameda County. And we have a sustainability program in 

13 which we have clean air vehicles that bring people from the 

14 BART stations to our various buildings. We've developed 

15 clean air buildings where we have recycled air inside of 

16 our buildings, one being such as the Juvenile Justice 

17 Center. I was housed there for three years.

18 Before we went into the Juvenile Justice Center I 

19 worked in the Juvenile Hall, which we had clean air where 

20 we could open the windows and breathe fresh air. But then 

21 on smoggy days we were breathing smoggy fresh air. We were 

22 across the Bay, so we could look out the windows and be 

23 able to see the Bay. But on the smoggiest days we couldn't 

24 even see beyond the City of San Leandro. 

25 Another thing is we've developed a program where 
148

1 it's called Zimride, where you can calculate your points 

2 among like -- for instance, I carpool with my kids daily. 

3 I take them to and from school, so I qualify for the 

4 Zimride Program and we got various prizes for 

5 participating. We have people that bike to work every day. 

6 We have people that walk to work every day, but then on the 

7 smoggiest days they're breathing the smoggiest air. 

8 And therefore, our schoolchildren, they have 

9 windows in their classrooms where they can open and breathe 

10 fresh air. But then, at the same time, sometimes the 

11 heating system is not good and it's overheated in their 

12 classrooms. So those are things we need to work on in 

13 terms of developing recycled air in the school systems, 

14 because if they can't go outside and play what happens if 

15 they have to stay inside? 

16 So I just wanted to speak on behalf of our 

17 Fruitvale students and the City of Oakland and the County 

18 of Alameda, just to see if we can develop something better 

19 for our environment. Thank you.

20 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

21 NANCY REISER

22 MS. REISER: Thank you. I'm going to read my 

23 comments, it's hard to follow such an eloquent speaker.

24 My name is Nancy Reiser. I'm one of the co25 founders of Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend The 
149

1 Environment, otherwise known as C-R-U-D-E, CRUDE.

2 I live in a small hamlet of Crockett, which is 

3 six miles west of Martinez in Contra Costa County, home to 

4 four oil refineries. Across the water of the Carquinez 

5 Strait is a fifth refinery in Benicia in Solano County. 

6 Believe me, we who all live in the oil refinery 

7 fence line communities know all about emissions that reduce 

8 the ozone. Even more now that oil refineries are doubling 

9 down and intend to refine the dirtiest and the polluting of 

10 crudes -- Canadian Tar Sands. And they are refining as 

11 much as they can before the affordability of renewable 

12 energy pulls the plug on fossil fuels.

13 Now, polluting emissions from all sources impact 

14 not only humans, but animals and plants as well. Ground 

15 level pollution reduces lung function in humans and animals 

16 and increases the susceptibility to disease. Ground level 

17 pollution also impacts sensitive forest vegetation and 

18 impacts the plants ability to fight off disease and to 

19 produce and to store food.

20 You know, I'm reminded of something that Vaclav 

21 Smil once wrote. Now, Smil is a Canadian interdisciplinary 

22 professor of energy and environmental policies. And is 

23 considered one of the top global policy thinkers. Smil 

24 said, "No matter how complex or affluent, human societies 

25 are but just subsystems of the biosphere, the Earth's thin 
150

1 veneer of life, which is ultimately run by bacteria, fungi 

2 and green plants."

3 We are all connected. We at Crockett-Rodeo 

4 United to Defend the Environment fully support the EPA's 

5 proposal that will ultimately help protect all precious 

6 forms of life, be it a forest, creatures who crawl or walk 

7 on land, swim in water, or fly in the sky.

8 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you very much, both 

9 of you, for coming.

10 Our next speakers are Eduardo Martinez and Sylvia 

11 Gray-White.

12 Take your time. Welcome both of you, thank you 

13 for coming. Mr. Martinez, you're up first.

14 EDUARDO MARTINEZ

15 MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. Okay. My name's Eduardo 

16 Martinez. I'm a resident of Richmond, newly elected to the 

17 Richmond City Council and previously on the Planning 

18 Commission. 

19 I was elected to the City Council despite a $3 

20 million campaign by Chevron against me and my teammates, 

21 but the fact that we won over $3 million shows the 

22 community is concerned about the environment. That was one 

23 of the major concerns.

24 So I'm here to speak on smog in California, more 

25 specifically in the East Bay. Although the San Francisco 
151

1 area is not one of the five most-polluted areas in 

2 California, we still breathe polluted air. We have a 

3 string of five oil refineries that continue to pollute the 

4 surrounding communities. 

5 I am a retired school teacher and in 2002 at 

6 Downer Elementary downwind from the Chevron Refinery 

7 teachers and parents had to form an asthma club to develop 

8 adaptations to the physical education curriculum to 

9 accommodate a larger percentage of the student body with 

10 asthma. The majority of Downer students are children of 

11 color and as maps of pollution concentration illustrate, it 

12 is the communities of color who are most adversely 

13 impacted. In Richmond, the map shows that the higher 

14 levels of pollution are around the freeways, railways, and 

15 the refinery. 

16 A favorite tactic of refineries is to reject 

17 responsibility for pollution-related illnesses, because as 

18 they say, "There are too many determinants to narrow the 

19 causes down to us." But with over 15,000 affected by the 

20 Chevron fire in 2012 the major cause is hard to deny. 

21 I say that pollution is pollution and what is in 

22 the air today is in my lungs -- I'm sorry, what was in the 

23 air yesterday is in my lungs today. The baseline of the 

24 pollution in our soil, water and air should have been set 

25 decades ago. And the accumulative amounts of pollutants 
152

1 should be a factor in the current level of pollutants 

2 allowed.

3 I was on the Planning Commission when Chevron's 

4 modernization project was approved. Their original plan 

5 was to rebuild 20 percent of the plant, which would give 

6 them the ability to pollute at a higher rate by processing 

7 dirtier crude, but through cap and trade on paper, appeared 

8 to pollute at zero net increase. Chevron claimed to have 

9 no intention of processing heavier crude, but refused to 

10 put that down in writing. 

11 State Attorney Kamala Harris, in a letter to the 

12 City of Richmond, criticized the draft environmental impact 

13 report for Chevron Modernization Project stressing that as 

14 the environmental community knew, the purpose of Chevron's 

15 project is to process higher sulfur crude oil.

16 In that letter, Ms. Harris touted an Alternative 

17 11, which lowered the greenhouse gas emissions from the 

18 refinery. Without the Attorney General's support the 

19 Planning Commission might not have approved Alternative 11 

20 along with ten other conditions recommended by the U.S. 

21 Chemical Safety Board. This illustrates how important it 

22 is for organizations that protect our environment to do 

23 their work and to support the communities to make sure that 

24 air is cleaner.

25 So that's why we're here letting you know that's 
153

1 why we support you and providing the best possible laws and 

2 regulations. So thank you very much.

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

4 MS. STONE: Excuse me, I have a question. Do you 

5 have a specific recommendation about the level of the 

6 standard?

7 MR. MARTINEZ: Actually, I don't have a specific 

8 recommendation, but whatever is possible is what we should. 

9 My specific recommendation is the lowest possible amount.

10 MR. PAGE: That's clear.

11 MS. STONE: Yes, it is. 

12 (Applause)

13 MR. PAGE: Ms. White?

14 SYLVIA GRAY-WHITE

15 MS. WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is Sylvia 

16 Gray-White, I'm a member of CBE and the Sierra Club. I 

17 live in Richmond, California; a city beset for decades with 

18 toxic heavy metal environmental issues. 

19 I am in favor of any and all efforts to clean our 

20 air and stop this premeditated murder of citizens who get 

21 sick and die just because they breathe the air.

22 If your intent for changing the regulations is to 

23 create a more livable and clean environment, I would like 

24 to suggest and emphasize the need to fully evaluate and 

25 stop the chemtrails that are lighting up our sky on a daily 
154

1 basis with dozens of toxic chemicals such as aluminum, 

2 barium, strontium, arsenic, lead, mercury, benzene, 

3 desiccated human red blood cells, desiccated human white 

4 blood cells. 

5 Why? Why are they doing this knowing that these 

6 chemicals are deadly? This is a very small sample of the 

7 long list of what they are purposely spraying, not what is 

8 coming out of their tailpipe as exhaust. The Bay Area Air 

9 Quality Management District has made some attempts to 

10 resolve the air pollution issues in the Bay Area and are 

11 focused on the oil refineries in our area. 

12 Oil refineries should have a lot of focus and 

13 they should have even more focus, but they aren't the only 

14 ones killing us in our planet. Our own government, using 

15 our tax dollars is sending out Navy military planes and 

16 some private planes full of toxic chemicals that are 

17 spraying death and destruction on our planet. 

18 Both Chevron and the chemtrails put arsenic in 

19 the air, but the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

20 does not monitor for arsenic to see how much we are 

21 breathing every day. My mother passed away this past May, 

22 last year, arsenic was very high in her body. 

23 Because I'm a participant and I take the hair 

24 analysis tests in my own specific test it showed that the 

25 level of lead has magnified, increased at least 20 times in 
155

1 just a year. And that's why I got this, because lead 

2 displaces the calcium in your bones. And these chemtrails 

3 cause pain and all that, body pain. But they're being 

4 dropped on us every day even though we have never, ever, 

5 given permission for this to happen. We have never, ever 

6 been given the opportunity to vote for this violation of 

7 our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

8 These chemtrails also cause droughts, global 

9 warming, all kinds of illnesses, earth destruction and 

10 cause very bad environmental pollution. Even if you don't 

11 live near a refinery you're still going to get this. 

12 And right now there is a chemtrail flu epidemic 

13 everywhere. I could almost hardly talk, because of sore 

14 throat and all this mucus causing hacking coughs. 

15 A lot of people are having this happen to them 

16 now, but the world is waking up. They're looking up and 

17 waking up. In fact, April 25th this year there will be a 

18 global protest all over the world against chemtrails. The 

19 world is literally sick and tired of this unauthorized 

20 attack on our life and well-being. 

21 Now, you are in a position to develop evidence 

22 that could banish this death from the air. I have read on 

23 the Internet that you have started to study what's going on 

24 with the chemtrails. I certainly hope this is true and we 

25 really appreciate that and sincerely hope and urge that you 
156

1 prioritize this environmental and health issue. And help 

2 us to not only survive, but to thrive. Thank you.

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

4 Amy Anderson and Dan Johnson are our next 

5 speakers.

6 Why don't we wait for a minute for the room to 

7 settle a little bit? Thank you. 

8 (Colloquy off mic as audience members depart)

9 All right. So Amy, you're up first.

10 AMY LEE ANDERSON

11 MS. ANDERSON: Yes. My name is Amy Lee Anderson. 

12 I'm a City of Richmond resident. And I'm a human rights 

13 activist as well and I'm concerned about poor quality air. 

14 And the problem is not enough people are joining 

15 and participating and establishing a good quality air. And 

16 some of the major problems that I can see is not enough 

17 people are willing to speak up about how important this 

18 issue is and that it is good for us, important for us to 

19 breathe healthy air, no matter what some people think and 

20 dealing with the sanctions.

21 I'm finding out that as many people are speaking 

22 out, but it's sad that many jobs are being threatened. And 

23 some people want to speak out, but then they become 

24 whistleblowers. And we've got to find a way to protect 

25 people who really care about humanity, because I'm finding 
157

1 out that people concerned about their own jobs -- and some 

2 people on the inside threaten these people. And when those 

3 things happen you think about losing your homes, if you're 

4 a homeowner, or lose your job or your lifetime savings, 

5 things like that. 

6 So my concern is to look out for the people who 

7 really mean well and really want to change society and 

8 support these people, because a lot of people we know have 

9 lost everything trying to do the right thing. So that's 

10 some of the things I can see.

11 And regardless of who it is we need to get these 

12 people out of office too, who just for the corporate greed 

13 and money, and just don't care about humanity. We need to 

14 not put these people in office, don't vote these people in. 

15 In order for things to change we've got to see who's being 

16 put in these positions to regulate these quality air 

17 control. Who is responsible for doing these things right 

18 along with are they qualified. Do they do some type of 

19 self-analysis or personality test of asking do -- find out 

20 do they really care about the people or is it they just 

21 want the job? Because that will determine what kind of 

22 people we have in position.

23 And also, I don't know if you even heard about 

24 the HAARP technology, but it's a lot of technology just 

25 altering the weather. And people are starting to speak out 
158

1 about that. They have a Dr. Nick Begich that talks about 

2 the HAARP and it's just different things that's happening 

3 in the world, that we all are concerned about. And we need 

4 to know what kind of technology they have out there that 

5 can kill the animals and deal with the mammals. 

6 And what kind of frequencies, unregulated 

7 frequencies, they are using to upset nature? And if these 

8 frequencies and these different radiation of radio 

9 transmission is just bombarding our planet then we're 

10 killing the planet. So I just wanted to talk down to 

11 earth. I didn't want to come with some eloquent speech, 

12 because that's not important. My sincere heart is, thank 

13 you.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson,

15 welcome. 

16 DAN JOHNSON

17 MR. JOHNSON: Hi. My name's Dan Johnson and I am 

18 the executive director of WESTAR, the Western States Air 

19 Resources Council. WESTAR is an association of 15 western

20 air quality agencies. 

21 I am pleased to be here today to speak on behalf 

22 of the WESTAR states about EPA’s proposal to revise the 

23 NAAQS, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

24 We support revisions to the NAAQS based on the 

25 best available science. While we recognize that the level 
159

1 and the form of the standard must be based on science 

2 alone, we are pleased that EPA is seeking comment on some 

3 of the implementation aspects of the ozone NAAQS. We urge 

4 EPA to release the guidance a soon as possible.

5 In my comments today, I will touch on two related 

6 key concerns: First, the impact of background and 

7 transported ozone in western states; and second, the need 

8 to expand our capability to characterize ozone in potential 

9 new western nonattainment areas, thereby ensuring that the 

10 best possible control strategy decisions can be made.

11 If EPA adopts a standard in the range of 65 to 70 

12 parts per billion, it is inevitable that new nonattainment 

13 areas will be designated in the west and that some of these 

14 areas will be designated predominantly as the result of 

15 ozone transported from outside the nonattainment area 

16 boundaries. This transported background ozone or the 

17 precursor pollutants that cause ozone may originate in 

18 another state, in Mexico and Canada or even in Asia. It 

19 may be transported down from the stratosphere. It may be 

20 the product of wildfires. 

21 In short, there is great uncertainty about the 

22 magnitude, the frequency, the duration, the geographic 

23 distribution of some of these contributors to ozone in the 

24 western states.

25 Background levels of ozone in remote areas, 
160

1 including many intermountain National Parks are 

2 consistently above the standard proposed by EPA. In many 

3 of these areas, very little of the ozone can be attributed 

4 to emissions from the area actually violating the standard. 

5 Ozone exceedances in areas like this originate from a mix 

6 of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources. That 

7 source mix, pollution transport over the complex terrain 

8 common in western states, and the role of natural events 

9 such as wildfires are just a few examples of scientific 

10 issues that are not well understood. 

11 Making good choices about how to improve air 

12 quality in ozone nonattainment areas will depend on how 

13 well we understand the science, and our understanding of 

14 the science needs to improve.

15 The implementation tools available to states to 

16 account for non-anthropogenic ozone treated as exceptional 

17 events are administratively burdensome and fraught with 

18 problems of second-guessing, oftentimes due to a lack of 

19 reliable supporting data. While we appreciate that EPA 

20 recognizes this and does intend to make improvements to the 

21 regulatory requirements to make it work better, a 

22 fundamental lack of scientific understanding and the data 

23 on emissions from these exceptional events will continue to 

24 plague efforts to account for them. Every hour spent 

25 analyzing pollution that cannot be controlled simply to 
161

1 satisfy EPA’s administrative requirements is just that: 

2 administrative overhead that does nothing to improve air 

3 quality.

4 In 2007, WESTAR commented that EPA needed to 

5 provide funding support to help states understand ozone 

6 background and transport in the west. At that time, we 

7 noted that EPA had provided substantial funding to support 

8 eastern ozone analysis, and with that extraordinary 

9 support, EPA was able to help eastern states develop the 

10 capacity to understand the origin ozone precursors, ozone 

11 formation and the fate of ozone with a level of confidence 

12 to develop regulatory programs necessary to improve air 

13 quality. 

14 Once again, we urge EPA to make a similar 

15 commitment to the west.

16 In conclusion, implementing a more stringent 

17 ozone standard in the west will require a much better 

18 understanding of the role of background and transported 

19 ozone. We call on EPA to provide the resources needed to 

20 advance our knowledge in these areas. 

21 Further, we call on EPA to streamline the tools 

22 states may use to address areas that violate the new 

23 standard due to sources over which we have little or no 

24 control.

25 We look forward to working with EPA to advance 
162

1 our knowledge about the contributions of background and 

2 transported ozone in the west, and helping EPA refine the 

3 implementation tools that will help all of us make the best 

4 possible decisions for public health protection. 

5 Thank you.

6 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

7 Our next speakers are Molly Arthur and Jason 

8 Holder.

9 MOLLY FAY VALLEJO MCGETTIGAN ARTHUR

10 MS. ARTHUR: This is appropriate that I'm up here 

11 with a father who is a child. My name is Molly Fay Vallejo 

12 McGettigan Arthur and I'm a sixth-generation Californian 

13 here. Sure. 

14 I hope you know how to spell Vallejo, but Molly 

15 is M-O-L-L-Y, Fay F-A-Y, Vallejo, V-A-L-L-E-J-O and 

16 McGettigan as it sounds, M-C-G-E-T-T-I-G-A-N. And I did 

17 take my husband's name of 41 years, Arthur.

18 So I'm a sixth-generation Californian, 

19 grandmother, and air pollution is very personal to me. In 

20 fact, it's very intimate, because it's in my body and I'm 

21 passing it on to my children, my grandchildren and all 

22 future generations. And that turns me into a perpetrator 

23 of harm inadvertently, unfairly, immorally as far as I'm 

24 concerned.

25 So I'm not an expert and I depend on you all to 
163

1 be the experts. I am turning myself into an activist. 

2 This is the first time I've come to a hearing and spoken 

3 before, and I have had a little training in environmental 

4 health. I'm working with my own organization called 

5 EcoBirth-Women for Earth and Birth and working with birth 

6 keepers. And birth keepers guard our most precious 

7 birthright being born healthy and loved in a flourishing 

8 and just world.

9 We honor women, promote social justice and 

10 protect the living life-giving relationships of mother, 

11 baby, mother earth. So wherever there is a creation of 

12 disconnection between these relationships that's where we 

13 as women and elders want to speak up and say this is wrong, 

14 we are the life-givers, we are the environments. And we 

15 contain the maternal lineage and then we are the inheritors 

16 of our past maternal lineage. 

17 Certainly the six generations here in California 

18 from the gold rush on, from the conquistadors on, that is 

19 what I'm made of. And that's what I pass on to my children 

20 and my grandchildren. And I don't want inadvertent harm to 

21 be passed on through my body. And I don't want the world 

22 of pollution that is harmful to children and to human 

23 beings. To be continued. 

24 So thank you for your expertise in knowing what 

25 should be good for us. I want to say that I support you 
164

1 and that putting a maternal focus on what is important 

2 about what we're passing on to the future generations is 

3 really where our movement will be as women and mothers and 

4 grandmothers. And we want to become beloved ancestors for 

5 our children and grandchildren.

6 Thank you for your good work. I appreciate it.

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Mr. Holder?

8 JASON HOLDER

9 MR. HOLDER: Good afternoon, I'm Jason Holder. 

10 My name is spelled is J-A-S-O-N H-O-L-D-E-R. I'm an 

11 environmental attorney. I practice law in Oakland, 

12 California. I've been practicing for about ten years and 

13 I'm here on behalf of myself and my children and my 

14 community. 

15 No clients asked me to come here today. I came 

16 on the Sierra Club bus from Oakland.

17 I've had a long-standing interest in 

18 environmental issues growing up in the Central Valley. I 

19 spent part of my childhood here in Sacramento and on a farm 

20 outside of Manteca. And I saw pollution all around me when 

21 I was a kid. And it heightened my awareness then and had 

22 me start writing articles or papers in high school about 

23 alternatives to fossil fuels and selenium buildup in the

24 Central Valley caused by ag and other environmental issues 

25 from an early age. 
165

1 I was a geography major in college and learned a 

2 lot about natural resources. I focused on natural resource 

3 management and learned a lot about water management and 

4 water quality issues and water supply issues, which is all 

5 the more important these days with increased demand. 

6 And I studied administrative law in law school 

7 and definitely have a deep appreciation through the process 

8 that you're going through today and I really appreciate 

9 being part of this process. 

10 And I wanted to bring my son here to kind of see 

11 the process. He might not be an enamored by it as he will 

12 be, but I hope that this is inspiring him to get involved. 

13 And I want to say that I applaud the EPA's 

14 efforts over the last 40 years and everything that you've 

15 done in improving our environment. And I think that the 

16 proposed rule to make ozone standards more stringent is a 

17 step in the right direction. And I would encourage you to 

18 adopt the most stringent protections that is scientifically 

19 justified.

20 And I think, as you know, with the economic kind 

21 of cost benefit analysis I'm sure you'll take into 

22 consideration the costs of lost productivity with people 

23 who have asthma or who miss work as well as the health 

24 costs and weigh those against the costs of regulation and 

25 the costs that are imposed upon industries.
166

1 And I appreciate your time today.

2 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much. 

3 Thanks for bringing your son.

4 MS. STONE: Yeah, thank you very much.

5 MR. PAGE: So we're going to take a break until 

6 2:00 o'clock. And then we'll have a whole afternoon and 

7 evening billet of speakers right on up until 9:00 o'clock 

8 tonight.

9 So you're welcome to come back. And thank you 

10 all that have made comments. We appreciate you coming here 

11 and making the effort to be here.

12 (LUNCH RECESS)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
167

1 Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the 

2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS)

3 February 2, 2015

4 Sacramento, California

5 Steve Page, Presiding Officer

6 * * *

7 AFTERNOON SESSION

8 MR. PAGE: ... of our public hearing for the 

9 EPA's proposed ozone standard. 

10 I'll give you all a second to get seated and get 

11 comfortable. 

12 We had a very excellent morning of testimony. 

13 We're looking forward to this afternoon and this evening. 

14 I guess we're going to be here until 9:00 o'clock, so yes 

15 we're looking forward to it. 

16 Some of us came all the way from the East Coast, 

17 so we're determined to get all the testimony we can in 

18 California, before we go back. 

19 I did want to read some statements; I have to do 

20 that. For those of you were here this morning, I've got 

21 some formal statements that I have to read. And I'm going 

22 to do that and I promise I'll go even faster than I did 

23 this morning for those of you who were here and had to 

24 listen to it. 

25 Before that, I wanted to introduce the panel 
168

1 members. We are waiting for one more, but she'll come 

2 down. We usually have at least three panel members. We've 

3 got that, so we'll start on. 

4 My name is Steve Page. And I’m the Director of 

5 Air Quality Planning and Standards for the U. S. 

6 Environmental Protection Agency in Washington or I'm 

7 actually based in North Carolina. 

8 But we do the work, and among other things we 

9 develop proposals for the NAAQS. We take the science from 

10 the scientists, and the lawyers, and the economists and 

11 everybody. And it's our job to put that into a proposal. 

12 And we present that proposal to the Administrator, which is 

13 what the purpose of the commenting is today. 

14 And I would like to have the other panelists 

15 introduce themselves and tell you a little bit about what 

16 they do, so you know who you're watching here as we're 

17 taking testimony. 

18 So Amy, why don't you go ahead?

19 MS. ZIMPFER: Welcome everyone. My name is Amy 

20 Zimpfer. I’m an associate director for the Air Division at 

21 the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office in San 

22 Francisco. So we cover California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii 

23 and the Pacific Islands. 

24 And our job is implementation. So once the 

25 national standards are established, it's our job to work 
169

1 with the state and local air district to develop the plans 

2 that will lead towards attainment of the standards. 

3 We of course do permitting and enforcement as 

4 well, but we're very pleased to have so many people here 

5 today and we're looking forward to your testimony.

6 MR. PAGE: Great, Patrick. 

7 MR. DOLWICK: And I'm Pat Dolwick. I'm also,

8 like Steve, from EPA's office in North Carolina in the 

9 office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

10 And on behalf of my colleague, Susan Stone, we 

11 form some of the technical expertise that has established 

12 the foundation for the ozone NAAQS proposals. Susan on the 

13 health side, myself more on the atmospheric, chemistry and 

14 transport side of things. 

15 MR. PAGE: Very good, so you have the real 

16 experts listening to the testimony today. 

17 You've heard the term background ozone and 

18 Patrick does a lot of work on that, the scientific work on 

19 that, with a variety of scientists. And Susan does the 

20 risk estimates and things like that. So we've got the 

21 right people and with the implementation, we've got a full 

22 team in here to take this testimony. 

23 So, if you'll indulge me while I read these 

24 required statements and then we'll get into taking the 

25 testimony. 
170

1 The first thing I have to say, that I was asked 

2 by the folks that graciously gave us this auditorium to 

3 hold the hearing, is a safety announcement. And that is

4 for safety reasons, please note the emergency exit to the 

5 rear of the room. In the event of a fire alarm, we're 

6 required to evacuate this room immediately and go down the 

7 stairs and out of the building. When the all clear signal 

8 is given, we'll return to the hearing room and resume the 

9 hearing. 

10 All right, very good. So, let me read this 

11 formal statement. This is the time to settle in while I'm 

12 reading it, so you can get comfortable here. 

13 We're here today to listen to your comments on 

14 proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

15 Standards for Ozone. 

16 The EPA announced this proposed rule on November 

17 25, 2014, and published it in the Federal Register on 

18 December 17, 2014. 

19 We've had two other public hearings to date. 

20 Last week, we held a hearing in Washington D.C. In fact,

21 there were two hearings in one day. There was so much 

22 interest that we had two concurrent sessions going in D. C. 

23 And then also last week, toward the end of the week, we had 

24 a hearing in Dallas, Fort Worth, Texas. And this is the 

25 third and final. 
171

1 Our proposal is based on extensive scientific 

2 evidence about ozone's effects on public health and 

3 welfare. 

4 The proposed updates will improve public health 

5 protection, particularly for children, the elderly and 

6 people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma, 

7 as well as improved public welfare protection, particularly 

8 related to ozone sensitive trees and other plants in 

9 protected forested ecosystems, such as national wilderness 

10 areas. 

11 We've proposed to strengthen both the primary 

12 ozone standard to protect public health and the secondary 

13 standard to protect public welfare. 

14 We are proposing to set the levels of the primary 

15 and the secondary standards in a range from 65 to 70 parts 

16 per billion. These standards would be met when the three17 year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-

18 hour average ozone concentration is at or below the new 

19 level. 

20 The proposal would also extend the ozone 

21 monitoring season for many states and update the Air 

22 Quality Index to ensure people are informed about their air 

23 quality. 

24 These proposed standards do not establish 

25 emission control requirements for any particular industry. 
172

1 Each state, as needed, will determine how to best meet the 

2 standards in a way that makes the most sense for their 

3 area. 

4 States will have time to develop and implement 

5 plans to meet revised standards. Existing and proposed 

6 federal rules will help the vast majority of areas meet the 

7 proposed standards by 2025. 

8 I want to thank you, on behalf of the panel, for 

9 taking time out of your day to join is and share your 

10 comments. We will accept comments on all aspects of the 

11 proposal, including on retaining the existing standards. 

12 Before we get started, I need to go through a few 

13 more housekeeping items and ground rules that will make 

14 today's hearing run smoothly. 

15 First, be sure you've checked in at the 

16 registration desk, even if you're not planning to speak. 

17 And if you've signed up to speak online or by phone, but 

18 haven't told us that you're here, please step out to the 

19 registration desk and let the EPA staff there know that 

20 you've arrived. That way we can make sure you get in line 

21 and in proper order for speaking. 

22 All right, so the way we're going to work is the 

23 same way we did this morning. We'll call the speakers up 

24 in pairs. When your name is called, please come to the 

25 tables here in front of the room and remain at the table 
173

1 until both speakers have completed their comments. 

2 When I call on you to speak, please state your 

3 name and spell it for the court reporter, who's sitting 

4 over there. 

5 Your comments will be transcribed and included in 

6 the official record of comments, or the docket, on the 

7 proposed rule. 

8 Each speaker will have five minutes to give 

9 comments. We have a light to help you know how much time 

10 you have left to speak. The light's right here in front.

11 When the light turns from green to yellow, that 

12 means you have one minute remaining. When it turns red, 

13 that's a signal to wrap up your testimony. The light will 

14 flash red and beep when you've spoken for five minutes and 

15 it's time to stop. If you go on much longer than that, I'm 

16 not sure what's going to happen. It didn't happen this 

17 morning, so don't press it. I don't know if confetti goes 

18 off or something. I don't know. 

19 When you finish speaking, please remain at the 

20 table as I said. 

21 We're going to be here to listen to you today, 

22 but if a panel member asks you a question, that's not a bad 

23 thing. It's just that we're just trying to get a 

24 clarification on what you've said, or just something for 

25 our own benefit. Maybe a clarification there if we didn't 
174

1 hear something and we want to make sure we get your 

2 comments. 

3 If you have a written copy of your testimony, 

4 please give it to the staff at the registration desk before 

5 you leave. We'll put any written comments submitted today 

6 in the official docket for the proposed rule. 

7 Here's something very important. If you have 

8 additional comments you would like to make, you can submit 

9 them in writing until March 17, 2015. Instructions for 

10 submitting additional written comments are available at the 

11 materials table near the registration desk. 

12 We've already talked about the timing for the 

13 hearings today. If you have any questions during the day, 

14 please talk to the staff at the registration desk and 

15 someone will try to help you. 

16 We are offering Spanish translation and I'm going 

17 to let Carlos address that issue for me, since I don't 

18 speak Spanish. Yes.

19 (Spanish announcement re: translation services.)

20 MR. PAGE: Gracias.

21 Finally, I want to ask each of you to please be 

22 respectful of everyone who speaks today. We have people 

23 with a wide variety of views in the audience and we want to 

24 hear from all of you, so we can do that and to be fair to 

25 everyone, we ask that everybody listen quietly. Even the 
175

1 little kids that came in this morning kept it down to where 

2 the testimony could go on. It was great. So even applause 

3 can slow things down and so we want to hear from everybody, 

4 so we'll try to keep this moving as quickly as possible so 

5 everybody has a chance to speak. 

6 Once again, I would like to thank everybody for 

7 coming today and participating in this very important 

8 process. 

9 Lastly I will say that I know I can speak for 

10 people at EPA that we consider this to be one of the most 

11 important aspects of our jobs is to listen to the public, 

12 to what they say about the science that we've pulled 

13 together, the proposal that's at hand. And so it's our 

14 pleasure to be here as well. We really appreciate your 

15 effort to be here, but we feel like this is one of the most 

16 important aspects of our job that we do is listening to 

17 people directly on what they have to say about the work 

18 that we do. 

19 Susan, you've already been introduced to the 

20 group, so no apologies necessary. We just got right into 

21 it. 

22 MS. STONE: Good. Thank you very much. 

23 MR. PAGE: Okay, very good. Well, so why don't 

24 we call up our first speakers for the afternoon. 

25 Evan Shipp and Nathan Landers, gentlemen. Mr. 
176

1 Shipp, you're first. 

2 EVAN SHIPP

3 MR. SHIPP: Thank you. I think you for the 

4 opportunity to comment here. 

5 My name is Evan Shipp, S-H-I-P-P. And I was 

6 going to say, I'm Evan Shipp and I'm fresh from Fresno. 

7 Well, the air quality is not exactly fresh in Fresno. 

8 And I'm an air pollution meteorologist and a 

9 modeler. I've worked for three districts in California and 

10 also as a consultant for some more districts. I've also 

11 worked for with environmental groups. And on a personal 

12 note, in 1998, I was diagnosed with asthma after living in 

13 the San Joaquin Valley for a year. 

14 My mother-in-law is a lung cancer survivor. And 

15 she also lives in Fresno and she's sensitive to ozone. 

16 And also I'm a San Joaquin bicycle commuter and 

17 our joke, in the San Joaquin Valley is, "We filter the air 

18 for you." So it's not exactly a wonder place if you 

19 exercise. 

20 We also have another joke about the San Joaquin 

21 Valley, and that is that we're a four season valley. 

22 You've got a course-particulate season, a fine-particulate 

23 season, an ozone season and a pollen season. It's bad if 

24 you're a breather. And that points out that individuals in 

25 the San Joaquin Valley are exposed four seasons a year. 
177

1 For instance, very recently in October and

2 November, we had a major PM 2.5. episode. We go all winter 

3 with a PM 2.5. We go into the spring, into the pollen 

4 season and then boom, the breathers are hit with an ozone 

5 season that's very high. 

6 So basically what I'd like to day today is I 

7 recommend that you go with the 60 ppb. And I consider that 

8 to be a conservative level. I think if you look at the 

9 health data and you probably all have, you see that there's 

10 lung function changes at 60 ppb. Now whether or not those 

11 cause health effects, I know that there's quite a bit of 

12 question as whether that's a concern.

13 I just want to talk, I'm kind of unique in terms 

14 of I've had a very long career. I started doing this in 

15 the 1980's. 

16 So when I started in 1979, the 1-hour health 

17 standard was 124 ppb. Then it went down and through some 

18 politics, it ended up at 84 ppb. And now, I think we're 

19 making up for lost time and lost ground after having a 

20 standard that was somewhat health related. So I think that 

21 we kind of need to recover some of those more political 

22 kinds of designations of the health standard. 

23 The other major point that I'd like to make is 

24 I'm still interested in a 1-hour standard. And that is 

25 because when there's monitoring out there, for instance 
178

1 what you guys see on air now, that a person can make a 

2 decision as to whether to be exposed or not. With an 8-

3 hour standard, you don't know what's going to happen in the 

4 next eight hours and you don't know what's happened before.

5 But with a 1-hour standard you'd know in real time how to 

6 take precautions for your personal exposure. 

7 I think that's about all I have to say today, so 

8 I really thank you for your time. And I'm glad to be here 

9 and that I can be a citizen today and take and take this 

10 time to make these comments. Thank you.

11 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. 

12 NATHAN LANDERS

13 MR. LANDERS: Hi, yes. I'm Nathan Landers, L-A14 N-D-E-R-S, and I work for the Sierra Club, based out of San 

15 Francisco. Thank you very much for giving me the 

16 opportunity to testify today. 

17 So far today, most of the people have been in 

18 favor of a stronger air quality standard on smog, but there 

19 has been a lot from -- mostly from industry, a lot has been 

20 said about cost and the cost and practical implications of 

21 enforcing a stronger standard. 

22 However, there is a price that is already paid by 

23 the status quo, for the current levels of smog in 

24 California. Some sample statistics are $193 million per 

25 year in medical bills and health problems due to lung 
179

1 cancer, asthma, cardiovascular disease related to smog. 

2 In the L.A. region alone, there are 400,000 

3 missed days of work per year, an estimated cost of $22 

4 billion in economic losses from missed days of work. 

5 Thirty-five thousand asthma attacks per year are 

6 attributed to smog. And asthma is the top cause of missed 

7 school days in California for children. 

8 And most importantly it's been estimated that 

9 smog contributes to 25,000 premature deaths a year. 

10 So this is an extremely heavy and sizable cost 

11 that is already been born by people across California from 

12 the status quo. 

13 Furthermore, the way that this pain is 

14 distributed is unequal. Black and Latino youth are two-to15 six times more likely to die of asthma in Southern 

16 California. And nationally, people of color breathe 38

17 percent nitrogen oxide then the rest of the population. 

18 So the status quo is failing thousands of people 

19 in our state. And those are some grim numbers. And those 

20 are what we know. 

21 And I think that it-s also worth mentioning that 

22 there are a wide range of available solutions that could 

23 help to ameliorate this problem. 

24 You know, the world as we know it, is really 

25 changing. In California, clean energy has grown rapidly. 
180

1 Electric vehicles are growing very rapidly in their 

2 adoption as well. 

3 Governor Brown started his inauguration by saying 

4 that he wanted to set a goal for the state of 50 percent 

5 clean energy by 2030. And we're already ahead of the 

6 current goal of 33 percent by 2020. We're going to get 

7 there before the end of the decade. 

8 So there's already a lot of changes that are 

9 happening. A roof-top solar installation goes up every 

10 four minutes now. That was not the case just a few years 

11 ago. California installed as much solar energy last year 

12 as it did in the previous 30 years, I believe combined, so 

13 it doubled last year. 

14 So I would say that not only is there a high 

15 price to pay for the status quo, but there is a way 

16 forward. And I think that there's an implication in a lot 

17 of the testimony about cost that its impractical or 

18 impossible, and I would push back on that. The world is 

19 changing very quickly and there are solutions that are 

20 available, especially with the proper support. And I think 

21 given the human cost, it's worth supporting them. 

22 I also just wanted to say, at 1:00 o'clock in the 

23 park across the street, we had a rally with a lot of the 

24 folks who came from all across the state; mostly young 

25 people, ranging in age from about 25 down to 8 years old. 
181

1 So and coming from the Coachella Valley, Inland Empire, 

2 Oakland, Richmond, Fresno, all across the state. 

3 And it was really exciting to see these kids out 

4 there, hopeful, chanting, playing soccer afterwards. And I 

5 think that we should be thinking about their future and 

6 their hope and their attitude and their enthusiasm. And we 

7 should be confident we can do this, we should do this and 

8 we should push for a stronger standard. Thank you. 

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

10 Our next two speakers are Brendan White and Matt

11 Elliott. 

12 MR. WHITE: Good afternoon.

13 MR. PAGE: Welcome. Mr. White. 

14 BRENDON WHITE

15 MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is Brendon 

16 White. I’m the regulatory specialist for the California 

17 Nurses Association and National Nurses United. 

18 CNA/NNU is here today to urge the EPA to embrace 

19 the science, protect the public, and adopt a 60 ppb surface 

20 ozone standard. 

21 As a nurse's regulatory specialist, I would like 

22 to spend a few minutes reflecting on the administrative 

23 process. Of all the people in this room, I think all of 

24 you are perhaps the most painfully aware of how difficult 

25 the administrative process can be. In the context of these 
182

1 rules I imagine many of you would say this process has been 

2 somewhat torturous, actually. 

3 In part, the administrative process is difficult 

4 because it is supposed to be scientific. And science 

5 itself is a long and difficult process. But here, 

6 thankfully, the science is clear and every day it is 

7 becoming clearer; 60 parts per billion should become the 

8 nation's ceiling for surface ozone levels. This is because 

9 higher concentrations are known to cause negative health 

10 effects. In other words, the difficult and meticulous 

11 scientific process tells us that 60 ppb marks the boundary 

12 between public health and disease. 

13 Since the most difficult part of this process, 

14 the scientific part, has yielded relatively certain results 

15 there really shouldn't be any debate about these standards. 

16 But there is, of course, another reason is difficult and 

17 that's politics. I know there are some out there who would 

18 doubt the science and will continue to do so, because it is 

19 in their financial interest to leave the sick and the 

20 vulnerable to their fates. 

21 A few of our elected officials have been 

22 politically captured by these financial interests, and they 

23 are determined to hijack this administrative process for 

24 their own political gain. And having just come from Texas, 

25 I'm sure you saw a lot of that. 
183

1 I know this is going to sound naïve or absurd, 

2 but I'm here today to ask you to ignore those financial 

3 interests. I know that's going to be difficult. I'd ask 

4 you to instead focus on the children that you saw here 

5 today, that you saw outside at the rally, as well as the 

6 dozen scores of nurses who were at that rally as well. 

7 The purpose of the administrative process and the 

8 purpose of the Clean Air Act is to protect those people and 

9 the millions they represent. We understand that it is 

10 difficult to achieve those purposes, but as you consider 

11 the lives at stake and you listen to the speakers, we trust 

12 you will agree it is worth the trouble to adopt a safe, 

13 proven scientific standard of 60 parts per billion. Thank 

14 you. 

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 MATTHEW ELLIOTT

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Hello. My name is Matthew Elliott. 

18 I am an ICU nurse and a member of the California Nurses 

19 Association and National Nurses United. 

20 I'm here today representing over 180,000 direct 

21 care registered nurses throughout the nation to urge the 

22 EPA to adopt a 60 parts per billion surface ozone standard.

23 The science proves that ozone begins to cause 

24 inflammation and other harmful health impacts at any 

25 concentration above the 60 parts per billion. In other 
184

1 words, the science tells us that 60 is an outcome 

2 determinative number for many millions of people. 

3 The lungs serve as many functions in the human 

4 body and one being a filtration system. I find it a neat 

5 statistic or not a statistic, but actual body function that 

6 the average person breathes two gallons of air per minute, 

7 which is a little more than 3,000 gallons per day. 

8 As a registered nurse and with the current 

9 standards, I see the effects of air pollution and what that 

10 causes up close and personal. Many of these people are my 

11 patients and daily I care for these patients suffering from 

12 life threatening results and chronic pulmonary disease. 

13 These diseases are both caused and aggravated by ozone 

14 levels above the 60 parts per billion. Nurses applaud EPA 

15 and the other agencies for your efforts to protect our 

16 patients, families, communities and the future that it 

17 holds. 

18 While the proposed standards of 65 to 70 parts 

19 per billion are a great way, and a necessary step in the 

20 right direction, we must take bolder and more 

21 transformative action in order to protect the next 

22 generation. 

23 There is no question the problem we have in front 

24 of us is not small. It will take full revamping on how we 

25 fuel our lives, how we build our world, and keep the lights 
185

1 one. This might seem like a daunting task, but if we do 

2 this right, we can save billions of dollars in economic 

3 activity and thousands people from life-altering diseases 

4 or premature death.

5 You don't need a medical professional to tell you 

6 that the air is a fundamental part of life. We need it not 

7 just to survive, but to enjoy a long-lasting fulfilling 

8 life. Nurses are proud to stand with the community today 

9 in urging you to adopt the 60 parts per billion standard. 

10 That standard is a right for patients and it is a right for 

11 public health. Thank you. 

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both coming 

13 today. 

14 Our next speakers are Wendy Ring and Larissa 

15 Kohler. Welcome. Thank you. 

16 Wendy, do you want to go first? 

17 MS. RING: Sure.

18 MR. PAGE: Okay. 

19 WENDY RING

20 MS. RING: My name is Wendy Ring, W-E-N-D-Y R-I21 N-G. I'm a family physician. I've been working taking 

22 care of low-income folks for 30 years now. 

23 And I really appreciate this chance to share with 

24 you what an inadequate ozone standard means to me and my 

25 patients. I really think that we can do better. 
186

1 Have you ever seen a child have an asthma attack? 

2 When they come in the clinic they don't act like regular 

3 kids. They don't move around. They hardly say anything 

4 because they're using all their energy just to breathe. 

5 They breathe fast. Their lungs are full of trapped air 

6 that's already given up its oxygen, but they can't breathe

7 it out to get more. The muscles in their neck stand out 

8 with the effort of trying to inhale. And the little ones 

9 use their belly muscles too and you can see their stomachs 

10 suck in under their ribs with each breath.

11 You'd think that the worse the asthma, the louder 

12 the wheeze, but when it's really bad the chest is quiet, 

13 because there's hardly any air moving. When things are 

14 that bad, there's only so much you can do. The key to 

15 asthma treatment is prevention. 

16 One-in-ten kids and one-in-twelve adults have 

17 asthma. And some would have never have gotten it and many 

18 wouldn't be as sick as they are if we had an adequate ozone 

19 standard. Researchers calculate that 27,000 kids in Los 

20 Angeles County alone got asthma from living near traffic, 

21 which exposes them to ozone and its precursors -- 27,000 

22 kids who go through what I just described, because we 

23 didn't make sure they had clean air to breath. 

24 What's even worse to me, as a physician, is that 

25 kids whose families follow our advice about obesity 
187

1 prevention and involve their kids in sports, triple their 

2 risk of asthma if they live in communities where average 8-

3 hour ozone levels are what -- are you familiar with that 

4 study in Southern California -- 60 parts per billion. Why? 

5 Because when kids run, they breathe faster. And every 

6 breath pulls in another lung-damaging dose of ozone. We 

7 need a standard, which protects kids playing outside, not 

8 just sitting in a research chamber. 

9 Since 2008, when the Clean Air Scientific 

10 Advisory Committee recommended a standard between 60 and 70 

11 we've learned a few things. And being an extremely curious 

12 person I did a literature search and I read the studies. 

13 And when you get down to the fine print 60 parts per 

14 billion doesn't look so good. 

15 We know now that acute exposure at 60 parts per 

16 billion decreases lung function and causes inflammation in 

17 the lungs of healthy young adults doing moderate exercise. 

18 We know that deaths in people over 65 go up with 

19 levels over 45 parts per billion. 

20 We know that emergency room visits and 

21 hospitalizations for pediatric asthma increase when ozone 

22 levels rise above 30 parts per billion. 

23 And we know that babies in the womb have 

24 increased risk if inter-uterine growth retardation if their 

25 moms breath over 30 parts per billion in the third 
188

1 trimester. 

2 So the standard must be lower than 60 parts per 

3 billion to protect healthy children and lower than 50 to 

4 protect the elderly and people with chronic disease. 

5 That's why the World Health Organization, India and New 

6 Zealand have an 8-hour ozone standard of 46 parts per 

7 billion and why the EU and the UK have a standard of 56 

8 parts per billion. 

9 So as a physician who has to sit in the exam room 

10 with the patients and try to come up with some sensible 

11 advice, I think my plea here is to follow the science and 

12 we'd also really like it if our government agencies would 

13 act consistently. The CDC recommends that American 

14 children go outside and play for 60 minutes a day. And I 

15 would just like the EPA to set a standard that would make 

16 it safe for them to do so. 

17 MR. PAGE: Very good, thank you. 

18 LARISSA KOEHLER

19 MS. KOEHLER: Good afternoon. My name is Larissa 

20 Koehler, K-O-E-H-L-E-R. I'm an attorney with Environmental 

21 Defend Fund, a non-partisan, non-profit environmental 

22 organization with more than one million members nationwide. 

23 Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. 

24 Ozone, the main component of smog, is a harmful 

25 air pollutant that is associated with adverse health 
189

1 effects like asthma and other respiratory diseases and is 

2 even linked to early death. 

3 The EPA's proposal to strengthen the current 

4 national health-based standard for ozone to a range that is 

5 consistent with the recommendations of our nation's leading 

6 scientists and public health and medical professionals is 

7 critical to protect the health of our children, families 

8 and communities. And to ensure that all Americans know 

9 whether the air they are breathing is safe. 

10 In finalizing these important public health 

11 standards EDF respectfully urges the EPA to set the 

12 standard for ozone at 60 parts per billion as the 

13 scientific record demonstrates that this level would 

14 provide the strongest public health for Americans.

15 In 1970, Congress established an effective 

16 process in the fight against air pollution. A bipartisan 

17 majority in Congress determined that the nation's health18 based air quality standards should be based on public 

19 health considerations alone. Then, in determining how to 

20 achieve these health standards, states and municipalities 

21 thoroughly consider economics in developing the strategies 

22 best suited to their own circumstances. 

23 This dual system has been time tested, 

24 congressionally mandated, and reaffirmed by the Supreme 

25 Court of the United States. 
190

1 The EPA's independent Clean Air Scientific 

2 Advisory Committee has indicated the current standard is 

3 inadequate to protect public health and recommended a 

4 standard in the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. The 

5 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's recommendation 

6 and EPA's analysis reflected in the proposal are based on 

7 an extensive and compelling body of scientific evidence. 

8 Since the last proposal there have been more than 1,000 new 

9 studies that demonstrate the health and environmental harms 

10 of ozone. 

11 The EPA's analysis highlights the clear profound 

12 health benefits of strengthening the ozone standard to 60 

13 parts per billion. Under the standard, for example, the 

14 EPA projects as many as 7,900 fewer deaths, 1.8 million 

15 fewer asthma attacks in children, and 9.2 million fewer

16 minor restricted activities days or lost school days. 

17 Indeed the EPA estimates at this level of protection, the 

18 monetized benefits in 2025 will be $37 to $75 billion.

19 Naysayers that use hyperbolic language when 

20 describing the economic impacts of strengthening clean air 

21 standards have not produced any credible evidence to 

22 support their claims of economic harm stemming from 

23 reducing ozone pollution. The U.S. has four-and-half 

24 decades of implementing the Clean Air Act while maintaining 

25 strong economic growth. 
191

1 In 1997, during another debate over strengthening 

2 national ozone standards, Senator Spencer Abraham was among 

3 those who claimed that the new standards would have serious 

4 economic impacts stating that dry cleaning establishments, 

5 hair salons and other small businesses will not be able to 

6 absorb the increased costs imposed by these regulations. 

7 In fact, an EPA analysis instead found that the net 

8 societal benefit of the Clean Air Act in its first 20 years 

9 were valued at over $21 trillion. 

10 In addition, the EPA predicts a net overall improvement in 

11 economic growth going forward, due to the benefits of 

12 cleaner air. 

13 As in the past, our nation has common sense and 

14 cost-effective solutions already moving forward that will 

15 help to achieve a more protective ozone standard and 

16 restore healthy air. These solutions include clean air 

17 measures, supported by the United States' auto industry 

18 that will dramatically reduce the smog forming emissions 

19 from new cars beginning in model year 2017. And the 

20 landmark Clean Power Plan that will reduce a suite of 

21 health-harming emissions from power plants. 

22 As in the rest of the country communities in 

23 California face high levels of ozone, with the Sacramento 

24 area's ozone problem currently designated as severe by the 

25 EPA. The most recent American Lung Association stated the 
192

1 air report gave Sacramento an F grade on zone. And the 

2 Sacramento metro area ranked fifth out of 277 metropolitan 

3 areas the ALA examined for high ozone days. 

4 We also know that rising temperatures from our 

5 changing climate will worsen ozone challenges in some 

6 places. And that communities will need help reducing ozone 

7 pollution now and in the future. 

8 Setting the ozone standard to 60 parts per 

9 billion will help those of us in California and across the 

10 country to breathe easier. Thank you for the opportunity 

11 to testify. We will be submitting further technical 

12 comments. 

13 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for coming 

14 this afternoon. 

15 All right. Our next speakers are Tom Fulks and 

16 Lonnie Cortez Russell. All right, Mr. Fulks, if you'll go 

17 first that would be great. 

18 TOM FULKS

19 MR. FULKS: Now that we're sitting this close I 

20 can take my glasses, because I can actually see you.

21 My name is Tom Fulks, I'm the West Coast 

22 representative of the Diesel Technology Forum. The 

23 spelling, F-U-L-K-S, is the last name, first name Tom. 

24 The Diesel Technology Forum is a trade 

25 association that represents the diesel industry, engine 
193

1 makers, truck makers, car makers, after-treatment systems, 

2 component suppliers. We're the education outreach and 

3 research component of the diesel industry. 

4 The DTF gave testimony in Washington D.C., last 

5 week, with some very specific technical information. I am 

6 here to talk primarily about information that's germane to 

7 California and the West Coast. I have a statement that I'm 

8 going to read to you and it should not take me five minutes 

9 and I've already edited a whole lot of stuff out of it. So 

10 hopefully we'll be able to make this work. 

11 And Amy, nice to see you again. 

12 Diesel vehicles and equipment play a key role in 

13 15 sectors of the U.S. in California economy, from 

14 agriculture to goods movement and warehousing, to more 

15 recently in the light duty vehicle fleet. We would like to 

16 outline a prospective about NOx and the important real17 world ozone benefits achieved by clean diesel engines, 

18 vehicles and equipment in their many applications here in 

19 California. 

20 The impressive NOx emission reductions from 

21 diesel technology have accrued from more than a decade of 

22 collaboration between manufacturers, fuel suppliers, engine 

23 makers and the California Air Resources Board and U.S. EPA. 

24 Combined, we all should be able to claim some credit for 

25 some significant emissions reductions over the past several 
194

1 years. 

2 To achieve today's very low levels of NOx

3 emissions, DTF member companies, manufacturers and 

4 emissions control technology manufacturers have invested 

5 literally billions of dollars for strategies to better 

6 control NOx emissions through improved engine efficiency 

7 and after-treatment systems. This includes of course the 

8 removal of most of the sulfur from fuel back in 2006, which 

9 we now have ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel. That was the key 

10 to making all of this technology happen and we have had 

11 good progress since that time. 

12 Recently, the Advanced Collaborative Emissions 

13 Study or the ACES study research co-sponsored by EPA, the 

14 Air Resources Board, and released last week by the Health 

15 Effects Institute confirmed new technology diesel engines

16 -- their near zero emissions performance as finding of no 

17 significant health effects in laboratory animals over a 

18 lifetime exposure. The most significant reductions in 

19 emissions have come from, as I mentioned ULSD and heavy 

20 duty on-road fleet, beginning in the model year 2007. And 

21 further tightened for model year 2010 resulting in near 

22 zero emissions for NOx and PM. And they're gaining ground 

23 in the light-duty vehicle population as well. 

24 According to California vehicle registration 

25 data, of the roughly 822 million class 3 through 8 heavy-
195

1 duty vehicles on the road, at the end of 2013, about 24

2 percent are of the 2007 and newer emissions profile while 

3 another almost 10 percent of the vehicles on the road meet 

4 the stricter 2010 emissions near zero profile. 

5 I think I need to correct this. This doesn't 

6 come from California Vehicle Registration data, it comes 

7 from PULP registration data, so there's a typo in the 

8 information that I'm reading from. 

9 Here in California, it's reflected in CARB

10 emissions inventory data, where NOx emissions attributable 

11 to the heavy duty on-road fleet has fallen 42 percent from 

12 2005 to 2012. As more of the fleet turns over to new or 

13 newer vehicles, the Air Resources Board estimates that NOx

14 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles will fall 47 percent 

15 between 2012 and 2020. These are impressions emissions 

16 reductions from technology readily available today. 

17 At the Port of L.A., Port of Long Beach, they 

18 came up with a Cleaner Action Plan back in 2006 that 

19 required vehicles moving in and out of the ports had to 

20 have technology that was 2007 emissions compliant or 

21 better. Today, there are roughly 16,000 trucks moving in 

22 and out of the ports every day, of those two ports alone,

23 and all of them have to be 2007 engine compliant or newer. 

24 The Port estimates that 90 percent of port trucks today are 

25 powered with a diesel engine. 
196

1 Beginning in 2010 both ports estimate that NOx

2 emissions attributable to port trucks have fallen 

3 substantially by 92 percent since 2005, as a share of all 

4 NOX emissions in the region. NOx emissions from port 

5 trucks has fallen from a peak of about 42 percent in 2006 

6 to about 17 percent in 2012 when the emissions inventory 

7 was completed. 

8 These are significant real world emissions 

9 reductions that will benefit communities surrounding the 

10 port. 

11 I have a red light, so if you don't mind, since 

12 we represent the entire industry, just one more paragraph 

13 and then I'll let it go. 

14 2014 was a milestone year for introducing clean 

15 diesel technology in off-road applications -- I really 

16 wanted to get that in -- that are now required to meet the 

17 tier 4 requirements that are comparable to standard issue 

18 for heavy duty vehicles. These new tier 4 machine achieve 

19 near zero emissions for NOx and PM at job sites and on 

20 farms throughout California. 

21 Thanks to the introduction of these newer 

22 technology clean diesel engines, CARBS emissions inventory 

23 predicts a 29-percent reduction in NOX emissions 

24 attributable to off-road equipment between 2012 and 2020

25 and roughly 60 percent between 2005 and 2020. 
197

1 So with that, I thank you for your time and your 

2 indulgence in the extra paragraph that I got in there, so 

3 thank you for coming to California. 

4 MR. PAGE: Thank you. And will you have copies 

5 of your testimony for folks out there?

6 MR. FULKS: Yes, and we also plan to email them

7 in, so I'll be happy to do that. 

8 MR. PAGE: Okay. 

9 Ms. Russell, I understand you have a video that 

10 has at least three people that are offering some testimony, 

11 so would you want to do the introduction for that? 

12 LONNIE CORTEZ RUSSELL

13 MS. RUSSELL: Correct. I was actually going to 

14 testify as well.

15 MR. PAGE: That's great.

16 MS. RUSSEL: And then I will introduce the next 

17 three testimonies after that. Thank you.

18 LONNIE CORTEZ RUSSELL

19 I'm Lonnie Cortez Russell, R-U-S-S-E-L-L. I'm 

20 here today as a concerned citizen and daughter and aunt. 

21 And I'm with Moms Clean Air Force, a community of over 

22 400,000 members fighting for clean air, 50,000 of which 

23 reside right here in California. 

24 On behalf of our members I want to thank you for 

25 the opportunity to testify today about the National Ambient 
198

1 Air Quality Standards for ozone. I respectfully urge you 

2 to set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion, instead 

3 of the suggested 65 to 70 parts per billion per proposed in 

4 November. The scientific record demonstrates that this 

5 level would provide the strongest public health protections 

6 for Americans and most importantly for our children. 

7 I currently reside in San Francisco, but I'm no 

8 stranger poor air quality growing up in the San Fernando 

9 valley where my large Pilipino family still resides. A 

10 majority of my aunts, my uncles, my cousins and their 

11 children and my niece suffer from asthma. 

12 As we know, smog pollution triggers hundreds of 

13 thousands of episodes of asthma and respiratory illness 

14 each year. It sends thousands of children to emergency 

15 rooms and cost Californians billions in health care costs, 

16 lost productivity and premature deaths. 

17 Nearly one in every ten school children in the 

18 U.S. has asthma; asthma being the number one health issue 

19 that causes kids to miss school. One of those little ones 

20 is my two-and-a-half year-old niece, Bryce. I have a photo 

21 of her here today; that's me with her. 

22 She lives in San Fernando, in the San Fernando 

23 Valley. She's surrounded by the 5, the 210 and the 118 

24 freeways. And in an area with some of the smoggiest air in 

25 California. I want to be able to tell her that we're doing 
199

1 our best to keep the air as clean as possible, so she and 

2 all California children do not have to suffer through 

3 another painful attack. It's heartbreaking to see those 

4 little brown eyes looking at me and her mother in pain. 

5 We have the right to know that the air is safe to 

6 breathe. The Air Quality Index is an important tool that 

7 helps parents make decisions about whether to let their 

8 children play outside. The problem is that the AQI is a 

9 function of the NAAQS. It represents the health 

10 determination implicit in the EPA standard. If the EPA 

11 standard is too lax, the Air Quality Index doesn't help 

12 parents. Parents need an NAAQS standard that tells us the 

13 truth. Through the AQI, parents rely on this measure to 

14 make determinations about how to care for their children, 

15 their parents, and themselves. 

16 Right now EPA has the opportunity to protect 

17 millions of Americans from dirty air and unnecessary 

18 illness. According to EPA's analysis, strengthening the 

19 smog standard to 60 ppb would confer profound health 

20 benefits to Americans. At this level of protection, EPA 

21 estimates 7,900 fewer deaths, 1.8 million fewer asthma

22 attacks in children, and 9.2 million fewer restricted 

23 activity days or lost school days each year. The monetized 

24 benefits of this level of protection in 2025 would be 

25 upwards of $37 billion. 
200

1 Today, the public bears the burden of smog 

2 pollution produced by fossil fuel industries. A tighter 

3 standard would hold these industries accountable for their 

4 pollution. Let's keep children safe with new stronger 

5 standards that help millions of children with asthma and 

6 other respiratory ailments breathe easier. 

7 I'd also like to hand you some of the information 

8 that we're sharing with our members to enter into the 

9 Federal Registry. And then so thank you for the 

10 opportunity to testify today. 

11 The next three testimonies that you're going to 

12 hear are actually from Moms Clean Air Force members who 

13 couldn't be here today. And we have them up on the video.

14 The first is from Vanessa Warheit followed by 

15 Emily Reyna and then Carolyn Norr. Thank you. 

16 VIDEO TESTIMONY: VANESSA WARHEIT

17 MS. WARHEIT: And I'm the mother of a nine-year18 old boy. This is Vanessa Warheit and I'm the mother of a 

19 nine-year-old boy named Elliot. I'm asking the EPA to 

20 implement more stringent standards for smog regulations.

21 My son, Elliot, had the benefit of living his 

22 first five years in Vancouver, British Columbia where our 

23 family lived for several years. 

24 When we returned to the Bay Area I was really 

25 glad to be home, but I was shocked at how bad the air 
201

1 quality was. There was nothing like living with clean air 

2 to make you aware of what bad air really looks like and 

3 feels like. 

4 Many of my friends here in California whose

5 children were born here now suffer from asthma and I am so 

6 thankful that Elliot got his start in a place with clean 

7 air. It breaks my heart to see my friends' children 

8 breathing from machines in the evenings with fear in their 

9 eyes, worried that they won't be able to take their next 

10 breath. 

11 It breaks my heart to see their parents with 

12 worry in their eyes, looking at their children, wondering 

13 how they are going to get along with a lifetime of asthma.

14 I don't believe it ever makes sense to sacrifice 

15 our children for the sake of progress. Today, this really 

16 makes no sense at all. Today, progress comes from 

17 harnessing the clean energy technology we have at our 

18 disposal and leaving behind fossil fuel technology. 

19 My family drives an electric car. We take 

20 transit and we regularly ride our bikes. We sold our gas 

21 car and that's progress. Progress comes from cleaning up 

22 our air and saving billions of dollars in health care costs 

23 and missed school days. 

24 There's no longer any valid argument that I can 

25 see for living with poisoned air. The science is 
202

1 unequivocal. And if the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

2 Committee has concluded that adverse health effects of smog 

3 are apparent at levels as low as 60 parts per billion I'm 

4 not even sure why the public needs to comment on this. 

5 EPA's job is to protect the health of our environment and 

6 to ensure that all Americans have clean air to breathe. 

7 I'm urging the EPA to follow the advice of their 

8 scientists, of the American Lung Association and of 

9 numerous health organizations by setting the allowable 

10 level of smog at 60 parts per billion. Thank you. 

11 VIDEO TESTIMONY: EMILY REYNA

12 MS. REYNA: Hi, my name is Emily Reyna and I'm a 

13 member of Moms Clean Air Force, a community of over 400,000 

14 moms and dads that are fighting for clean air for our 

15 families. 

16 I'm a first-time mother and this is my four-and17 a-half year-old (sic) daughter, Rosalie. And I wanted to 

18 deliver my comments in person, but I'm still trying to 

19 figure out the logistics of being a working mom, so I 

20 appreciate the opportunity to deliver my testimony via 

21 video. 

22 My family lives in Alameda, California; a small 

23 island located right below Oakland. We are surrounded by 

24 several freeways, the Port of Oakland and the Oakland 

25 Airport. We're basically at the nexus of where heavy-duty 
203

1 diesel trucks, large container ships, factories and 

2 airplanes contribute to the formation of smog pollution in 

3 the air we breathe every day. 

4 I grew up in Los Angeles, so I am no stranger to 

5 smog. But after becoming a mom to this little one, I'm 

6 motivated more than ever to fight for clean air for her to 

7 breathe. 

8 My mom, my husband, and my nephew all suffer from 

9 a asthma. I vividly remember seeing my nephew struggle to 

10 breathe when he was Rosie's age, only four-months old. My 

11 sister had to rush him to the hospital and watch in fear as 

12 the doctor pumped him with steroids to open up his lungs. 

13 For the first years of his life, they had to give him two 

14 different medications twice a day that he could breathe

15 easier. 

16 The science shows that smog is bad for us. It is 

17 bad for me. It's bad for you. And it's especially bad for 

18 Rosie and other children whose bodies and lungs are still 

19 developing. Smog pollution triggers hundreds of thousands 

20 of episodes of asthma and other respiratory ailments each 

21 year. It sends thousands of children, like my nephew, to 

22 the emergency rooms and costs billions in health care 

23 costs, lost productivity and premature death. 

24 To give a more visual description, inhaling smog 

25 pollution is like getting a sunburn on your lungs. As a 
204

1 runner my lungs ache just thinking about that. 

2 I testify today, as a mom, respectfully urging 

3 stronger smog standards. Specifically, I urge you to set 

4 the smog standards to 60 parts per billion, which is more 

5 stringent than the 65 to 75 standard proposing the number.

6 My parents always taught me to never settle for 

7 average and to always aim for the best. I no doubt will 

8 urge Rosie to do the same. And I think the EPA should not 

9 settle for less either. 

10 The scientific record demonstrates that the 60 

11 parts per billion level will provide the strongest public 

12 health protection for us, especially for the newest members 

13 of our society like Rosalie. Thank you for this 

14 opportunity to testify. 

15 VIDEO TESTIMONY: CAROLYN NORR

16 MS. NORR: Thank you for this opportunity to 

17 testify. 

18 I won't use this time to convince you that smog 

19 is bad. We all know that. And I'm sure you're in this 

20 line of work, because you want to help address issues like 

21 smog. But along the way, I guess, sometimes we have to 

22 compromise, something has to get sacrificed. 

23 Where I live in East Oakland, more and more days 

24 are Spare the Air Days, designated unsafe for special 

25 groups. For most of us, no big deal, maybe just some haze 
205

1 in our view. But some groups are more vulnerable like 

2 people with asthma or infants. Being a mom has made me 

3 think again about who is more vulnerable, about what or who 

4 gets sacrificed. 

5 I have six-month old baby. To get to the grocery 

6 store or park I have to cross over the freeway. On these 

7 eerily dry and warm days, I can see the brown haze against 

8 the hills as I cross. When a truck goes by, blowing a 

9 cloud of black stinking smoke at us I hold my breath, but 

10 my baby doesn't, he just breaths his normal trusting 

11 breath. So I wonder if he's in a special group, how my 

12 trip to the store effects his chances for a fully health 

13 life. I think about the statistics he faces, if he will be 

14 one of the ones with asthma or cancer. 

15 As a mom it makes me reconsider what we 

16 compromise. It makes me feel in a new way for the kids I 

17 work with in Oakland Public Schools, who being economically 

18 poor people of color are facing even bleaker statistics 

19 than my son is. I remember how often kids were absent for 

20 a while only to come back and report they had been 

21 suffering from asthma. I remember a middle schooler whose

22 twin sister died of asthma. I wonder how their mom felt.

23 Being a mom myself has shifted my understanding of what 

24 sacrifice looks like, of what is okay to compromise. 

25 And then I think about the burning fossil fuels 
206

1 that get the smog into the air in the first place and I'm 

2 reminded that all our kids are in another special and 

3 vulnerable group. As I watch my older son and our neighbor 

4 play in the hot January sunshine I remember that these 

5 children will be the ones that deal with an increasingly 

6 erratic and chaotic climate for their entire lives. This 

7 is another special group smog is unsafe for; those that 

8 will be left to deal tomorrow with whatever we burn today.

9 So in testifying I imagine that you intend to do 

10 the right thing to protect the public. But I imagine that 

11 you are under tremendous pressure to compromise, to make 

12 some sacrifices, so as to not disturb the status quo too 

13 much, to make sure that industry doesn't get too 

14 uncomfortable, to make your suggestions reasonable and not 

15 too bold. 

16 As a mom caring for two young children who are 

17 facing unprecedented risks to the safety and health of

18 their environment, and as a mom who feels a sense of 

19 connection with moms of even more directly threatened 

20 children, I say this is not the time to compromise. It’s 

21 the time to be bold. 

22 We have already sacrificed too much of our kids 

23 future. We are gambling too dangerously with the planet. 

24 As I cross the freeway now with my baby, I hold 

25 my breath against the nauseous smell and watch him breathe
207

1 steadily. And I promise him that I'll do everything that I 

2 can to protect his vulnerability. I tell him that I'll be 

3 bolder than I thought I knew to be, that I won't look away 

4 while the vulnerable are sacrificed first. I hope that as 

5 you consider these new rules you do the same. Thank you.

6 MS. RUSSELL: Thank you. 

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. Did you give the 

8 spelling of the names to the court reporter? 

9 MS. RUSSELL: I will

10 MR. PAGE: Great, thank you very much. 

11 Our next speakers are Janet Johnson and Aliya 

12 Wisher. (phonetic)

13 Ms. Johnson, you're up first? 

14 JANET JOHNSON

15 MS. JOHNSON: Yes, good afternoon. My name is 

16 Janet Johnson and I'm am an adult education teacher in 

17 Richmond. And those are some incredibly tough acts to 

18 follow. 

19 Thank you for visiting Northern California today 

20 to take testimony on the EPA's proposed regulations to 

21 reduce smog pollution. (Overcome with emotion) I'm sorry, 

22 that was like very heavy.

23 As is the case with many other challenges our 

24 country faces, it-s our low-income and working class 

25 communities of color that bear the brunt of the worst 
208

1 effects of dirty air. A health study conducted in Richmond 

2 by research scientists for Communities for a Better 

3 Environment reported that among respondents who had lived 

4 in Richmond for 15 years or more, 45 percent suffered from 

5 asthma. I've lived there 33 years and I'm crossing my 

6 fingers. 

7 The prevalence of childhood asthma in Richmond is 

8 17 percent, far higher than the national average. A 

9 colleague who taught at Lincoln Elementary School told me 

10 that one-in-three students in her class room had asthma.

11 Lincoln Elementary lies in the heart of a low12 income fence line community, in sight of and downwind, from 

13 the Chevron refinery. A lower smog standard would go far 

14 to improve the daily lives of these young people. 

15 Thanks in large part to the efforts of the EPA, 

16 overall air quality in California has improved. When I 

17 moved to the Bay Area in 1970 I was stunned by the amount 

18 of smog. Now, it's not as visible, but there is so much 

19 work to be done. 

20 The proposal to lower current standards from 75 

21 ppb to 65 to 70 is not adequate to protect our community's 

22 health. The EPA should follow the recommendation of its 

23 own science advisors and adopt the lower standard of 60 

24 ppb. 

25 You folks all have children and grandchildren and 
209

1 nieces and nephews like I do. Please consider what their 

2 lives would be like if they couldn't run or play outside or 

3 even breathe. If we can reduce our smog pollution to a 

4 healthy level all members of our community will benefit. 

5 Thank you.

6 ALIYA WISHNER

7 MS. WISHNER: Hello. My name is Aliya Wishner, 

8 A-L-I-Y-A W-I-S-H-N-E-R. And I will be testifying on 

9 behalf of myself and my mom, because my mom cannot be here 

10 today, so I'll begin with an excerpt from her testimony. 

11 "Good afternoon, and thank you opportunity to 

12 address the agency about the health effects of smog and 

13 poor air quality on young children. I apologize for not 

14 being able to be here in person. 

15 "In 2000, I lived in the Bixby Knolls area of 

16 Long Beach, with my two children, ages nine and four. This 

17 area of Long Beach is north of the 405 Freeway and West of 

18 the Wilmington-Carson oil and gas refineries. One day the 

19 sky became very dark and shortly thereafter, we received an 

20 automatic voice call stating that due to a refinery fire, 

21 all residents were advised to stay indoors and to close all 

22 windows until further notice. 

23 "I brought my children inside and we followed the 

24 directions of the call. One month later, after what seemed 

25 to be colds that would not go away, both of my children 
210

1 were diagnosed with asthma. Were it not for the fact that 

2 they were both diagnosed simultaneously, I would not have 

3 made the causal connection of the soot and oil-filled air 

4 as the cause of their asthma. 

5 "During this same time period, I was a school 

6 nurse at two elementary schools for the Long Beach Unified 

7 School District. Both of these schools are closer to the 

8 ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and one was less than a 

9 block north of the 405 Freeway. It was a daily occurrence 

10 that I would find fine black soot-like matter on the window 

11 sills and inside the class rooms and offices. 

12 "One of the schoolteachers asked me to do a 

13 medical survey of the second year, pre-K kindergarten 

14 classroom of their children's health conditions. My survey 

15 discovered that 72 percent of the autistic little children 

16 in her classroom had either asthma or some other major 

17 respiratory ailment requiring regular use of medication. 

18 Given the time intervals and incidents of disease, it was 

19 clear to me that there was a connection between port and 

20 refinery air pollution and the respiratory issues of the 

21 children of these schools and of my own two children. 

22 "I urge the EPA to set a strict ground-level 

23 ozone standard for the sake of our vulnerable populations. 

24 Don't cave to business interests who wish for the agency to 

25 ease the clean air requirements. No child deserves to be 
211

1 sentenced to a lifetime of respiratory ailments and 

2 treatments." 

3 Now as you probably have guessed I'm one of those 

4 children who was diagnosed with asthma. The form of asthma

5 that I have had to cope with is called reactive airway 

6 disease. And it's triggered by reactions to certain 

7 conditions, mainly the environment. 

8 Unfortunately, one of the other triggers of this 

9 condition is exercise. As a student athlete through my 

10 childhood and into college I have felt the effects of this 

11 disease nearly every day. Throughout my athletic career, 

12 it has taken me twice the effort to gain half the 

13 endurance. I am not a stranger of the pain of not being 

14 able to catch my breath or to the feeling that I will never 

15 take a full breath again. 

16 I recently relocated to Indianapolis from the 

17 Southern California area where my mom still resides. 

18 Leaving one of the city's most infamous for smog pollution 

19 to move to the Midwest I was expecting to find nothing but 

20 clear skies and fresh air. Instead what I found is that 

21 thick emissions from smoke stacks are a normal sight, and 

22 the air pollution is so thick that the sunsets are nearly 

23 as colorful as they are in Southern California. 

24 However, unlike in California, the majority of 

25 Indiana's elected officials are not working to create 
212

1 policies that clean up the air and protect our citizens. 

2 Rather they are trying to pass legislation would prohibit 

3 any state agency from setting a more stringent rule than a 

4 federal agency does. 

5 One of my current roommates is a teacher and 

6 basketball coach at an inner city high school in 

7 Indianapolis. And he has told me that about 40 percent of 

8 the students on his teams have respiratory conditions 

9 similar to what I have suffered. 

10 If Indiana's government officials will not stand 

11 up for these children, who will? I traveled here from 

12 Indianapolis to strongly urge you to set the ground-level 

13 ozone standard at 60 parts per billion, so the children of 

14 today and tomorrow in every city do not have to overcome 

15 what I have in order to achieve their athletic dreams. 

16 Please let them catch their breath. Thank you.

17 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 

18 MS. WISHNER: I also have copies of my mom's full

19 testimony. Thank you.

20 MR. PAGE: All right, our next two speakers are 

21 Jessica Eckdish and Amy Lee Anderson. 

22 You're --

23 MS. ECKDISH: Jessica.

24 MR. PAGE: Okay, sorry. Yeah, I could have 

25 guessed and been about 50 percent right, so I decided not 
213

1 to.

2 Okay. Amy Lee Anderson is not in the room

3 anymore?

4 (Off mic speaker comments on Amy Lee Anderson)

5 She already did? Okay, she got moved up then. 

6 Okay, very good. Why don't you go ahead than. 

7 JESSICA ECKDISH

8 MS. ECKDISH: Good afternoon. My name is Jessica 

9 Eckdish, that's E-C-K-D-I-S-H. And I'm speaking today as a 

10 representative of the Sierra Club and also as a private 

11 citizen. 

12 And I appreciate the opportunity to express 

13 support today for the EPA's critical efforts to update the 

14 current ozone standard. 

15 As you've heard in previous testimony, according 

16 to the American Lung Association, inhaling ozone or smog 

17 pollution is like getting a sunburn on your lungs and often 

18 results in immediate breathing trouble. Long-term exposure 

19 to smog pollution is linked to chronic asthma and other 

20 respiratory and lung diseases, reproductive and 

21 developmental harm and even premature death. Smog 

22 pollution robs hundreds of thousands of Americans with 

23 asthma and other respiratory ailments of quality of life. 

24 It sends thousands of children to emergency rooms each year 

25 and costs Americans billions in health care costs, lost 
214

1 productivity and premature deaths.

2 Today, the public largely shoulders the expense 

3 of the smog pollution produced by the fossil fuel industry. 

4 The current standard, last updated in 2008, under the Bush 

5 Administration was set at 75 parts per billion, against the 

6 advice of scientists and experts. At the time, this level 

7 was widely recognized by the medical community to be 

8 insufficient to protect public health. Since then, 

9 scientists have continued to publish evidence that in order 

10 to adequately protect people's health, the smog standard 

11 should be set no higher than 60 parts per billion. 

12 In November, EPA's proposed lowering the ozone 

13 standard to somewhere in the range of 65 to 70 parts per 

14 billion while also seeking comments on setting it as low as 

15 60. While this may sound like a narrow range when it comes 

16 to the health effects of smog pollution, especially on 

17 children, who's lungs are still developing. In the gap 

18 between 60 and 70, many lives are still at stake. 

19 Modeling of smog pollution health effects, 

20 looking at 12 cities across the country showed that 

21 lowering the acceptable level of smog to 60 parts per 

22 billion would save four to five times as many lives as 70 

23 parts per billion. According to the EPA's own estimates a 

24 60 parts per billion standard would prevent roughly 1.8 

25 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school days, and 
215

1 6,400 premature deaths. 

2 The EPA has the opportunity and the duty to 

3 protect millions of Americans from dirty air and 

4 unnecessary illness. New, stronger standards for smog 

5 pollution will clean up or air and reduce pollution-related 

6 illness. And millions of Americans with asthma and other 

7 respiratory ailments will breathe easier. 

8 Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for 

9 taking this critical step forward to protect public health. 

10 I urge the EPA to swiftly finalize a strong standard of 60 

11 parts per billion. Thank you.

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

13 Our next two speakers are Rupa Basu and Carter 

14 Lavin. Welcome. Thank you for coming. 

15 RUPA BASU

16 MS. BASU: Thank you. I'm Rupa Basu, that's R-U17 P-A B-A-S-U. And I'm from the California Office of 

18 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

19 Thank you so much for this opportunity to provide 

20 comments on the US EPA's proposed rule for the National 

21 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone published last 

22 December. 

23 Although OEHHA appreciates US EPA's decision to 

24 lower the current federal standard to a level of the newly 

25 proposed range of 65 to 70 ppb, we still encourage the U.S.
216

1 EPA to consider our recommendation of 60 ppb as was made in 

2 our March 24, 2014 letter to EPA. 

3 Our recommendation to lower the Federal standard 

4 to 60 ppb is based largely on the clinical and 

5 epidemiologic studies that were published after 

6 California's reduction of the standard to 70 ppb in 2005. 

7 First, a new chamber study observed lung function 

8 decrements and inflammation in a subset of young, health, 

9 non-smoking adults at 60 ppb, after six-and-a-half hours of 

10 exposure to ozone. Note that the study was not evaluating 

11 responses of susceptible individuals. 

12 Second, there have been a number of new multi13 city epidemiologic studies that find effects at mean ozone 

14 levels below 70 parts per billion. The findings are for 

15 mortality, hospitalization, as well as emergency room 

16 visits for asthma, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary 

17 disease and other respiratory outcomes. 

18 The studies are reliable and controlled for 

19 individual risk factors such as smoking, exercise, diet and 

20 family history of disease by study design. Many of these 

21 newer studies, finding associations between ozone exposure 

22 and health effects, were conducted in North America. 

23 With a range of 65 to 70 ppb established as a 

24 national standard for ozone we are concerned about the 

25 number of days where ozone levels will approach 70 ppb, a 
217

1 level at which a large number of healthy individuals show a 

2 lung function decrements in several studies. 

3 Even more concerning would be the exposures close 

4 to 70 ppb to children, elderly individuals or asthmatics, 

5 all recognized as vulnerable sub groups. These groups are 

6 expected to show even greater adverse effects from 

7 prolonged exposure to ozone. 

8 Although the results from epidemiologic studies 

9 show small relative risks, these estimates translate into 

10 thousands of excess deaths, hospitalizations and emergency 

11 room visits each year, because millions of people face 

12 excess exposure to ozone. 

13 As highlighted in your announcement accompanying 

14 the proposed rule, there are approximately 250,000 

15 respiratory-related deaths and a combined 12 million 

16 respiratory-related hospital discharges and emergency room 

17 visits in the U.S. each year. Thus the public health 

18 impact of ozone-related respiratory disease can be immense. 

19 There is also the potential for the very large 

20 public health impact of ozone on cardiovascular, central 

21 nervous system, and reproductive outcomes. Effects likely 

22 are suggestively linked to ozone. 

23 Finally, vulnerable individuals 

24 disproportionately bear the disease burden including 

25 children, the elderly, individuals as genetic 
218

1 vulnerability, asthmatics and those with deficient diets. 

2 These vulnerable groups risk more severe 

3 reactions or complications from exposure to ozone levels

4 considered acceptable to healthy populations. Just 

5 considering the elderly and the young, who comprise about a 

6 third of the U.S. population, nearly 100 million people 

7 would be considered part of the at-risk population.

8 Thus the proposed standard fails to provide an 

9 adequate margin of safety for vulnerable populations as 

10 healthy members themselves are experiencing effects in the 

11 range proposed. 

12 Given the reasons above, we strongly that 60 ppb 

13 become the new federal standard. Thank you. 

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Carter? 

15 CARTER LAVIN

16 MR. LAVIN: Hi Steve, Amy, Susan, Pat. My name 

17 is Carter Lavin. I'm a concerned citizen. I happen to 

18 work in the solar industry. I'm a resident of Oakland, 

19 California. 

20 There's been a couple of things today that really 

21 struck me and really choked me up. And one of the big 

22 things I was thinking about, in terms of federal standards. 

23 It's great to be in California. I'm in California four 

24 years and it's nice to be in a state that is forward 

25 looking as actively trying to fight this. 
219

1 I have family in Illinois and Ohio and Georgia 

2 and Louisiana. Most of the people in my family are not in 

3 areas where their state is going to take any sort of 

4 leadership on doing this. And so it's very important --

5 you know, so there's all these stories that we've been 

6 hearing today, of all these heartbreaking stories in 

7 California, in L.A., and in these regions that are trying. 

8 And they're trying, because it’s the right thing to do. 

9 It's because it's going to save us a lot of money, because 

10 it's legally required. And there are so many places that 

11 aren't trying. 

12 And there's a great part about what you can do as 

13 EPA and part of federal regulations, is really helping out 

14 people like my nephew in Illinois and people like my 

15 brother in New Orleans, who suffer from this, because this 

16 is part of their lives and always will be a part of their 

17 lives. And so just kind of keeping that in mind, like 

18 every story you're hearing here, is going to be a lot 

19 better than most of the stories that you'll be hearing from 

20 other states, as you know, because you were recently in 

21 Texas. 

22 The other big thing is that this is all very 

23 easy; 60 parts per billion is easy to do. We have diesel 

24 tech lobbyists saying, "Hey, look. Our technology is so 

25 great we could do this doing handstands in part, because 
220

1 collectively we all work together to get to this point. 

2 Getting another couple of parts per billion down should be 

3 easy." 

4 I work in the solar industry. This is we're 

5 growing astronomically; 43,000 of us work in California. 

6 We've got electricity covered between solar, wind and new 

7 things like that. 

8 Transportation, you know, where the state and 

9 around the country people are moving more towards non10 motorized transit, which comes into the effect of -- our 

11 friends in the medical community have talked about saying 

12 we're encouraging people to get out of cars, because it's 

13 better for the air and to go walking. But if you go and 

14 you're the first-time bicyclist for the long time and you 

15 say, "You know, this time I’m going to try to go to the 

16 grocery store on my bike," and it triggers an asthma 

17 attack, because you haven't biked in a long time -- because 

18 you lived in an area that doesn't have it -- you're not 

19 going to get on a bike again for a very long time. 

20 And it's very important to make it as easy as 

21 possible for all these people who are making these moves 

22 and having cleaner air is part of that. 

23 But the solutions are here. The solutions are 

24 very easy to do. And I think in terms of the speaker 

25 earlier today from the Western Region Environmental Air 
221

1 Quality Board, he was saying a lot of these particulates 

2 occur in natural environments -- wild fires -- this is part 

3 of life to have terrible air in some parts of the country. 

4 And while that is scientifically true that also does mean 

5 it is on us to reduce emissions wherever we can. 

6 If we say, "Look, you can't regulate wild fires 

7 in California," obviously you could help regulate carbon, 

8 which will help regulate that, but saying, "Look, we can't 

9 necessarily stop every wild fire and every dust storm, but 

10 we can stop idling vehicles. We can stop really terrible 

11 dumb wasteful agricultural practices." So take control 

12 over the parts that you can. And I'm really shocked at 

13 having five minutes.

14 So basically this is easy. Anyone who tells you

15 it's not is wrong. Frankly meeting every EPA regulation 

16 has been met with every single industry whose ever not 

17 liked it saying the same thing. And they've been proven 

18 wrong over and over and over again. It creates lots of new

19 industries and not having people having very visceral 

20 stories of their children and their family and themselves 

21 having these terrible attacks is worth it, so 60 parts per 

22 billion please. Thanks.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all for being 

24 here today. 

25 All right. Our next speakers are Ivett Carnes 
222

1 and Deborah Drechsler. And please correct me if I haven't 

2 pronounced your names correctly. 

3 All right, Ms. Carnes is first. 

4 IVETT CARNES

5 MS. CARNES: Well, I really don't have a great 

6 deal to say. It's mostly coming from an emotional 

7 viewpoint. 

8 I grew up in Anchorage, Alaska at the age of 9 to 

9 14 and I was able to see the polar bears floating by on the 

10 glaciers, the penguins in their natural habitat, bears 

11 walking through our front yard. My fear is that we're 

12 going to lose all of that. 

13 Sorry, I'm like kind of nervous and I just need 

14 to calm down. Take a deep breath, yes. Breathe.

15 COURT REPORTER: Sorry, could you spell your name 

16 for me?

17 MS. CARNES: Okay, that's easy. I-V-E-T-T, 

18 Carnes, C-A-R-N-E-S. 

19 So while living there we were able to ski. We 

20 were able to travel to the farms that produced the hybrid 

21 vegetables and fruit. You know, watching a lettuce leaf 

22 feed a family of five, that's amazing as a child. So I 

23 feel and fear that we're going to lose all of that. I 

24 won't be able to show my grandchildren. I won't be able to 

25 show my children. The polar bears are dying and it makes 
223

1 me want to cry, every time I say it. They're such 

2 magnificent beautiful creatures and we're just letting it 

3 happen. We're letting it happen everywhere. 

4 I have asthma. I grew up in a household that 

5 everyone smoked. I'm sure the car pollution doesn't help. 

6 Every time I go outside I'm sick, sorry. I just don't want 

7 to see all of our children suffer, all of our people, the

8 other people that are my age suffer. It's unnecessary. 

9 We can change it overnight. We just have to not 

10 be greedy and love one another. And remember that we're 

11 all family, no matter where we come from, what we look 

12 like, we're family. That's all I have to say. 

13 MR. PAGE: Okay. Thank you. 

14 Deborah?

15 DEBORAH DRECHSLER

16 MS. DRECHSLER: I'm Deborah Drechsler, that's 

17 spelled D-E-B-O-R-A-H D-R-E-C-H-S-L-E-R. And I'm speaking 

18 today on behalf of the California Air Resources Board or 

19 CARB. 

20 CARB reviewed the proposed revisions to the 

21 health-based standard, and agrees with the U.S. EPA's 

22 conclusion that the current 8-hour ozone standard of 75 

23 parts per billion, does not adequately protect public 

24 health. Review of the associated, integrated science 

25 assessment clearly demonstrates that the scientific 
224

1 literature related to ozone health effects and exposure has 

2 become stronger and even more compelling since the previous 

3 review completed in 2008. 

4 In addition, the analysis presented and the risk 

5 and exposure assessment confirmed that even with attainment 

6 of the current ozone standard, a significant number of 

7 Californians are at increased risk of experiencing adverse 

8 health impact. 

9 CARB strongly supports your conclusion that the 

10 ozone standard needs to be strengthened. 

11 We note that the proposed range for the standard 

12 of 65 t0 70 parts per billion does not include the lower 

13 bound of 60 parts per billion as advised by CASAC. 

14 Although a level of 70 parts per billion is more health 

15 protective than the current standard, it does not likely 

16 include an adequate margin of safety. 

17 In addition, we recognize that selecting a level 

18 below 65 parts per billion would require placing 

19 considerable weight on the uncertainties and the available 

20 data as was discussed in the proposed rule. However, 

21 setting the standard at the lower bound of 60 parts per 

22 billion would provide more public health protection than 

23 levels of 65 or 70 parts per billion. 

24 We note that a new study demonstrates that some 

25 healthy adults engaged in moderate exercise would be 
225

1 expected to experience reductions in lung function and an 

2 increase in respiratory symptoms with 6.6-hour exposure to 

3 an ozone concentration of 72 parts per billion. Two 

4 additional studies show that a small number of healthy 

5 individuals would likely experience reduced lung function 

6 with similar exposures at 60 parts per billion. It is 

7 widely believed that people with chronic lung diseases such 

8 as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are 

9 likely to be more vulnerable than healthy people. 

10 New epidemiologic studies suggest that ozone11 related hospital admissions or emergency department visits 

12 for asthma or other respiratory causes and mortality can 

13 occur in communities that meet the current ozone standard. 

14 New toxicological literature provides increased 

15 evidence for biological mechanisms and modes of action that 

16 substantiate the results of the controlled human exposure 

17 and epidemiologic studies. 

18 A more stringent standard will provide health 

19 benefits nationwide. Strengthening the ozone standard 

20 would provide important health benefits for California, 

21 particularly in the South Coast Air Basin and the San 

22 Joaquin Valley, including reduction in premature mortality, 

23 hospitalizations, emergency department visits for asthma 

24 and lost work and school days. 

25 Nearly two-thirds of Californians reside in these 
226

1 two extreme non-attainment areas, including large numbers 

2 with well-established health risk factors, including 

3 children and the elderly, as well as people with asthma and 

4 other chronic heart or lung diseases and nearly a half5 million asthmatic children. 

6 There is also a substantial population of outdoor 

7 workers, who are at increased risk, due to their high 

8 levels of exposure. 

9 California has made significant air quality 

10 progress due to our comprehensive emission control 

11 programs, while the population and economy continue to 

12 grow. Due to the effectiveness of these efforts, today 

13 two-thirds of Californians live in communities that meet 

14 the 75 parts per billion standard. And over 80 percent 

15 live in communities meeting the previous 80 parts per 

16 billion standard. 

17 Meeting the standards in the nation's only two 

18 extreme non-attainment areas, the South Coast Air Basin and 

19 the San Joaquin Valley, will require large emission 

20 reductions across all source sectors and the use of zero 

21 and near-zero technologies along with the cleanest fuels. 

22 CARB will need to partner with U.S. EPA to promote the 

23 advanced technologies that are essential to meet the 

24 current and revised standards. 

25 These efforts to meet more health-protective 
227

1 standards will also support a broad range of public health 

2 goals including meeting Governor Brown's initiatives to 

3 reduce petroleum usage by 50 percent by 2030, and achieving 

4 steep reductions in carbon pollutants to address the on5 going threat posed by climate change. 

6 Although it will be a challenge to attain more7 stringent standards, it is clear that strengthening the 

8 ozone standard is necessary to protect public health in 

9 California and nation. Thank you. 

10 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you for being here 

11 today. 

12 MS. STONE: Do you have a specific recommendation 

13 about the level of the standard? Did the ARB have a 

14 specific recommendation? 

15 MS. DRECHSLER: We support the range that was 

16 proposed in the rule. However, we would suggest that you 

17 take another look at 60 parts per billion, before making a 

18 final decision. 

19 MS. STONE: Thank you. 

20 MR. PAGE: The next two speakers are Katelyn 

21 Roedner Sutter and Karen Wells. 

22 Welcome. Okay, so Katelyn, do you want to go 

23 first? 

24 KATELYN ROEDNER SUTTER

25 MS. SUTTER: Certainly, good afternoon. Thank 
228

1 you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

2 My name is Katelyn Roedner Sutter. And that is R-O-E-D-N3 E-R S-U-T-T-E-R. I am the Environmental Justice Program 

4 Director for Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Stockton. 

5 Our diocese includes the Northern San Joaquin Valley and 

6 Sierra Foothills across to Mono Lake. 

7 And not to give you a long resume, but today I 

8 also represent the steering committees of California 

9 Interfaith Power and Light and the Central Valley Air 

10 Quality Coalition. 

11 Both of these group and Catholic Charities are 

12 deeply concerned about the health impacts of poor air 

13 quality. We strongly encourage the EPA to adopt a strict 

14 60 parts per billion ozone standard. This is the standard 

15 recommended four years ago by the Clean Air Scientific 

16 Advisory Committee. And now four years later, we need to 

17 bring the standard in line with those scientific 

18 recommendations. At the same time, we will do more to 

19 protect public health, especially for those who are most 

20 vulnerable. 

21 In the San Joaquin Valley, where I live and work, 

22 we see astounding rates of asthma, especially among our 

23 children. For example, Merced County has seen serious 

24 increases in their rate of pediatric asthma. Now almost 

25 one-in-three children have been diagnosed with asthma. 
229

1 Across the Valley, close to 20 percent of our children have 

2 a diagnosed case of asthma. However, as I work at Catholic 

3 Charities, I know there a great deal of needs that go unmet 

4 all of the time. And it's clear that there are thousands 

5 more children who have asthma, who do not have a diagnosis. 

6 These rates are the floor. The reality is even more 

7 serious. 

8 Ozone is one of the contributing factors of 

9 asthma. And valley-wide all of the counties receive

10 failing grades for their levels of ozone. You can change 

11 this by lowering the ozone standard. 

12 Our children are some of the most vulnerable 

13 people in our communities and we're allowing them to get 

14 sick, be hospitalized, miss school and sometimes even die 

15 as infants because of our air pollution. We have a moral 

16 obligation to protect the most vulnerable members of our 

17 society. Catholic social teaching is very clear on this. 

18 We are charged to protect the poor and the vulnerable and 

19 to defend the sanctity of life. 

20 Bishop Steven Blair of Stockton tells us that as 

21 we respect life, we have to respect the envelope of life, 

22 that are all of the resources including air, on which life 

23 depends. In this case, we're asking you to look out for 

24 the vulnerable among us and to protect health and lives by 

25 adopting a strict ozone standard.
230

1 As Catholics, we have a clear calling to care for 

2 God's creation. Pope Francis brought this to the 

3 forefront, but Pope Benedict, before him also reminded us 

4 that creation is a gift from God, and we have a 

5 responsibility to this creation. Many people of faith 

6 learn about the breath of life. That is the breath of God,

7 which gives life. Our children especially, but also our 

8 senior citizens, those with respiratory illnesses and those 

9 that live and work in unsafe environmental conditions, like 

10 farm workers are gasping and choking, rather than breathing 

11 the breath of life. 

12 I share these reflections not because I want to 

13 preach to you, but because people of faith and all people 

14 of good will, to borrow Pope Francis's terms, have a moral 

15 obligation to care for creation and care for each other.

16 We ask you to adopt a stricter ozone standard. 

17 We would recommend 60 parts per billion to protect life and 

18 to protect creation. Pope Francis is even more blunt in 

19 his call to protect creation. He told the President of 

20 Ecuador, in 2013, that people occasionally forgive, but 

21 nature never does. Thank you. 

22 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

23 KAREN WELLS

24 MS. WELLS: Thank you. My name is Karen Wells, 

25 K-A-R-E-N W-E-L-L-S.
231

1 I just have a very short point to make. Some of 

2 the speakers have referenced data and statistics and 

3 science that I think you need to look at some more. The 

4 information about European countries and the standards that 

5 they have set, I think you need to look at that.

6 The study that the nurse who testified, I think 

7 you need to look at that, because I have a feeling that if 

8 the scientific evidence that you looked at wasn't that 

9 persuasive that 60 would be a level that you needed to go 

10 down to, that maybe if you look harder you might find that 

11 there is enough evidence for that.

12 And I would like to add to that the fact your 

13 review process is mandated at five-year intervals and by 

14 the time you collect information and decide on what change 

15 should be appropriate it will be seven years from now 

16 before you're doing this again, so think about the future 

17 and the fact that you need to set a level that is 

18 appropriate for that period of time. 

19 And it sounds a lot to me like 60 ought to be 

20 where you go and at the very least, forget about 70 if you 

21 have to make it 60 to 65, but 55 to 60 might be even 

22 better. So it just seems to me you need to look closely at 

23 that scientific evidence and think about the health.

24 And don't believe for a minute that our very 

25 resourceful industries can't manage to come up with 
232

1 excellent ways to try to meet these standards. I think 

2 they're selling themselves short when they say that it's 

3 impossible. I was here this morning and the first industry 

4 person that spoke said, "It's impossible." I don't think 

5 it's impossible. We have lots of great scientists and 

6 inventors and I think we can do better. And I hope you 

7 inspire them to do better and get them what help and 

8 resources you can and go for 60 or less. Thank you.

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both.

10 All right. Our next speakers are Samuel Sukaton 

11 -- Sukaton?

12 MR. SUKATON: No, you had it right.

13 MR. PAGE: Sukaton, I should have stuck with the 

14 first one, yeah. And then Daryl Gale, please.

15 MR. SUKATON: Sorry, do you mind if I put this 

16 up? My mama told me never to speak to the government 

17 without paper, so it that all right?

18 MR. PAGE: Put what up?

19 MR. SUKATON: I have comments here, if that's 

20 okay?

21 MR. PAGE: Oh, fine. Yeah, that's fine.

22 MR. SUKATON: And before I --

23 MR. PAGE: Hold on just a second. We'll wait for 

24 our other speaker to join and then you'll have the floor.

25 Welcome, both of you. Go ahead, Mr. Sukaton.
233

1 SAMUEL SUKATON

2 MR. SUKATON: Glad to have you here. Before I 

3 start how many -- are any of you from California?

4 MS. JORDAN: You mean do we live here?

5 MR. SUKATON: Yes.

6 MS. JORDAN: Yes.

7 MR. SUKATON: Okay. I just wanted to make sure, 

8 thanks. 

9 My name for the record is Samuel Sukaton. That's 

10 S-U-K-A-T-O-N. 

11 Good afternoon. Like I said my name is Sam 

12 Sukaton, I'm a resident of the City of Los Angeles and I 

13 grew up in the City of San Bernardo. 

14 Ms. Zimpfer knows the air relatively well. For 

15 those of you that don't know in the audience that are in 

16 front of me, that means I've had the pleasure of curating 

17 some of the filthiest air in the United States for the 

18 last two decades. 

19 When I think dirty air, I think of playing JV 

20 tennis and getting a ball in the face, because the air was 

21 so bad I started tearing up. I think of playing saxophone 

22 in Dodger Stadium, practicing for the Rose Parade and not 

23 being able to breathe or get a note out, because again bad 

24 smog day right up by the 110.

25 I remember missing days of school and not 
234

1 learning to ride a bike at the age when I was supposed to, 

2 because my mom was too terrified, because it was a smog 

3 day. And I know that my childhood exposure has probably 

4 taken a decade off my life, if not more. I've made my 

5 peace with that, still I'm only 25. And I catch myself 

6 wondering when it's going to catch up with me, particularly 

7 since my mother just recently started treatment for thyroid 

8 cancer.

9 Confronting my own mortality aside, I know I'm 

10 one of the luckier children of the Southland. I've never 

11 had an asthma attack. I've never had to rush to an 

12 emergency room, because I or someone I loved couldn't 

13 breathe. I've never had to bury somebody that I lost, 

14 because of lung cancer. I'm here then where they aren't, 

15 to use the breath that good fortune has left me. To tell 

16 you why my friends, my neighbors, my classmates, my 

17 girlfriend, my community, are gasping for federal 

18 leadership on clean air standards. To paraphrase the man 

19 from Nazareth, I'm here so that we may have life and live 

20 more abundantly.

21 First, a lot of industry folks are always 

22 concerned about environmental regulations and jobs. I get 

23 that. 

24 My hometown struggled for jobs for as long as 

25 I've been alive. We lost the steel mill in '83 when my 
235

1 sister was born. We lost -- Norton Air Force base was on 

2 the closure list in '89 when I was born and finally shut 

3 down in '95 when I moved to California, so I get that. 

4 When I was going through the housing market crash my first 

5 year of college my brother-in-law was out of a job. 

6 But the way up from up filthy air is also the way 

7 up for economic prosperity for my community. Solar out8 employs coal 2-to-1 according to a recent poll from the 

9 Solar Foundation. And it's catching up, it's nipping at 

10 Oil's heels right now as we speak. 

11 A strong smog rule, 60 parts per billion, lower 

12 if you can do it, but I'm only going to talk about 60, 

13 would help us close dirty fossil fuel power plants. It'll 

14 encourage recruitment, retraining, investment, construction 

15 in solar and wind. These are good jobs for a trained and 

16 ready workforce. 

17 I live in L.A. We have an entry-level program 

18 for young people of color who are looking to be linemen for 

19 DWP. You know, Chevy's leading on EVs. We have union 

20 factories in Michigan that are building the Chevy Volt, 

21 that are building the Ford Fusion.

22 My brother's a plumber, Local 364 United 

23 Association out in Banning, California and he'll be able to 

24 provide for my sister, Ruth, by being able to build solar 

25 plants out in Mecca. Retrofitting houses with solar and 
236

1 making large buildings like the apartment building I live, 

2 more certifiable. 

3 We just passed Prop 39 in California, we have 

4 millions of dollars from closing a corporate tax loophole 

5 to fund green building especially with public institutions. 

6 Libraries, schools, I mean lord knows we need more schools. 

7 But we've built one UC in the last, what 40 years? That's 

8 Merced if I'm not mistaken.

9 Excuse me, and so this is important to me in that 

10 green, green tech is going to -- green tech and a strong 

11 leadership from the federal government will help my own 

12 family and empire where we're choking with unemployment as 

13 much as smog. 

14 It'll save money on health care. My mom's a 

15 nurse. My aunt's a nurse. My grandma's a nurse. I 

16 learned -- like the first words out of my mouth were, "an 

17 ounce of prevention is a pound of cure." 

18 And we're spending $25 billion in Southern 

19 California alone on respiratory diseases. That means if we 

20 can fix that according to recent statistics published by 

21 the Sierra Club and some of their partners, we can save 

22 anywhere from $2.1 to $4.4 billion -- excuse me 2.4 to 4.1 

23 sorry about that -- on health care benefits. And every 

24 single dime we save there is a dollar that can be -- is a 

25 dime -- dime, dollar -- a dime that can spent on the other 
237

1 necessities of life. I mean, California's recovering, 

2 we're balancing our budget, but if we're spending less on 

3 health care we're spending more on other things and that 

4 goes back into the state that I love.

5 Finally, a stronger smog rule will save the lives 

6 of youth of color. They catch disproportionately high 

7 effects of air pollution. You're going to see -- you saw 

8 some of the kids from Fruitvale -- sorry, does that mean my 

9 time is up?

10 MR. PAGE: Yeah. The red light does, yeah.

11 MR. SUKATON: All right. In that case, you know, 

12 like I said, California is gasping for clean air and I 

13 would really appreciate leadership for 60 parts per 

14 billion. Thank you. 

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 DARYL GALE

17 MS. GALE: Hello. I have a bad cold. Hello. 

18 I'm Daryl Gale, D-A-R-Y-L G-A-L-E.

19 I live in Los Angeles and I live in a solar 

20 apartment and I drive an electric scooter. And I only 

21 charge the scooter during the day, so I can get the free 

22 electricity from the solar panels on the roof of my 

23 apartment.

24 I just wanted to give you a different 

25 perspective. Some of the testimony here has been very, 
238

1 very heavy and I'm already congested. I started crying a 

2 few times in the last hour. 

3 There is a big difference between air pollution 

4 and other types of pollution. Like the other common 

5 types of pollution we talk about is food or soil or water. 

6 And air pollution is just so much heavier. 

7 We can usually see or smell or avoid or sometimes 

8 move away from these other forms of pollution. Like, for 

9 instance, if your soil is tainted well you can move. You 

10 can make sure your children don't play in the soil. You 

11 keep your pets out of the soil and if you have money you 

12 can sue somebody for it. The air pollution is toxic, it's 

13 deadly, and it's immediate. Think about World War I and 

14 mustard gas. 

15 If I find that my food is spoiled I can just 

16 throw it out. 

17 And if our water is damaged, I mean it's not the 

18 best solution, but there is plastic water bottles 

19 everywhere so we can at least have some water. I hate 

20 using it, but it's there for us. 

21 Lots of times I'm sure in the Bay Area as well as 

22 in Los Angeles we talk about earthquake preparedness. And 

23 I've often thought about what will we do if our water 

24 supply became compromised. Well, I would do, since I live 

25 in the city, probably what a lot of other people would do. 
239

1 And we would just, you know, like loot Rite Aid, because we 

2 won't die of starvation or have a problem with water. You 

3 know, we live here in California, we're not going to have 

4 that problem. 

5 But what do we do if the air is really bad? We 

6 can't get away. It's just a few seconds and you can be 

7 gasping.

8 The EPA has quite a bit of experience in 

9 supporting people in communities with water problems. And 

10 I know that I have faith with you, that 60 parts per 

11 billion is a really good way to go for the 40 million 

12 people here in California. We're all counting on you. we 

13 need you to keep us safe, alive and healthy. We can all do 

14 our part. Thank you.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 All right, our next two speakers are Joe 

17 McLaughlin and is it Dario Herrera?

18 All right, Mr. McLaughlin, you're up.

19 JOE MCLAUGHLIN

20 MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Good afternoon. My name is Joe 

21 McLaughlin. I'm a retired high school teacher and 

22 assistant principal from Huntington Park High School. 

23 Huntington Park is an area in Central East Los Angeles, 

24 part of the old industrial corridor that was in Los 

25 Angeles. It had very poor air quality. 
240

1 At the school we were very sensitive to this, 

2 because in addition to the industrial pollution that was 

3 around we had the Farmer John pig processing plant about a 

4 mile north of us on Soto. There were mornings known as 

5 Farmer John mornings where the air was nauseous as well as 

6 quite acrid. 

7 We were also one of the first high schools, to go 

8 year round. So we were in session during the summer when 

9 it was hot, air quality is usually worse in the summer. 

10 We'd have reduced activity on the athletic fields, because 

11 of the pollution at the time. I had one student who had an 

12 asthma attack in my classroom. We had to evacuate that 

13 student to the nurse and call paramedics and have them come 

14 and take them to the hospital. It was quite a frightening 

15 experience for me.

16 Closer to home, my wife has asthma. She has two 

17 inhalers. One that she must take twice a day, the other is 

18 for emergencies. We live in Echo Park, which is a small 

19 community surrounded on all four sides by freeways. It 

20 feels like it's at the center of the world, but it also is 

21 quite a concentration of all that ozone coming from those 

22 cars. So I have a concern about public health.

23 The EPA is charged with protecting the 

24 environment. And we've learned a great deal about the 

25 environments since the EPA was created by the Clean Air 
241

1 Act. And we can forgive some of the unwise choices of long 

2 ago at the Industrial Revolution. Cities at that time had 

3 horrible air with the soot and smoke and coal, gas and coal 

4 particles that were around, they were horrendous but they 

5 didn't know the full extent of that danger they were 

6 facing. 

7 And it wasn't until really they had that killer 

8 smog in London in, I think it was 1958 that killed over 

9 8,000 people that they began to take air pollution quite 

10 seriously. And so from that warning we began to understand 

11 the real danger and the impact that air pollution has of 

12 dumping all these pollutants, ozone as well as the 

13 greenhouse gases, into our atmosphere. 

14 And as we understood those things we began to 

15 make mitigations. When we understood that the sulfur that 

16 was in fuel, when we burned the coal and we got sulfuric 

17 acid that fell as acid rain, which killed fish and trees 

18 and dissolved the very faces of some of our buildings, we 

19 put regulations in and stopped that. 

20 The same thing happened with the chlorofluora 

21 carbons that were destroying the ozone, the upper level 

22 ozone layers. And those have been banned and have been 

23 phased out, so we can take actions that help. But as we 

24 understand more about the environment we have to really 

25 question our whole energy economy based on fossil fuels and 
242

1 burning things. 

2 Humankind has been burning things for thousands 

3 of years. It's built our whole civilization. Industries 

4 are based on it and it's done marvelous things, but now we 

5 understand that it is not sustainable. The science about 

6 that is just unequivocal. So we know that it's not 

7 sustainable and that in itself is a frightening prediction 

8 except that we also know that there are alternatives. 

9 And there are things that we can do that are 

10 solutions to the problem. And the Environmental Protection 

11 Agency is one of those solutions. By protecting the 

12 environment you're protecting human health, human life and 

13 human future. We've got to clean up the air and we have 

14 got to stop polluting. 

15 A couple of weeks ago in the newspaper I noticed 

16 a member of Congress who said that his duty was to 

17 represent his constituents. And he said this in terms of 

18 not doing something that would seem to be needed to do. I 

19 think people in positions of responsibility and authority 

20 have an obligation to show leadership, to look the future, 

21 to look to the greater good, because that's what we will 

22 need to survive.

23 Now, I'm not an expert and I can't give expert 

24 testimony. And you have plenty of scientific studies that 

25 really are unequivocal in their recommendations for lower 
243

1 and lower standards for the ozone emission. I think 60 is, 

2 I think, good. Lower than that would be even better for 

3 the future.

4 But one thing I can ask here is for political 

5 will. I mean, as a citizen, as a father representing my 

6 family, what's often lacking in these situations when we 

7 see the scientific evidence that shows that we have to do 

8 something, it almost always involves some cost. And so 

9 it's the political will that's necessary to move ahead with 

10 that.

11 I'm currently taking a class at UCLA Extension 

12 and it's taught by Anupom Ganguly who was an official with 

13 the South Coast Air Quality Management District. And we 

14 were talking just this last Saturday, regulations that he 

15 had had some work that he did with, and when they were 

16 posed that the industries involved would always scream that 

17 they couldn't do it. It would be too costly. And he said 

18 in every case they were able to comply with those, with 

19 much less cost than they had said they would have been able 

20 to. 

21 MR. PAGE: Sir, I'm sorry, your time is up.

22 MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Time is up? Oh, I'm sorry. 

23 Well, thank you very much for your --

24 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much. 

25 Mr. Herrera?
244

1 DARIO HERRERA

2 MR. HERRERA: Hello. My name is Dario, and I'm a 

3 victim of smog living between two freeways and a railroad.

4 MR. PAGE: Spell your name.

5 MR. HERRERA: D-A-R-I-O H-E-R-R-E-R-A. Living 

6 between two freeways and a railroad I have always been 

7 exposed to various forms of pollution. 

8 I want the people in the audience to raise your 

9 hand, if you too are a victim of smog. I want the people 

10 sitting in front of me to raise their hands if they are 

11 victims of smog. And I want the oil addicts who may not be 

12 here, to also raise their hands.

13 In L.A., aka Smog City every year thousands of 

14 people die prematurely, because of pollution from smog. 

15 And many, many more suffer from lung diseases, respiratory 

16 illnesses and asthma. 

17 But despite all this bad news there are 

18 solutions, which you probably heard about a gazillion 

19 times. The price of wind and solar energy is now cheaper 

20 than ever. In California more and more people are turning 

21 to green energy except for obviously oil addicts.

22 It's pretty ironic that in Denmark where they 

23 receive most of their energy from solar and wind, which is 

24 near the Arctic Circle, which means it's really cold -- if 

25 they do it there why can't we do this here in California 
245

1 where it's basically summer every day?

2 And so, EPA, I challenge you to be as ambitious 

3 as I was to not go to school today and sit on a bus for six 

4 hours to speak to you. I dare you to do your job and 

5 protect the environment. And lastly, I challenge you to 

6 set a goal of 60 parts per billion or even 55 parts per 

7 billion, because I can't wait, everyone in the room can't 

8 wait and California can't wait for better air quality. 

9 Thank you.

10 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for coming 

11 here.

12 Very good. Our next speakers are Kent Minnow and 

13 James Ralston. 

14 KENT MINAULT

15 MR. MINNOW: Good afternoon. Thanks for the 

16 opportunity to speak with you here. I'm Kent Minault, K-E17 N-T M-I-N-A-U-L-T. And I'm a teacher and actor from Los 

18 Angeles.

19 And I'm speaking today to urge you to implement 

20 the 60 parts per billion standard that'll cut ground-level 

21 ozone pollution in some areas by as much as 90 percent. 

22 Now, I'm urging this for my own health, because I'm a 

23 senior citizen and so I'm more susceptible to increased 

24 health risks from smog. And also as a resident of L.A. I 

25 live in the smoggiest city in the country. 
246

1 But I'm also urging this for the sake of my 

2 neighbors and students in seriously affected communities 

3 like Pacoima where I've been an English teacher for over 

4 ten years and South L.A. where I work as a volunteer 

5 organizer.

6 Now, these areas are characteristic of low-income 

7 communities around the country, which suffered 

8 disproportionate ozone pollution and consequently 

9 disproportionately high incidences of asthma, respiratory 

10 infections and pulmonary inflammation. 

11 Now this ozone pollution can exacerbate heart 

12 disease, bronchitis, and emphysema. But even worse large 

13 studies conducted in cities across the U.S., in Europe, and 

14 in Asia confirmed that ozone actually kills people as the 

15 young man who just spoke pointed out. Researchers 

16 repeatedly found that the risk of premature death increased 

17 with higher levels of ozone. 

18 And even low levels of ozone may be deadly. A 

19 large study of 48 U.S. cities found that ozone 

20 concentrations in some cities during the summer range from 

21 16 percent to 80 percent lower than the EPA currently 

22 considers safe. And researchers found that ozone in those 

23 lower levels was associated with deaths from cardiovascular 

24 disease, strokes and respiratory causes.

25 Now, we're shifting our economy more and more to 
247

1 green energy and zero emission vehicles. Let's follow the 

2 advice of fellow citizens from low-income communities, and 

3 also from the young people from all over the state who've

4 come and spoken with you today and implement strong smog 

5 regulations, which will further stimulate energy 

6 efficiency, rooftop solar and wind. And these things offer 

7 the prospective of far more good-paying jobs and career 

8 path jobs to boot, than the flagging dirty-energy system, 

9 which we need to leave behind. So let's make history today 

10 and give us the 60 parts per billion. Thanks.

11 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much.

12 Mr. Ralston?

13 JIM RALSTON

14 MR. RALSTON: My name is Jim Ralston, spelled 

15 like a bunch of people I'm not related to, R-A-L-S-T-O-N. 

16 And I too am from Los Angeles. There's a bunch of us, we 

17 came up on a bus.

18 I can report that the air is not as bad as it 

19 used to be. In 1971 when I arrived, you could arrive in 

20 Pasadena in the fall and not realize that there was a mile21 high mountain range in your backyard until the smog finally 

22 lifted in January.

23 We've made some progress since then, but of 

24 course not enough. As many people have pointed out, we 

25 still have the worst smog in the country. That is why I 
248

1 urge you to adopt the 60 parts per billion ozone standard.

2 The health benefits are incontestable. Ozone 

3 damages lungs, particularly young ones. The EPA's own 

4 Draft Policy Assessment estimates that lowering the 

5 standard from 75 to 60 parts per billion will protect half 

6 a million more children from significant damage to their 

7 lungs. I think that by itself makes the new standard 

8 worthwhile.

9 No one likes to be regulated, particularly when 

10 the regulation hits your business. "This will drive me out 

11 of business and I will wreck the economy." No, "It will 

12 wreck the economy." It is almost a reflex reaction, but 

13 time and again it hasn't worked that way. When you're 

14 forced to think about to comply people get innovative. The 

15 60 parts per billion standard and it will benefit us all. 

16 Thank you.

17 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, both.

18 Our next speakers are Michael Acosta Ramos and 

19 Bianca Padilla. Thank you.

20 MICHAEL RAMOS ACOSTA

21 MR. ACOSTA: Greetings, EPA representatives.

22 MR. PAGE: Greetings. Michael, do you want to 

23 spell your name for the court reporter? Thank you.

24 MR. ACOSTA: First last name is Ramos, R-A-M-O-S, 

25 second last name, A-C-O-S-T-A.
249

1 I just want to start out by saying my significant 

2 other suffers from an asthma condition, so I'm here 

3 representing her, myself and our community. I am currently 

4 studying sustainable architecture and environmental design 

5 at Los Angeles Trade Tech College in Los Angeles. And I am 

6 here today to ask that you all implement an initiative to 

7 reduce the smog in California for the sake of the state's 

8 overall health.

9 I would also like to some type of action taken on 

10 localizing necessities for people. I don't think massive 

11 and extensive transportation is something viable. I feel 

12 like we can educate and inform people on how to rely on 

13 their environments for their day-to-day needs. If we 

14 educate people about this I think people will feel more 

15 connected to their environment/nature and a newfound 

16 respect for the earth can emerge from this. It can be 

17 something as basic as teaching people to grow food or the 

18 importance of growing food or utilizing solar and wind in 

19 designing. 

20 Or you all can set a strong ozone standard at 60 

21 parts per billion or less to reduce smog. 

22 I would also like to see initiatives implemented 

23 in development. Studies show that conventional buildings 

24 make up at least 49 percent of the world's pollution. Any 

25 type of initiative to reduce the smog in California would 
250

1 be of great assistance in achieving health for our 

2 communities. Thank you, very much.

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

4 Bianca?

5 BIANCA PADILLA

6 MS. PADILLA: Hello. My name's Bianca Padilla, 

7 B-I-A-N-C-A, Padilla with a double l. Hi. I'm a student 

8 at Eagle Rock High School, it's in Los Angeles, yes.

9 It is evident that smog and other forms of air 

10 pollution are harmful. Inhaling air pollution takes away 

11 at least one to two years of a typical human life. 

12 The great smog of London killed 8,000 people.

13 People who live near freeways and other 

14 industrial factories face greater risk of cancer, heart 

15 disease, asthma and bronchitis.

16 It is evident that industry is profitable. This 

17 is just our desire outweighing our need. There are no laws 

18 in the atmosphere (indiscernible). 

19 Air is very extensive. It reaches everyone and 

20 it affects everybody. It's not something that only affects 

21 a certain race or gender or economic, social level. And 

22 just to like take in consideration that it's only affecting 

23 -- it's mostly not only affecting. It's mostly affecting 

24 people of race and gender. It also goes to the extent to 

25 say that it's based on human desire. It's not something 
251

1 of nature, because nature has no racism or sexism or 

2 classism. 

3 So I would like to ask you why not lower the 

4 ozone level to 60 parts per billion. I would like you to 

5 answer.

6 MR. PAGE: We're supposed to collect your 

7 information today. We've given you our proposal.

8 MS. PADILLA: I would like your opinion.

9 MR. PAGE: we've given you our proposal and we're 

10 putting that out for comment, so we're most interested in 

11 your opinion.

12 MS. PADILLA: Well, I think you should definitely 

13 lower it.

14 MR. PAGE: Okay. I was getting that, yeah.

15 MS. PADILLA: I mean, I would like to end with a 

16 quote. "In tough times, some of us see protecting the 

17 climate as a luxury, but that's an outdated 20th-century 

18 worldview from a time when we thought industrialization was 

19 the end goal, waste was growth, and wealth meant a thick 

20 haze of air pollution." Alex Steffen. Thank you.

21 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both very much 

22 for coming.

23 All right, our next speakers are Eve, you're 

24 going to have to help me here.

25 MS. PANUSH: Panush.
252

1 MR. PAGE: Panush, thank you. I appreciate that 

2 quick rescue. And Ronni Soloman, very good. All right.

3 Don't run, don't run, oh my goodness. Yeah, Eve 

4 would you go first please?

5 EVE PANUSH

6 MS. PANUSH: Yes. Hi. My name is Eve Panush, E7 V-E P-A-N-U-S-H. And I grew up in Los Angeles during the 

8 '50s and '60s. 

9 My father who moved to Los Angeles in 1950, and 

10 at 92 years of age still lives there, is a retired chemist. 

11 He was always aware of the dangers of unhealthy air having 

12 worked in the laboratory of Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit, the first 

13 chair of the State Air Resources Board. And my father also 

14 worked for the old Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control 

15 District, the first of its kind in the nation. 

16 He has never smoked and was an early activist in 

17 the movement against second-hand smoke. However, my 

18 father's pulmonologist recently told him that as a result 

19 of living in the Los Angeles air basin over these past 65 

20 years, he has the lungs of heavy smoker. 

21 Even though California still has some of the 

22 worst air in the country it isn't as bad as it used to be. 

23 Ozone levels in Los Angeles are just 40 percent of what 

24 they were in the mid-'70s and that's with more than twice 

25 the number of cars. 
253

1 However, fighting air pollution is an ongoing 

2 battle and as the science gets better the more is learned 

3 about the impact of ozone levels on human health. Lowering 

4 the current standard of ozone from 75 parts per billion to 

5 60 is just part of this continuing battle. Like all other 

6 actions we have taken in the past to improve air quality it 

7 has a cost. But we need to balance those costs against the 

8 risk to health of those who are most at risk including 

9 children, the elderly, and folks suffering from lung 

10 diseases. And the net result will be healthier people and 

11 a healthier economy.

12 We have a choice with regard to decreasing ozone 

13 levels between science and health on one side and unfounded 

14 fears on the other. Please choose what is right for our 

15 future. 

16 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

17 RONNI SOLOMAN

18 MS. SOLOMAN: Hi. My name is Ronni Soloman, R-O19 N-N-I S-O-L-O-M-A-N. Good afternoon. Thank you for having 

20 us. I also got on a bus from Los Angeles to come here.

21 As the Environmental Protection Agency, your name 

22 alone says what an awe-inspiring responsibility you have to 

23 protect our environment. And by extension it's our planet, 

24 because not only are we a global economy, but we're 

25 globally connected very much so, because of the hole in the 
254

1 ozone layer, global pollution in almost all countries, 

2 nations, cities. You only have to worry about the United 

3 States, but what you do here affects the whole world. 

4 The heads of chemical plants and fossil fuel 

5 industry, CEOs, argue that a rule of 60 parts per billion 

6 would hurt the economy and destroy jobs. But how much do 

7 increased number of asthma cases among children hurt the 

8 economy. And how much does lung-damaging smog in L.A. 

9 affect employment and job loss?

10 Your huge responsibility as our nation, and as I 

11 point out by extension our planet's environmental 

12 protector, forces you to be as bold and aggressive as 

13 possible.

14 So given what everybody has said here previously 

15 that supports the new rule of 60 parts per billion I 

16 applaud that and I urge you to go for 60 parts per billion. 

17 Our environment's future depends on it and we all depend on 

18 you, so please do the right thing. Thank you.

19 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

20 Before I go to the next speaker, how many people 

21 came up on the bus from Los Angeles? (Show of hands) Wow, 

22 that's impressive! Thank you all very much.

23 Walker Foley and Jameka Hodnett. Mr. Foley, if 

24 you'll spell your name for the court reporter when you're 

25 ready.
255

1 WALKER FOLEY

2 MR. FOLEY: Sure. That's Walker Foley, W-A-L-K3 E-R F-O-L-E-Y. And I'm both a volunteer with the Los 

4 Angeles Beyond Coal campaign and an organizer for Food and 

5 Water Watch. 

6 So first I'd like to say I live less than a mile 

7 from an oil field, less than a mile from a freeway, less 

8 than a mile from a CEMEX excavation site. And my apartment 

9 is on a major road in Los Angeles. So the pollution is 

10 endless. 

11 And every single day L.A. is in violation of the 

12 Clean Air Act. Every day L.A. is in violation of the 

13 current smog rulings. And every day I'm married to this

14 inhaler, which is actually a privilege that I can afford 

15 that a lot of other people in Los Angeles can't.

16 I try to do my part. I don't a car, which is 

17 both good and bad, because as a cyclist my commute both 

18 reduces smog and combines urban air pollution with 

19 cardiovascular exercise. And professionally, I organize 

20 with communities to shut down oil-drilling projects in 

21 their neighborhoods.

22 And so today I stepped out of L.A. smog, drove up 

23 through the Central Valley smog where it's so thick I 

24 couldn't see the Sierra Nevadas on the other side. And now 

25 I'm here to just make three points. 
256

1 Public accountability and access, I think, is 

2 critical in governments. 

3 And as you just saw a lot of us came up from Los 

4 Angeles to be here today. And I think we share the 

5 sentiment that bearing, along with the Central Valley a lot 

6 of the state's pollution, you all need to come to us, not

7 the other way around, for public comments to be made to 

8 this process. That this hearing is held in Sacramento 

9 isolated from the majority of people that it should be 

10 seeking to help is kind of unacceptable. 

11 So the EPA's mandate is to let science lead to 

12 safeguard public health and knowing that air pollution 

13 kills 25,000 Californians every year, knowing that 80 

14 percent of lung diseases are caused by smog, I'm asking you 

15 all to have the courage to show strong leadership. And I 

16 echo the sentiments of the people who have been sitting up 

17 here before me, that said nothing short of 60 parts per 

18 billion is good enough to safeguard our health.

19 I know the road to reduced emissions is costly. 

20 I've looked over the number, but Californians currently 

21 bear all the externality of oil production and other 

22 pollutive industries, both in our taxes and in our health 

23 bills. So I think we need to get back to an attitude of 

24 making the polluters pay. If a byproduct of their toxic 

25 products is our poor health then they are directly and 
257

1 morally responsible and should be held accountable for 

2 their actions.

3 And my concluding thought, earlier today I read 

4 the EPA is looking to give California an extension for 

5 meeting these new smog guidelines. Someone gave me the 

6 explanation that because California is so large in size and 

7 population and industry it's harder for it to come into 

8 compliance within the current timeline. However, I would 

9 say that 40 million people is not a reason to say we'll do 

10 it tomorrow. 40 million people is a mandate to do it now.

11 And to paraphrase Dr. King whose birthday a lot 

12 of us just celebrated, "The only time and the best time for 

13 justice are now." So I implore you show strong leadership 

14 on this. Set a goal of 60 parts per billion and don't 

15 delay action in California's communities. Thank you.

16 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

17 Jameka?

18 JAMEKA HODNETT

19 MS. HODNETT: Hello? I think you can hear me. 

20 My name is Jameka Hodnett, J-A-M-E-K-A H-O-D-N-E-T-T. 

21 Again, my name is Jameka. And I flew all the way here to 

22 Sacramento from Pittsburgh, to Arlington Texas first, and 

23 now here today to speak to you in favor of clean air and a 

24 stronger ozone standard.

25 I've traveled thousands of miles, because I'm 
258

1 serious about smog pollution and how it affects low-income 

2 communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by 

3 smog. Smog pollution is extremely harmful to our health 

4 and it's sickening that in California, Black and Latino 

5 kids are two-to-six times more likely to die from asthma.

6 My nephew suffers from asthma and every time he 

7 has an asthma attack my heart stops. Industry should not 

8 have that type of control over me and my family's life. My 

9 nephew should be able to go outside and breathe clean are 

10 every day. 

11 This disgusting smog is not normal and it 

12 certainly is not okay. It will be a gross injustice if EPA 

13 does not lower the current ozone standards to 60 parts per 

14 billion. Not doing so would leave the door open for 

15 continued degradation of our health and catastrophic 

16 climate change. Implementing a new stricter standard will 

17 protect our planet and its communities two-fold. We get 

18 cleaner air and we'd finally be on a path to addressing 

19 climate change.

20 EPA you were established to protect us. Our 

21 communities and our planet is counting on you. Please 

22 lower the standard to 60 parts per billion. That's it.

23 MR. PAGE: Thank you both for your comments.

24 All right, our next two speakers are Felicia 

25 Bander and Susan Wilke or Wilkes?
259

1 Ms. Bander, you're up when you're ready.

2 FELICIA BANDER

3 MS. BANDER: Okay. Thank you. 

4 My name is Felicia Bander F-E-L-I-C-I-A B-A-N-D5 E-R. I live in Los Angeles. 

6 What a wonderful country we have, that I can 

7 speak before you today. Our fossil fuel use is the cause 

8 of the extreme and dangerous climate changes coming our 

9 way. Our world is going to become a much more difficult 

10 place in which to live. 

11 Fossil fuel reserves are past their peak levels; 

12 supplies are dwindling. This is the age of renewable 

13 energy. Renewable energy can power our lives. The 

14 transition to renewable energy is inevitable. The sooner 

15 we make the transition the better for everyone. 

16 Fossil fuel companies stand in the way of the 

17 transition. They scare the public into thinking that there 

18 will be energy shortages or soaring prices. The fossil 

19 fuel companies are scared of losing their profits. The 

20 fossil fuel companies stand in the way of responsible 

21 policy-making. 

22 Adaptation in a key to survival. The fossil fuel 

23 companies need to adapt and start investing in renewable 

24 energy. There is enough sun, wind, and energy efficiency 

25 for all of us, enough for investors to profit from, for 
260

1 workers to be employed by, for economies to grow on. 

2 Our environment needs your protection. Our 

3 country need these ozone regulations. Setting the limit at 

4 60 parts per billion will push all of us towards renewables

5 and away from fossil fuels. 

6 The world needs our leadership on this. Thank you 

7 very much.

8 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

9 SUSAN WILKE

10 MS. WILKE: Thank you. My name is Susan Wilke, 

11 Wilke, W-I-L-K-E. I came here and I wasn't thinking of 

12 actually making any statements, but I realized as I was 

13 coming here that I did have some thoughts on the subject. 

14 I live in Sacramento. I do have a chronic 

15 condition. It's not related to asthma, but I know that I 

16 would feel better if the air was clean, if the sky was 

17 clear, if I didn't pass people that I see masks on their 

18 faces as they walk around. At my condo unit where I see 

19 the workers blowing the leaves with the gas things on their 

20 backs without any kind of protection, and I know that its 

21 making the air worse. I know someone who is leaving 

22 Sacramento because the air is so bad that its impacting 

23 their health and well-being and that they won't survive, 

24 because their health is impacted so much by our air quality 

25 and they have to seek a place to go. 
261

1 I also read something recently that Aldus Huxley

2 said -- something that facts do not change simply because 

3 we ignore them. 

4 I think the Senate said we are not anything to 

5 impact the environment, but I think there's enough 

6 scientists and people telling us that that's not the case. 

7 And when we look at our weather and the fact that what we 

8 do, do does make a difference. And even a small change in 

9 a group, a small group of people, can make a gigantic 

10 change if they give leadership to other people. 

11 And the fact is you also have children or you may 

12 have children. It may be ironic, but how do you know that 

13 your children might be ill with asthma? That they might --

14 you might have someone in your family that's impacted by it 

15 already or maybe even your own health. 

16 I just think as a species that if we ignore --

17 like, facts do not change just because we ignore them. If 

18 we ignore what we do, we will still have to face the 

19 impacts that are happening right now. We know we kind of 

20 live in a gilded age with the 1 percent. We can see that 

21 our way that we're consuming is actually, we are consuming 

22 our planet. And our planet is starting to spit out against 

23 us. It's punishing us. It's telling us like a child 

24 crying in bed that we are doing something wrong and if we 

25 don't listen and change our behavior, and make the changes 
262

1 that need to be done, there will be consequences. 

2 Maybe it won't be on us. we can fly off to what 

3 Boutique (phonetic) or maybe go to the mountains and get a 

4 nice place in one of the few places that are smog free. 

5 But that leaves, what about the other people? There's 1 

6 percent that has a lot of power and money, but what about 

7 the rest of us? We're paying for them to live this high8 style life but we are paying the price. They're making us 

9 pay the price. And I think it's a darn shame, excuse me 

10 for swearing, that we are the ones that have to pay the 

11 price for some wealthy person to live an exalted life. 

12 And it shouldn't have to be that way. That's all 

13 I have to say. It's disgusting.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you both very much.

15 Our next two speakers are Felicia Bander and Alex 

16 Nagy. 

17 MS. BANDER: (Off mic) No, I'm Felicia Bander.

18 MR. PAGE: Oh, sorry, sorry. Okay. You made it 

19 on the list twice. Alex Nagy.

20 ALEXANDRA NAGY

21 MR. NAGY: Nagy for the record, N-A-G-Y. All 

22 right, my name is Alexandra Nagy and I'm an organizer for 

23 Food and Water Watch in Los Angeles.

24 I was born and raised in L.A. and I know what it 

25 feels like to struggle running laps on the school 
263

1 playground during gym class and the panic that ensues when 

2 your little sister comes to you during the day and she left 

3 her inhaler at home. And you have to figure out how to get 

4 her to breathe again. 

5 And today I'm a community organizer and I work to 

6 empower communities to fight back against Big Oil, the 

7 largest polluters of sources of air toxics in Los Angeles. 

8 And I work with them to resist against extreme influence 

9 Big Oil has over our government and our agencies. We work 

10 to combat the erosion of our democracy and we strive to 

11 make the government accountable to the people and not Big 

12 Oil. 

13 Food and Water Watch and the affected communities 

14 are working for a ban on fracking -- an extreme 

15 unconventional oil and gas drilling in Los Angeles and

16 California -- because we know it is necessary to fight for 

17 healthy climate and communities. 

18 We know, based on numerous scientific studies and 

19 even data gathering by the South Coast AQMD, that fracking 

20 and other unconventional drilling has a significant impact 

21 on air pollution and smog. We know from the Colorado study 

22 published in the Journal of Geophysical Research that 

23 methane emissions from fracked wellheads are significantly 

24 higher and contribute to three times higher levels of smog.

25 In Los Angeles, after the South Coast AQMD 
264

1 required reporting of chemicals used in fracking, 

2 acidizing, and gravel packing which are extreme 

3 unconventional methods, after a year of reporting, this 

4 review showed that at least 44 different chemicals were 

5 defined as air toxics. And these chemicals were used at 

6 least 5,068 and more than 45 million pounds or 22,500 tons 

7 of these air toxics were used. And more than half of these 

8 air toxics were used within 1500 of a home, school or 

9 medical facility. 

10 In South L.A., wells at the Allenco site were 

11 allowed to poison the nearby residents and school children 

12 for three years with deadly air toxins making life 

13 miserable for this community, because agencies under the 

14 thumb of Big Oil, the South Coast AQMD, allowed it to 

15 happen. After years of organizing, the community finally 

16 got these wells shut down only after the EPA stepped in, 

17 investigated the issue, and the officers themselves got 

18 sick just being there for one day. And that was three 

19 years gone unnoticed by the South Coast AQMD. It was 

20 absolutely horrifying. After Allenco was forced to halt 

21 operations, the L.A. times revealed that the reports of 

22 illnesses by the community disappeared. 

23 Whether or not well stimulation is used, we know 

24 that oil and gas operations are responsible for emitting 

25 air toxics throughout the process. What we need in Los 
265

1 Angeles and California, to combat air pollution and dirty, 

2 dangerous smog, is 100 percent clean energy and a move away 

3 from fossil fuels completely. 

4 We need to ban fracking now, but right now the 

5 EPA needs to require 60 parts per billion as the standard 

6 of ozone pollutants as a first step to dismantling the 

7 stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry and what it has 

8 over our lives, our climate, and our future. 

9 We need a clean energy feature that provides 

10 clean air for all. After all clean air is a human right 

11 and Los Angeles is so far behind this violation of that 

12 right. The EPA needs to stand up to Big Oil and enforce 60

13 parts per billion. Thank you.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much.

15 Tony Bautista and Daniel Kwong.

16 Mr. Bautista, if you could spell your name, and 

17 start when you're ready.

18 TONY BAUTISTA

19 MR. BAUTISTA: Hello. It's Tony T-O-N-Y B-A-U-T20 I-S-T-A. 

21 So on MLK Day my sister, my nephew and myself, 

22 decided we would enjoy a morning hike at Elysian Park just 

23 north of Downtown L.A. We expected a landscape view of 

24 Downtown L.A. and the ocean. As we drove there the morning 

25 was hazy and we expected it to clear up. When we arrived 
266

1 on top of the hill, there was no ocean view, and Downtown 

2 L.A. was surrounded in smog. These days are becoming more 

3 common. We realized that hike was a bad idea, actually it 

4 was a terrible idea. 

5 My six-year-old nephew, Isaiah Lemeez, (phonetic)

6 suffers from asthma. He has had three emergency room 

7 visits, two of which were overnight. This should never 

8 happen to anyone. 

9 And let me tell you a little bit about the 

10 community Isaiah and myself are from. East Los Angeles is 

11 surrounded by freeways or as they're known in L.A., parking 

12 lots: the 60, the 5, the 710, the 10, the 101. Every 

13 morning, afternoon, and evening, these freeways become 

14 smog-making machines blowing deadly chemicals to the 

15 surrounding communities. And this problem is only getting 

16 worse. As we are speaking today, they are expanding the 

17 710. 

18 I don't only witness the difficult times my 

19 nephew has breathing, but those are my youth that I work 

20 with. I work in Boyle Heights, the second most air21 polluted community in Los Angeles. And I don't need to 

22 tell you that L.A. has the worst air pollution in the 

23 nation or maybe I do. 

24 I live in Cypress Park now, adjacent to a rail 

25 freight yard, also a source of smog. Heights Park 
267

1 (phonetic) is four miles from Boyle Heights, I bike to work 

2 every day and I am a witness to the car congestion on the 

3 L.A. streets. My morning commute is filled with the biter 

4 smell of the tailpipe smoke. I often wonder if I'm putting 

5 my health in danger. I worry about developing cancer.

6 Often times that thought is put to rest when I worry about 

7 getting hit by cars or hitting a pothole. 

8 I'm here today to ask you to clean our air, to

9 protect my house, to protect the health of my community, to 

10 protect the health of every American. To set an example to 

11 all the nations on this earth. To set a 60 parts per 

12 billion ozone standard. 

13 I'm not only representing myself, but my 

14 community, many of which could not attend, because of the 

15 many injustices that they already face and would gladly be 

16 here to tell you the injustices they face with air 

17 pollution. 

18 Remember, 60 parts per billion. I already 

19 Instagrammed you on Facebook, so again 60 parts per 

20 billion. Thank you.

21 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

22 Mr. Kwong?

23 DANIEL KWONG

24 MR. KWONG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen 

25 and all professionals and friends from the communities in 
268

1 the audience. February 2nd is a shiny day for a living 

2 concept, clean air.

3 We have just delivered some good messages in the 

4 parks and (inaudible) very exciting.

5 I'm from Los Angeles and have just earned the 

6 certification of mental health first aid from the Pacific 

7 Clinic Training Institute (phonetic) in Pasadena and have 

8 learned a lot, picked up a lot of things. And it's changed 

9 my life and thoughts of lifestyle and the mentality on some 

10 basic issues.

11 So far I know, and we all may know that, all 

12 (indiscernible) are relevant. And so the implementation of 

13 a public policy is affecting all of us. The Environmental 

14 Protection Agency has done a good job. Since the formation 

15 in the early 1970s its momentum is still impacts and has 

16 touched on almost every aspect of our daily lives. Thank 

17 you for the hard work and years. 

18 What I have learned from the mental health 

19 classes, we do need to eat well and sleep well and to 

20 maintain ourselves in good care and have a good style of 

21 exercises. And that we need clean air to do, for children, 

22 for women to bear healthy children, and the (indiscernible) 

23 and the citizens to move on.

24 All living things need clean air, why not? 

25 California is not dreaming, it is living. Again, we need 
269

1 clean air. Have a good evening and healthy new year to 

2 all. 

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

4 MR. KWONG: Thank you.

5 MR. PAGE: Mr. Kwong, would you spell your name 

6 for the court reporter, please?

7 MR. KWONG: Daniel Kwong, my last name is K-W-O8 N-G. I'm from Los Angeles.

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. Thank you for 

10 being here.

11 MR. KWONG: I greet you all again.

12 MR. PAGE: Yeah, thank you.

13 MS. STONE: Nice to meet you.

14 MR. PAGE: All right. Our next two speakers are 

15 Philip Royk? (phonetic)

16 MR. ROJC: Royce. (phonetic)

17 MR. PAGE: Royce? Okay, you'll have to spell 

18 that for me, and Clayton Heard. Rojc, you're up first, so 

19 if you'd spell your name for the court reporter and me?

20 PHILIP ROJC

21 MR. ROJC: Sure. My name is Philip with one "l" 

22 and the last name is Rojc, R-O-J-C. Hi, I'm Philip. I am 

23 from Los Angeles. 

24 Last year I went to USC to hear a talk by the 

25 social scientist, Jared Diamond, about his new book. He 
270

1 told a well-read, well-informed audience that he wasn't 

2 sure whether civilization, as we know it, would persist by 

3 the time I reach retirement age. That's around 2050 or 

4 2060. 

5 And here is what I found interesting about that. 

6 In that room full of well-read, well-informed people very 

7 few of them seemed to find that statement strange. They 

8 bought into the notion that that statement could be 

9 plausible. And I do hope Jared Diamond is right. I hope 

10 that our civilization does change drastically by the time I 

11 reach retirement age. I hope our global economy advances. 

12 I'm not going to say grows, I'm not going to use the term 

13 grows, I'm going to use the term advances in the coming 

14 decades as we face down challenges that are clearly 

15 partially of our own making. 

16 And that's why it's hard sometimes to pull up 

17 Google News on my phone and read about how even if your 

18 organization were to totally eliminate, to outlaw emissions 

19 in the U.S. it wouldn't really do much, because everybody

20 overseas is still industrializing. They are still growing 

21 their economies, their dirty energy economies often, at a 

22 break-neck pace. And sometimes it seems like real tangible 

23 improvements like reducing ozone are only mere delaying 

24 tactics into face inevitable planet-wide decline. You 

25 know, but that's not the full story. 
271

1 Bold cutting-edge action on the local level 

2 doesn't just mitigate local problems. It proves to the 

3 rising generation who is really looking out for our 

4 futures, our livelihoods. I want the United States to stay 

5 at the forefront, because sometimes it feels like that's 

6 not the case anymore. Because people, they remember 

7 leadership. California and the United States as a whole is 

8 known world-wide for being at the cutting edge, in both 

9 positive and negative ways. 

10 In 2060 when I reach that retirement age I want 

11 to have proven Jared Diamond right -- not because of 

12 economic collapse -- but because my state, my nation, my 

13 country, lead the world away from pollution. Today, 60 

14 parts per billion is what that leadership means. Thank you

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

16 CLAYTON HEARD

17 MR. HEARD: All right. My name is Clayton Heard, 

18 H-E-A-R-D. I'm an environmental science and policy major

19 at Chapman University down in Orange County. 

20 So I thought today I would just talk about a few 

21 important people in my life. First up is my mom. She grew 

22 up in Arcadia, which is at the foothills of the beautiful 

23 San Bernardino mountains. However, she did not know there 

24 were mountains there until she was in junior high. The 

25 smog was so bad that in elementary school she would be 
272

1 called off the playgrounds, kids would have burning and 

2 itchy lungs. In the summer it can get over 100 degrees,

3 but they weren't able to go swimming, because they couldn't 

4 go outside. She also remembers it as like having a ten5 pound bowling ball on her chest all the time. 

6 And so that was obviously quite a while ago and 

7 conditions have improved. However, next I want to talk 

8 about my friend Brett. Brett is also an environmental 

9 science major with me at Chapman. We have lots of classes 

10 together and we do research together, but he is from 

11 Bellevue, Washington and I myself am from Orange County. 

12 So one day we were coming back from a research 

13 project in a local wilderness area like 20 minutes from 

14 school. And so we're driving back through the mountains, 

15 and we're kind of going around these twists and turns, then

16 finally you can kind of see out and you see Orange and 

17 Anaheim and it's very flat. You can see for quite a while.

18 And he just kind of looks at me and he says, "Man 

19 I can't wait to get out of California. I feel like I can't 

20 breathe." 

21 And normally I'm very quick to defend the great 

22 state of California, because I love it here, but at this 

23 point I kind of just looked at the horizon and I saw that 

24 gray layer of haze and smog. And I really thought, "Like

25 wow that must hard coming from Washington and to have to 
273

1 deal with this." And I had never really thought about 

2 that. It was just something that I had grown accustom to. 

3 I had grown accustom to this constant smog to where it 

4 doesn't even faze me anymore and that's kind of frightening 

5 to me, you know? That I am not even aware of this 

6 dangerous smog that is constantly surrounding me. 

7 And Brett is a very passionate student. He loves 

8 waste management, which is very strange I think, for a 20 

9 year old in college. But he is going to be some human 

10 capital that we are going to lose in the State of 

11 California, because he doesn’t plan on staying here. And I 

12 don't even know if he plans on staying in the United States 

13 after college because he might find that environmental 

14 policies are more progressive in outside countries. 

15 Now to get really sappy, I'm going to talk about 

16 my future son or daughter. Hopefully they will grow up in 

17 orange County as well. However, I don't want them to grow 

18 up accustomed to this grey streak across the horizon. I 

19 don't want them to feel like they can't breathe. Part of 

20 the reason I'm an environmental science and policy major is 

21 because I want them to be able to enjoy the outdoors. I 

22 want them to be able to swim in the ocean and hike in our 

23 beautiful mountains. 

24 The EPA has made some amazing progress from my 

25 parent's generations to mine and I'm hoping that now it's 
274

1 time for this generation to do the same. That's why I 

2 really suggest that we push for a 60 parts per billion 

3 standard for ozone. Thank you

4 MR. PAGE: Great. Thanks to both of you for your 

5 statements today. 

6 All right, our next two speakers are Claudia 

7 Grayson and Mr. Harry Wang.

8 CLAUDIA GRAYSON

9 MS. GRAYSON: Hi. I wasn't going to speak 

10 earlier, but one of my friends spoke and I thought --

11 MR. PAGE: Excuse me for interrupting, could you 

12 spell your --

13 MS. GRAYSON: Oh, Claudia, C-L-A-U-D-I-A, last 

14 name Grayson, G-R-A-Y-S-O-N.

15 MR. PAGE: Thank you, so much.

16 MS. GRAYSON: Yeah. I came because I live here 

17 in Sacramento and usually before I leave the house I have 

18 to check the air alerts. I have asthma. And like the

19 other young man, I have a red and white inhaler as well,

20 but I also have a whole medicine cabinet full of pills. 

21 I had a heart attack in 2007. And I recovered 

22 from that well, but in 2011 I got a submassive pulmonary 

23 embolism that almost killed me. That was in the middle of 

24 September. The following year at the end of September, I 

25 had bilateral small pulmonary emboli in both lungs. The 
275

1 following summer I had intractable asthma and new 

2 medications to add to my regiment. And this past summer I 

3 had vertigo. And that's why I check the air alert every 

4 day before I leave. 

5 Now, today it was only 35 parts per billion, but 

6 even in leaving the bus stop at 7th and I, to walk down 

7 here I had to use my inhaler. So I know that I'm older and 

8 I have watched the air go from -- I grew in the Bay Area, I 

9 was so spoiled, because I had the Pacific breezes -- and 

10 I'm Susan's friend that is leaving the Valley, because I 

11 need to get out of a place that is in a constant inversion. 

12 I understand that a part of our problem here is 

13 physical, and probably also in Los Angeles, so I think that 

14 because we live in these bowls we have to protect what does 

15 go into the bowls. I'm trying to get away to the rim of 

16 the bowl. I'm trying to move to Sonoma County, so I can be 

17 on the upper edge of the bowl. 

18 Meanwhile back at the literal ranches in the 

19 Valley I would hope that you would do as much as you can to 

20 relieve the people who are not like, "Okay. I'm ready to 

21 go." I asked my doctor if he thought that I would live an 

22 extra five years if I left the Valley and moved to a place 

23 with cleaner air. And he said, "No, ten." 

24 So I implore you, give us a break.

25 MR. PAGE: All right. Thank you, very much.
276

1 HARRY WANG

2 MR. WANG: My name is Dr. Harry Wang. That's 

3 spelled W-A-N-G. I am vice president of the Sacramento 

4 Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. 

5 And I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

6 speak today. And I'm going to urge the EPA to set a 

7 standard that will mandate the lowest ozone levels possible 

8 to best protect human health.

9 PSR believes that there are two important issues 

10 that EPA should consider. First, that clean air is a human 

11 right for all Americans. And second, that there's clear 

12 scientific evidence that ozone is deadly and harmful to our 

13 health and at levels lower than EPA is considering.

14 As we all know the Clean Air Act passed by a 

15 bipartisan congress in 1970 has been one of the most 

16 successful, what I'll call public health law, ever enacted. 

17 Through the work of EPA the quality of our air has 

18 dramatically improved resulting in significant benefits for 

19 the health and wellbeing of millions of people. 

20 The mandated reduction of emissions from many of 

21 the worst sources of air pollution has literally saved the 

22 lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. 

23 An important role of government is to protect us 

24 and to keep us safe and this is especially true in the area 

25 of public health. It is much better, as well as cost 
277

1 effective, to prevent disease and deaths than to try to 

2 treat them. And that is why it is essential that all 

3 Americans be able to breathe clean air. 

4 But despite the improvements in air quality that 

5 have occurred, more than four of every ten Americans across 

6 the country still live in areas with unhealthy ozone 

7 levels. And in recent years the levels of ozone have risen 

8 in the most polluted metropolitan areas.

9 If clean air is to be a right for all Americans 

10 we must remind EPA to fulfill their mission and to set an 

11 ozone standard that would truly protect human health with 

12 an adequate margin of safety. Children, elders, 

13 individuals with heart or lung diseases and those who play

14 or work outdoors are especially vulnerable to the effects 

15 of breathing ozone. We shouldn't force our children to 

16 stay inside, because the air is unsafe for them to breathe.

17 As a board-certified pediatrician and child 

18 psychiatrist I've treated many children with asthma. My 

19 own daughter was hospitalized in intensive care right here 

20 in Sacramento when she was nine-years old. I recall many 

21 nights staying awake with her when she was having a hard 

22 time breathing. She would prop herself up on pillows in 

23 the bed and I would be there and we would give her 

24 breathing treatments every four hours throughout the night. 

25 And there are very few conditions as scary for children or 
278

1 their parents, as a child waking up in the middle of the 

2 night unable to breathe.

3 So you can see for me ozone pollution is both a 

4 professional and a personal matter. And that's why I 

5 returned to testify five years after the last EPA hearing 

6 here in Sacramento on the ozone standard. And at that time 

7 PSR urge EPA to lower the 8-hour primary standard to 60 

8 parts per billion.

9 It's taken much too long to set a more health 

10 protective standard, a decision that should not have to 

11 depend on politics. And although I imagine you've heard 

12 testimony from industry stating that jobs are at stake, we 

13 remind EPA that corporate profits or economic costs are not 

14 to be considered when setting the ozone standard.

15 My first point tonight was that clean air is a 

16 right for all Americans. My second point is that the 

17 science is very, very clear. As you've been hearing all 

18 day ozone pollution is harmful to your health. And as Dr. 

19 Pinkerton will state, "Science has shown that ozone 

20 exposures as low as down to 60 parts per billion cause 

21 adverse physiologic effects, even in healthy people. 

22 And that is why Physicians for Social 

23 Responsibility urges the EPA to get it right this time and 

24 set a more health-protective standard, 60 parts per 

25 billion, which would be safer for all Americans including 
279

1 sensitive groups.

2 And we urge that the new standard for ozone be 

3 implemented in the shortest timeframe possible to being 

4 saving more lives in improving the health and well-being of 

5 all of us. Thank you.

6 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for your 

7 statements today.

8 (Off mic colloquy between Panel members)

9 MR. PAGE: So we're going to take about a five10 minute break. We have apparently a large crowd of young 

11 people out in the lobby that are going to be making their 

12 way in. And it was thought that it might be best to get 

13 them in, in an orderly way and settled. And they want to 

14 testify, so we're going to give them an opportunity to do 

15 that as well as the other speakers that are signed up. 

16 So we'll re-adjourn here in about five minutes 

17 and I'm sure the energy level in the room will pick up 

18 considerably as a result. All right, so thank you very 

19 much.

20 (Off the record 4:48 p.m.)

21 (On the record 5:11 p.m.)

22

23

24

25
280

1 Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the 

2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS)

3 February 2, 2015

4 Sacramento, California

5 Steve Page, Presiding Officer

6 * * *

7 EVENING SESSION

8 COURT REPORTER: And we are on the record.

9 MR. PAGE: All right, we are on the record. So 

10 our next two speakers to start our, I guess, early evening 

11 session off, are Kent Pinkerton and Michelle Schnack.

12 Please correct my pronunciations if they're 

13 wrong. That's an advice to everybody. 

14 Kent, you're up first. It's good to see you.

15 MR. PINKERTON: It's good to see you.

16 KENT PINKERTON

17 MR. PINKERTON: Well, good evening. Kent 

18 Pinkerton, P-I-N-K-E-R-T-O-N. I'm a Professor of 

19 Pediatrics in the School of Medicine here at UC Davis as 

20 well as a Professor of Anatomy in the School of Veterinary 

21 Medicine, also at UC Davis. And I have a passion for the 

22 protection of both humans and animals from adverse health 

23 conditions including conditions found in the environment. 

24 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has this 

25 opportunity to this opportunity to lower the 8-hour ozone 
281

1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards from 75 parts per 

2 billion to 60 ppb to adequately protect public health. 

3 As a member of a team of scientists from 

4 universities around the country including UC Davis we 

5 published research findings in October of 2012 in the 

6 Journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which estimated 

7 the annual numbers of ozone-related premature deaths that 

8 could be avoided just with compliance with the current 

9 standard. These numbers ranged from 1,400 to 2,400 

10 individuals with compliance at 75 parts per billion. 

11 We further found even greater benefits of 2,450 

12 to 4,100 avoided deaths at an ozone reduction level to 70 

13 parts per billion. And 5,200 to almost 8,000 at 60 parts 

14 per billion. These findings were based on air monitoring 

15 data for ozone and a nationwide survey of mortality and 

16 morbidity health impacts. 

17 Lowering of ozone levels could also reduce cases 

18 of acute respiratory symptoms by 3 million and school loss 

19 days by 1 million, annually. And even if this is -- we 

20 keep with the current 75 parts per billion standard, so 

21 substantially greater health effects and benefits would 

22 have resulted had the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

23 Committee or CASAC recommendation to establish an ozone 

24 standard within the range of 70 to 60 parts per billion had 

25 been met back in 2007.
282

1 On November 25, 2014 the EPA proposed a standard 

2 in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, which is lower 

3 than the current standard of 75 parts per billion. While 

4 the EPA should be commended for proposing a stricture 

5 standard scientific evidence clearly calls for a standard 

6 of 60 parts per billion to further protect human health.

7 Since 2006 evidence has demonstrated ozone 

8 exposures in the range of 60 to 75 parts per billion have 

9 adverse physiological effects even in healthy people of all 

10 ages, from infants to the elderly. While there is some 

11 evidence to suggest health effects to ozone exposure below 

12 60 parts per billion the strongest evidence supports the 

13 conclusion that serious adverse health effects occur across 

14 all ages at levels above 60 parts per billion. 

15 Of those cities in the United States experiencing 

16 the highest levels of ozone in 2014 six of the top seven 

17 are in the State of California with the Sacramento18 Roseville area ranked as number five in most polluted for 

19 the entire United States. The California Central Valley 

20 has the dubious distinction of serving of the home of the 

21 five top seven cities suffering from the greatest ozone 

22 levels in the country.

23 Now is the time for the U.S. Environmental 

24 Protection Agency to do their job to enforce the ozone 

25 standard of 60 parts per billion to more fully protect all
283

1 ages, human and animal, in the California Central Valley 

2 and the nation. We all will breathe easier. Thank you.

3 MICHELLE SCHNACK

4 MS. SCHNACK: Greetings, everyone. My name is 

5 Michelle Schnack, S-C-H-N-A-C-K, and I am one of 700 

6 members of the Sacramento Chapter of Physicians for Social 

7 Responsibility. 

8 I'm here today to make an appeal for a safe ozone 

9 standard to protect public health. 

10 You have heard testimony and startling statistics 

11 regarding the evidence of adverse health risk of ozone. 

12 Those of low socioeconomic status are found to be more 

13 likely to live in areas with higher exposures to particle 

14 pollution. 

15 As a licensed clinical social worker who provides 

16 community and mental health services to children and their 

17 families living in poverty I've heard a number of stories 

18 of how poor air quality affects families. Poor air leads 

19 to health problems in children and their caregivers. Poor 

20 physical health subsequently affects mental health and 

21 well-being and exacerbates stress on caregivers, which in 

22 turn taxes their parenting and financial and emotional 

23 resources.

24 Asthma is a leading cause of school absenteeism. 

25 A story that illustrates this issue is of a family that I'm 
284

1 currently working with, a single mom who has adopted five 

2 children including three and four-year-old kids whom I am 

3 treating. After several missed sessions, poor preschool 

4 attendance and observations of the children wheezing in 

5 sessions I referred them to their pediatrician. 

6 Unsurprisingly, the kids were diagnosed with asthma and 

7 require breathing treatments regularly. According to mom, 

8 she has to monitor the air quality and their activity. And 

9 she has taught them to come to her to tell her if they 

10 can't breathe. 

11 Ozone pollution disproportionately affects 

12 children. We live in a society that needs to protect our 

13 air quality to give kids freedom to explore their world and 

14 play without worrying about the air they breathe.

15 Another family that I provide services to lives 

16 by the freeway and consists of grandparents raising their 

17 eight-year-old grandson. 

18 Grandma has health problems including lung 

19 disease and is in and out of the hospital. This increases 

20 the stress in the household, which affects of the child who 

21 has trouble sleeping, concentrating or being calmed. He 

22 used to get suspended frequently from school, because he 

23 discovered that it was a way for him to stay home to watch 

24 over his grandma. As a matriarch in the family, poor 

25 health had led to inconsistent parenting, which contributes 
285

1 to the child's dis-regulation. With mental health 

2 treatment the family has found a way to cope the best way 

3 they can, but the future remains uncertain.

4 Air quality, physical health and emotional well5 being are inexplicably linked and it is crucial to protect 

6 our environment for the public good.

7 Personally, I'm an outdoor enthusiast and seek 

8 refuge in nature to tackle outside my comfort zone 

9 challenges and experience remedy. As a rock climber 

10 working hard to reach the top of a climb my body requires 

11 pure clean air to remain focused and to do its job. 

12 As we all do, Sacramento is known as the City of 

13 Trees and during my travels around the city I see how poor 

14 air visibly damages the leaves and trees and other plants. 

15 On bad ozone days we are recommended to stay indoors 

16 instead of engaging in outdoor recreational activities such 

17 as running, biking or kayaking.

18 According to the most recent data there were 88 

19 days the air was unhealthy for sensitive groups and an 

20 additional 12 days ozone levels were bad for everyone in 

21 Sacramento County. That's a total of 100 days in a year 

22 when sensitive groups including children, people with lung 

23 and heart disease, and older adults had to stay indoors. 

24 Research has shown that the current ozone standards are 

25 causing adverse physical effects on us all. So it may not 
286

1 be too far into the future in which our own breathing would 

2 also be compromised if it hasn't already.

3 Ozone is one of the most widespread threats to 

4 air quality and as such, it is of critical importance to 

5 create a safer standard; 60 parts per billion in order to 

6 protect our environment. Research suggests a stringent 

7 standard would prevent substantial numbers of adverse 

8 health outcomes, which is deeply connected to well-being. 

9 Please take the preventative measure to adopt the most 

10 protective standard, so that every generation can breathe 

11 easy and enjoy the world in which we live. Thank you.

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you both for statements today, 

13 appreciate it.

14 And our next two speakers are Bill Durston and 

15 Aura Vasquez. And I know you're going to have to help me 

16 with that last name.

17 MS. VASQUEZ: The Vasquez is not so hard, the 

18 Aura maybe.

19 MR. PAGE: Yeah, right. Mr. Durston, you're up 

20 when you're ready. And would you please spell your last 

21 name for the reporter?

22 BILL DURSTON

23 MR. DURSTON: I'm Dr. Bill Durston and it's 

24 spelled D-U-R-S-T-O-N. I'm an emergency physician and I've 

25 practiced in the Sacramento area for over 30 years. And 
287

1 I'm the President of the Sacramento Chapter of Physicians 

2 for Social Responsibility and a father and grandfather.

3 And over the time that I've lived and practiced 

4 in Sacramento I've seen a deterioration in the air quality 

5 and treated innumerable patients with respiratory 

6 diseases. 

7 For the benefit of the members I thought I would 

8 just mention we have a scholarship essay contest every year 

9 for high school seniors. And a couple of years ago the 

10 quote was a native American saying, "We don't inherit the 

11 earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children," 

12 which I think is relevant to the discussion. And I 

13 apologize to the young members of the audience for the poor 

14 shape in which we're returning the earth that we've 

15 borrowed.

16 I want to thank the members of the Panel though 

17 first for your patience in listening to all of us. And 

18 also for the work that you do, your ability to set 

19 regulations has the ability to save far more lives than my

20 colleagues and I in the emergency department.

21 On the subject of the 60 parts per billion 

22 standard I want to make a couple of points. One issue 

23 regarding ozone, we all know it causes -- ozone-associated 

24 gases cause respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. 

25 There are some studies that show it also increases the risk 
288

1 of cancer. And actually there's been a EPA document 

2 discussing the use of ozone for treating waste water. 

3 One of the ironies of ozone is that although it's 

4 harmful in many ways at ground level, in the stratosphere 

5 it absorbs UV radiation, which is harmful to human life and 

6 it's also a great disinfectant. But part of the way that 

7 it kills bacteria is by disrupting the DNA and things that 

8 disrupt DNA cause mutations and mutations, if you get just 

9 the wrong mutation, can cause cancer.

10 So how this relates to the 60 parts per billion 

11 standard -- we know that for example for radiation, which 

12 we use in medicine and diagnostically and sometimes 

13 therapeutically, but it also of course causes terrible 

14 human death and destruction -- the risk of cancer is linear 

15 with no lowered threshold. If you get one hit from a 

16 molecule that causes mutation most of the time it may not 

17 cause any damage or it may cause cell death, but it may 

18 cause the cell to reproduce uncontrollably leading to 

19 cancer. 

20 So there are extensive studies in radiation 

21 showing that radiation exposure increases risk of cancer in 

22 a manner that's linear with no lowered threshold. 

23 And without evidence to the contrary I think we could 

24 assume the same would be true of ozone and anything else 

25 that disrupts DNA.
289

1 With regard to the EPA's statement or scientific 

2 controversy regarding this 60 parts per billion level, how 

3 much additional good it would do to reduce it below 70, 65 

4 down to 60, we feel that much of the research suggests that 

5 that would not be beneficial is tainted by ties to industry 

6 who profit from having looser standards.

7 And finally, I'd just like to point out other 

8 things that EPA has done such as lead level standards. I 

9 think the first time the EPA set standards for lead levels 

10 in drinking water was in 1991 and I believe it was for 

11 something like 50 parts per billion. And at that time 

12 there was medical evidence that high levels, particularly 

13 in children, led to cognitive deficit. Well, the more 

14 research that was done showed that the higher the level, 

15 the worse the deficit. But there was no safe lead level 

16 and I believe currently EPA levels for lead are at zero in 

17 drinking water.

18 Now, of course, we can't lower ozone to zero, 

19 because there is some naturally occurring ozone. But I 

20 think applying the same principle, history shows that if 

21 you take the strongest stand possible in terms of the EPA I 

22 don't think the EPA I don't think the EPA is ever going to 

23 make the mistake of setting the standards too stringent. 

24 So we would argue that a lack of absolute conclusive 

25 evidence of 60 parts per billion is the best standard is 
290

1 not the same as any evidence that it's not the best. And 

2 we encourage you to err on the side of safer standards.

3 Thank you, very much.

4 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

5 AURA VASQUEZ

6 MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you. So good afternoon. My 

7 name is Aura Vasquez and that's A-U-R-A and the last name 

8 is V-A-S-Q-U-E-Z. 

9 I'm here today to urge the EPA to adopt a tougher 

10 standard of 60 parts per million (sic) that can protect our 

11 health and help the clean energy economy flourish. 

12 I'm not here to speak on my behalf, but also to 

13 speak on behalf of all of the Sierra Club members and also 

14 the concerned citizens that are affected in Los Angeles 

15 today and in Southern California. As you see many of us 

16 came by bus, by plane, to be here to voice our concerns. 

17 And it was not long ago, when I personally moved 

18 from New York City looking for a much more sustainable and 

19 environmentally friendly place to live. And I found Los 

20 Angeles, my new home. But I was confronted the reality 

21 that the air quality there is so poor that it was actually 

22 making me more sick. So when I had back in New Year's Eve 

23 is a small asthma related to allergies, and now it's a 

24 recurrent asthma that I have every time I go hiking.

25 But today I want to also mention that you have 
291

1 had many organizations come to speak before you and urge 

2 you to do the same, to please put more standards on the new 

3 smog rule. And I personally get to work here with people 

4 like the Physicians for Social Responsibility, 

5 Earthjustice, NRBC, (phonetic) Communities for a Better 

6 Environment, No Coal, Inc. (phonetic) which is a community7 based organization in Los Angeles, and many others that 

8 came to testify and that perhaps are not here, because they 

9 couldn't come here to be before you and urge you to do the 

10 same. 

11 And one of the reasons why all of these groups, 

12 and the many more that have come here today, we have come 

13 together to figure out how we're going to tackle this issue 

14 and how are we going to collaborate with you and put an end 

15 to air pollution in California. We need to bring attention 

16 to these issues from all levels. We have different boards 

17 that can help us too that are here. The California Air

18 Resources Board, we also have the AQM, the Air Quality 

19 Management District Board in Los Angeles, but that is not 

20 enough and this issue cannot wait. 

21 And we're looking for your leadership to set the 

22 standards, the high bar, the 60 parts per million, so that 

23 all of these agencies can follow up and can do their work.

24 And this work also will benefit all of us, not 

25 just our health, it will bring enormous economic revenue --
292

1 and somebody who works with me at the Sierra Club mentioned 

2 $2 billion in revenue. And so the reality is that it will 

3 help people like me and like the many other parties that I 

4 work with that can enjoy the outdoors, that can get back to 

5 work, that don't have to spend many days or nights in the 

6 emergency room, because they're sick with asthma or any 

7 other respiratory disease. So I really hope that you have 

8 this in the calculation.

9 So many of the districts that have come out here 

10 to support for a strong health standard and to protect our 

11 health, we know that there are many more that couldn't come 

12 here like in San Joaquin Valley, they couldn't be here. 

13 And again, we're looking at you, the EPA, to act with the 

14 urgency that this problem really requires. And EPA, we 

15 need definitely your leadership to set up the bar, so that 

16 we can all do our part. Thank you.

17 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

18 All right, so Marina Barragan and Selene 

19 Hernandez. Just as reminder, if you would spell your name 

20 for the court reporter and please correct my 

21 mispronunciation if I didn't pronounce your name correctly. 

22 All right?

23 MARINA BARRAGAN

24 MS. BARRAGAN: So my name is Marina Barragan, M25 A-R-I-N-A B-A-R-R-A-G-A-N. So my name is Marina Barragan, 
293

1 born and raised in the Eastern Coachella Valley. 

2 Growing up I remember we would always go play 

3 outside and my sister, for some reason, always had to stay 

4 inside. And I never really understood why she couldn't 

5 play with us. I remember every time she did go outside she 

6 would start breathing very heavy and I never understood 

7 why. And at night she had to put on this funny mask and 

8 that sounded really weird and made funny sounds and I never 

9 understood why. And I just thought this was normal. This 

10 became a daily routine and I just thought it was normal.

11 Then I realized, as I got older it wasn't normal. 

12 I realized the reason why she couldn't go outside is 

13 because every time she would start breathing heavy she was 

14 near an asthma attack. Every time she had to put on that 

15 funny mask it was to help her control her breathing and to 

16 help her breathe. It was a breathing treatment she had to 

17 take regularly. 

18 And I realized that this was not normal after the 

19 hospital visits started increasing. I figured hey, every 

20 month that's normal. And then all of a sudden, in one week 

21 she was in the ER three times. Not only is this affecting 

22 her health dramatically, that's my sister's life and I 

23 realized that. It's my sister's life. I remember we 

24 wouldn't even drive to the hospital in Indio; we would 

25 drive to the one in Rancho Mirage, which was about an hour-
294

1 and-a-half away, because she would get better treatment 

2 there. It's not like we could afford it, but she's my 

3 sister and it's her life.

4 At least once a month, and this past summer, she 

5 went three times in one week. For most people the American 

6 dream is white picket fences and a nice house and luxury. 

7 For me it is clean air and a healthy environment. I don't 

8 want a 60 ppb standard, I need it. I need it for my 

9 sister, for my uncle who already died with respiratory 

10 illnesses, for all those who lost someone and for my nephew 

11 who is three and two-to-six times more likely to have 

12 asthma just because of where he was born. 

13 I don't want excuses. Leaders don’t make excuses 

14 -— they make improvements. I want a 60 ppb standard 

15 instated and enforced. Thank you.

16 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

17 SELENE HERNANDEZ

18 MS. HERNANDEZ: My name is Selene Hernandez. 

19 It's S-E-L-E-N-E H-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z. I'm from the Eastern 

20 Coachella Valley from a city called Thermal. I attend 

21 Desert Mirage High School.

22 I made this trip with my peers to ask that the 

23 EPA listen to the science advisers and medical 

24 professionals to make 60 pbb the standard.

25 My grandmother, who never smoked a day in her 
295

1 life, died from lung cancer. During her last days we could 

2 hardly have her at home, because the air quality 

3 deteriorated her condition. I began losing her before she 

4 passed away. That is why I'm here today. I'm asking for a 

5 60 ppb standard, because I don't want the families of up to 

6 430 people in my community, to go through that.

7 No justification is enough for someone to lose a 

8 family member. That's all. Thank you.

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much.

10 MS. ZIMPFER: We're sorry about your grandmother.

11 MR. PAGE: Okay. Our next group of speakers: 

12 Gilbert Gonzalez, Cristian Garza, Erik Sauceta and Jose 

13 Aoba.

14 ERIK SAUCETA

15 GILBERT GONZALEZ

16 CRISTIAN GARZA

17 JOSE AOBA

18 MR. SAUCETA: (Inaudible) 

19 MR. PAGE: Okay. So should we identify all four?

20 COORDINATOR: Yeah. Remember, each one of you 

21 say your name in the microphone and spell your name. And 

22 then if you want to be in the reading then that one in the 

23 group goes up, okay?

24 MR. PAGE: So if you'll tell the court reporter 

25 your name and then the proper spelling?
296

1 MR. SAUCETA: My name is Erik Sauceta, with an 

2 E-R-I-K S-A-U-C-E-T-A.

3 Mr. GARZA: My name is Christian Garza, 

4 C-R-I-S-T-I-A-N, and Garza, G-A-R-Z-A.

5 MR. AOBA: My name is Jose Aoba. It's J-O-S-E A6 O--A.

7 Mr. GONZALEZ: And my name is Gilbert Gonzalez, 

8 G-I-L-B-E-RT G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z.

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you all.

10 MR. SAUCETA: Well, we are running out of time. 

11 We can and we must make a change for the better, because 

12 like I was born with a birth defect that's asthma. I know 

13 what it is to have to struggle with that. Like my 

14 colleague, she said that her sister would wear a funny 

15 mask. I would wear the same thing as a kid. 

16 And in the winter when people think it was 

17 joyful, I would fear winter because I would become very 

18 sick and be afraid of using my machine. And sometimes I 

19 would have to go to the emergency room, because I couldn't 

20 breathe and my lungs weren't producing the oxygen. I would 

21 actually be scared if I would live or die.

22 Now it is not so bad, but I personally don't want 

23 anyone to go through that anymore, because it's a horrible 

24 feeling. I would pass out, because of the lack of oxygen 

25 the mask would give me. My brother would have to carry me 
297

1 to bed most of the time and I just hated that feeling, 

2 feeling helpless, feeling like you couldn't do anything. 

3 And you feel the difference. 

4 And I have nieces and nephews and I wish that --

5 they are in Laguna Hills, but I wish they don't have 

6 asthma, because it's horrible to have it. It makes me sad. 

7 Over 25,000 people die a year and if the ppb doesn't get 

8 lowered more people will die. It could write 50,000 or 

9 100,000 if possible, it's a tragedy.

10 It's your job as leaders to make a path for our 

11 future generations of a path that they can lead and they 

12 can follow a path not driven by smog, but by health. It's 

13 your duty to help people that are in need. People with 

14 asthma, people with bronchitis -- the EPA can help out. 

15 Thank you.

16 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all.

17 Our next speakers are Maria Huerta, Marlene 

18 Torres, Rebecca Ayale. Welcome and thank you for coming.

19 MARLENE TORRES

20 REBECCA AYALE

21 MARIA HUERTA

22 MS. TORRES: Hello. My name is Marlene Torres, 

23 M-A-R-L-E-N-E T-O-R-R-E-S.

24 MS. AYALE: Hello. My name is Rebecca Ayale, R25 E-B-E-C-C-A A-Y-A-L-E
298

1 MS. HUERTA: Hello. My name is Maria Huerta, M2 A-R-I-A H-U-E-R-T-A.

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

4 MS. TORRES: Good afternoon. As I said my name 

5 is Marlene Torres. We have traveled a long way to come to 

6 the Environmental Protection Agency and stress the 

7 importance of having clean air.

8 I grew up seeing my parents working in the fields 

9 that were contaminated with pesticides, pesticides that to 

10 this day continue to cause them health problems. I want to 

11 change that, not for my parents, but for future 

12 generations. I want to be able to breathe fresh air that 

13 has not been polluted. Everyone deserves to be able to 

14 breathe clean air, so let's make a change for the better 

15 and clean up our air now. Thank you.

16 MS. AYALE: As someone who has been raised in 

17 Northern California, I have been able to witness the pain 

18 that our family and friends have had to endure due to the 

19 many pesticides that are spread throughout the fields and 

20 orchards that our parents and family must have had to work 

21 through as far as even ten years.

22 I also speak from personal experience when I say 

23 that our loved ones must work through these harsh 

24 conditions. And I myself live in front of the fields where 

25 it is a daily routine to inhale all the pesticides and 
299

1 personally witness others work through the horrid 

2 conditions. For this reason is it important that we create 

3 barriers that keeps these diseases and conditions that are 

4 brought about due to the air quality that we must live 

5 with. Thank you.

6 MS. HUERTA: Okay. My name is Maria Huerta. My 

7 group and I have come from an over nine-hour ride from a 

8 place called Thermal, which is an agricultural 

9 unincorporated community in the Eastern Coachella Valley. 

10 In that area we have a history and currently live under 

11 some of the poorest living conditions alongside 

12 contaminated water and air. So to have quality air is a 

13 luxury we don't count on already.

14 As an agricultural community, my family and I 

15 have worked in the fields where they are contaminated with 

16 pesticides creating huge health issues for anyone who lives 

17 there. I speak for my community that everyone has the 

18 right to clean air. And we are here to prove that we are 

19 not just the subject of profit for mass production. If we 

20 don't think of protecting our natural resources now then 

21 what kind of world will we leave our future generations? 

22 If we want to see change, then we have to be the 

23 change. We need to acknowledge the fact that we need clean 

24 air and can only reach it by having a standard of 60 ppb, 

25 because we currently don't meet that adequate standard. We 
300

1 need all the support we can get for this important 

2 environmental movement to take action now, because everyone 

3 has the right to clean air. Thank you.

4 MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much for coming.

5 The next two speakers, Anzel Vega and Cynthia 

6 Portillo.

7 Hold on just a second while we switch a panel 

8 member. 

9 (Deborah Jordan arrives to replace Amy Zimpfer)

10 MS. JORDAN: Hi, everyone. My name is Debbie 

11 Jordan and I'm Director of the Air Division at the EPA 

12 Regional Office in San Francisco. And I was here all 

13 morning and then I had to go away for the afternoon, so I'm 

14 happy that I'm back.

15 MR. PAGE: And we thank you very much.

16 MS. JORDAN: And I thank you all for being here.

17 MR. PAGE: All right, Anzel?

18 ANZEL VEGA

19 MR. VEGA: Good afternoon. My name is Anzel 

20 Vega, A-N-Z-E-L V-E-G-A.

21 On a very large scale the gas and oil companies 

22 (indiscernible) and gases for their complicated politics 

23 and lucrative poisons, slowly and softly killing us. 

24 I have already been diagnosed with asthma and 

25 lost my grandfather to lung cancer. He prayed every day 
301

1 and told me that only the devil could make alcohol and 

2 cigarettes. 

3 We hold these truths to be sovereign, that all 

4 men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator 

5 with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, 

6 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are words 

7 that are designed to protect every person's rights, not 

8 matter who are seen as numbers and dollar signs.

9 I am here representing my sister. She is ten10 months old and my world revolves around her. And I think 

11 it's sad that she might live in a world, which doesn't have 

12 clean air. But you wouldn't want clean air for your nieces 

13 and nephews, your brothers and sisters? Wouldn't you want 

14 clean air for your kids and grandkids? I would.

15 If you look behind me, you'll see about 180 

16 people who (inaudible) And for each of their immediate and 

17 extended family, they've all gathered for the many people 

18 who have their lives on the line. This is only a small 

19 amount (inaudible) come before you. So that begs the 

20 question, will you help us get a limit of 60 ppb and save 

21 our lives? Thank you.

22 CYNTHIA PORTILLO

23 MS. PORTILLO: My name is Cynthia Portillo, C-Y24 N-T-H-I-A P-O-R-T-I-L-L-O.

25 I am here because I want clean air. Clean air is 
302

1 not something I should be asking, that is something that 

2 everyone should be born with. I have a younger brother, 

3 he's 12 and we were recently told by doctors that he has 

4 asthma. Him already dealing with respiratory problems and 

5 the fact that we live in area where the ppb is way above 

6 the EPA standard is going to be the nail in his coffin.

7 He isn't the only person affected in my family. 

8 My grandma and my five-year-old cousin have issues 

9 breathing. 

10 My grandma has lived through these problems for 

11 her entire life (indiscernible). It hurts me to see my 

12 grandmother struggling to breathe. It hurts to watch her

13 trying to grab some breath. It hurts me to know that she 

14 asks me to say in school while she's in the hospital hooked 

15 up to machines trying to fight for her life over and over 

16 and over again. 

17 And now I have to deal with my brother as well 

18 and my five-year-old cousin who was taken to the doctor 

19 awhile back and they found out he is developing respiratory 

20 issues as well. And it hurts me, because I do not want him 

21 to live like my grandma and my brother. I want him to live 

22 a happy life where he can run around without having to 

23 worry. I want him to run around with a friend and I want 

24 to be happy to chase after him and play with him. 

25 And five months ago (indiscernible) a beautiful 
303

1 little girl that my aunt named Alyssa. (phonetic) My 

2 entire family -- I love my family too entirely. I do not 

3 want her to grow up like that. And I do not want her to 

4 grow up like that. I do not want my children or anyone's 

5 children to grow up like that.

6 I am asking here for a better community standard, 

7 a 60 ppb standard that needs to be enforced by government 

8 and everyone else. Clean air is a human right and I ask 

9 you to help us keep that right or else we're all going to 

10 be gone a lot sooner, because of that. Thank you, very 

11 much.

12 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

13 The next group: Celina Abolos, Heidy Lin, 

14 Filiberto Lopez, Jaime Lopez.

15 CELINA ABOLOS

16 HEIDY LIN

17 FILIBERTO LOPEZ

18 JAIME LOPEZ

19 MS. ABALOS: Hello. My name is Celina Abolos, 

20 C-E-L-I-N-A A-B-O-L-O-S.

21 MS. LIN: I am Heidy Lin, H-E-I-D-Y L-I-N.

22 MR. F. LOPEZ: Hello. My name is Filiberto 

23 Lopez, F-I-L-I-B-E-R-T-O Lopez, L-O-P-E-Z

24 MR. J. LOPEZ: Hello. My name is Jaime Lopez, J25 A-I-M-E L-O-P-E-Z.
304

1 MS. ABALOS: We are members of the human race. I 

2 mean, because we all live in the same world we want the air 

3 quality to go from 110 parts per billion to 60 parts per 

4 billion. 

5 I am speaking from a perspective of the Eastern 

6 Coachella Valley, and other communities who because of 

7 their isolated locations, don't get the same air quality as 

8 the known locations. The odds aren't in our favor. Our 

9 fellow brothers, cousins, neighbors, teachers, friends, 

10 many of them suffer from asthma and breathe air quality 

11 that creates an environment that's even worse for them.

12 This isn't only a cause to benefit the Coachella 

13 Valley, this is a cause that benefits the world. We want 

14 better air for a better world. This is our time and this 

15 time is now. Thank you.

16 MR. PAGE: Very good. Thank you all.

17 Our next group: Armando Rivera, Victor Valdez, 

18 Anthony Ramirez and Jose Diaz.

19 ARMANDO RIVERA

20 VICTOR VALDEZ

21 ANTHONY RAMIREZ

22 JOSE DIAZ

23 Mr. RIVERA: Hello. My name is Armando Rivera, 

24 A-R-M-A-N-D-O R-I-V-E-R-A.

25 MR. VALDEZ: Hello. My name is Victor Valdez, V-
305

1 I-C-T-O-R V-A-L-D-E-Z.

2 MR. DIAZ: Hello. My name is Jose Diaz, J-O-S-E 

3 D-I-A-Z.

4 MR. RAMIREZ: Hello. My name is Anthony Ramirez, 

5 A-N-T-H-O-N-Y R-A-M-I-R-E-Z. And we come from San Joaquin, 

6 California.

7 MR. DIAZ: We come from all the way over there, 

8 because we care about our air pollution.

9 MR. VALDEZ: We want clean air for our 

10 environment.

11 MR. RAMIREZ: Also, we want to have more than 60 

12 -- no, 60 ppb smog standard.

13 MR. VALDEZ: Thank you very much for your time.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all.

15 All right, the next group: Diana Monroy and 

16 Jonathan Salgado Torres.

17 JONATHAN SALGADO TORRES

18 DIANA MONROY

19 MR. TORRES: Hello. My name is Jonathan Salgado 

20 Torres, J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N S-A-L-G-A-D-O T-O-R-R-E-S. 

21 Today I'm here for the Great Sierra Alliance 

22 Club. I'm here to state that 82 percent of all greenhouse 

23 gas emissions are formed from human activities alone.

24 MS. MONROY: Hello. My name is Diana Monroy, 

25 D-I-A-N-A M-O-N-R-O-Y.
306

1 As Jonathan stated I am also from the Great 

2 Sierra Alliance Club and I am here to state that I want 60 

3 ppb in the area we are living in. Currently, the standard 

4 is 75 ppb, but it is not convenient. Most of the time it 

5 is almost doubled. Due to this each year there are more 

6 and more kids diagnosed with bronchitis and asthma. It 

7 comes down to 25,000 Californians dying every year, because 

8 of the dirty air we are breathing.

9 MR. TORRES: I have a four-year-old cousin that 

10 has bronchitis and that leads to asthma. Before she moved 

11 to the U.S. she was healthy. After she came to the U.S. 

12 and moved to California, she started to get bronchitis 

13 again and more frequently, usually. I found out later to 

14 have bronchitis can lead suddenly to asthma, because of the 

15 CO2 emissions. 

16 I started to do research about CO2 emissions and 

17 I found out that -- which ones are affecting the earth at a 

18 rapid pace and they shouldn't be. They are changing the 

19 carbon side at a more rapid pace than it should also be. 

20 In the United States the CO2 emissions have increased by 5 

21 percent through 1990 through 7 (indiscernible) 

22 In 2004 we had more dirty air days than in 2013. 

23 I am stating a 60 ppb smog standard can better our health 

24 and air quality.

25 MS. MONROY: Just as Jonathan, I too am worried 
307

1 about my friends and family living in California with these 

2 conditions. I want them to be able to live long, healthy 

3 lives. I want this to be enforced. I want clean air for 

4 all of us. 

5 One of the major carbon dioxide emissions, the 

6 electricity -- the conversion of fossil fuels to generate 

7 electricity -- is the largest single source of CO2 emission 

8 in the nation accounting for 38 percent of the total of

9 U.S. CO2 emissions and 31 of the total U.S. greenhouse gas 

10 emissions in 2012. Which leads us to U.S. carbon dioxide 

11 emissions (indiscernible) at 36 percent, transportation at 

12 32 percent, industry at 14, residential and commercial at 9 

13 and other at 6 percent.

14 And this is because I want it all just to be the 

15 60 ppb smog standard to be accepted and passed. Thank you.

16 MS. STONE: Thank you.

17 MR. PAGE: Thank you both.

18 And the next group: Luz Gutierrez, Jennifer 

19 Jimenez.

20 LUZ GUTIERREZ

21 MS. GUTIERREZ: My name is Luz Gutierrez, L-U-Z 

22 G-U-T-I-E-R-R-E-Z. 

23 As I mentioned my name is Luz Gutierrez, I'm from 

24 the high school in Coachella Valley. I believe we have the 

25 right to clean air, no matter our economic background. 
308

1 Clean air is a right, not a choice. We must get a 60 ppb 

2 standard in California that will yield annual health 

3 benefits of 2.2 to 4.1 billion and save up to 430 lives 

4 that matter more than money.

5 JENNIFER JIMENEZ

6 MS. JIMINEZ: Hello. My name is Jennifer 

7 Jimenez, J-E-N-N-I-F-E-R J-I-M-E-N-E-Z.

8 I want clean air and I want it now, because 

9 asthma is a scary thing to have, not only for me, but for 

10 my family. I've seen through my peers that their testimony 

11 is scary. I don't want this to happen to any family. I 

12 want clean air now. Thank you.

13 MS. JORDAN: Thank you.

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

15 So the next group is Karen Diaz, Lizbeth Cea,

16 Guadalupe Gonzalez and Victoria Valdez.

17 KAREN DIAZ

18 LIZBETH CEA

19 GUADALUPE GONZALES

20 VICTORIA VALDEZ

21 MS. CEA: My name is Lizbeth Cea and it's 

22 spelled, L-I-Z-B-E-T-H C-E-A.

23 MS. VALDEZ: And my name is Victoria Valdez, V-I24 C-T-O-R-I-A V-A-L-D-E-Z.

25 MS. GONZALEZ: And my name is Guadalupe Gonzalez, 
309

1 G-U-A-D-A-L-U-P-E and Gonzalez is spelled G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z.

2 MS. DIAZ: And I'm Karen Diaz, K-A-R-E-N and then 

3 the way you spell my last name is D-I-A-Z.

4 We must stop justifying why we have dirty air and

5 start a conversation on how to make it safe. The EPA rule 

6 is strong enough, it's a great starting point.

7 MS. GONZALEZ: We come from Desert Mirage High 

8 School and we have the same goal as everybody else here. 

9 We want a better breathing air quality. I think we deserve 

10 it and we have a right to it, not only for us here, but for 

11 others too, for our generation and the coming generations. 

12 It's a right we have and we (indiscernible).

13 MS. VALDEZ: According to the EPA a 65 ppb 

14 standard in California will get us health benefits of 2.2 

15 to 4.1 billion and they will save 430 lives.

16 MS. CEA: I believe that we need -- I think we --

17 (overcome with emotion)

18 MS. DIAZ: We're done.

19 MR. PAGE: Okay. Thank you very much. 

20 Okay, our next group: Moises Castro, Jesus 

21 Alvarez, Jose Castro, Yazmin Lopez

22 YAZMIN LOPEZ

23 JESUS ALVAREZ

24 JOSE CASTRO

25 MOISES CASTRO
310

1 MS. LOPEZ: Hello. My name is Yazmin Lopez, Y-A2 Z-M-I-N L-O-P-E-Z.

3 MR. ALVAREZ: My name is Jesus Alvarez, J-E-S-U-S 

4 A-L-V-A-R-E-Z.

5 MR. M. CASTRO: Hello. My name is Moises Castro, 

6 M-O-I-S-E-S C-A-S-T-R-O.

7 MR. J. CASTRO: Hello. My name is Jose Castro, 

8 J-O-S-E C-A-S-T-R-O.

9 MR. ALVAREZ: I come on behalf of my community in 

10 Thermal, California. I want to speak on the air quality 

11 and how it's very poor. Our community has been affected by 

12 pesticides and farm workers, parents and even our ecosystem 

13 has been affected by these pesticides. And I come in 

14 support of a 60 ppb standard. I want clean air for my 

15 community and for future generations and to save our 

16 ecosystem and to help my community. Very good.

17 MR. M. CASTRO: Clean air is what we all want and 

18 that's why we're gathered here. To ask the EPA to make a 

19 change, and help us make the change to a 60 ppb standard, 

20 because we all want to have a healthier life where we don't 

21 have to worry about all the pollution. We all share this 

22 earth, so why not take care of it and reduce pollution so 

23 we all can breathe clean air and have healthier lives 

24 without respiratory diseases that (indiscernible) months.

25 MR. J. CASTRO: Hello. I wasn't really going to 
311

1 say anything, but all these people's words, they inspired 

2 me. They got to me. I just want to start out saying that 

3 I'm really into fitness. And sometimes I just talk to 

4 people who want to get in shape, want to get in the best 

5 shape of their lives. And sometimes they can't, because 

6 they have trouble running and they can't get outside or 

7 stuff like that. Just like my friend Marina mentioned 

8 about her sister, but it's not just about them. This is my 

9 town also. 

10 When you run by our town there's many people that 

11 have to work outside that require their body to work, not 

12 just their mind, but sometimes those people have trouble 

13 breathing and working hard, so they can provide for their 

14 family. And sometimes they sacrifice their own body to 

15 provide for their family and all I want to ask is like why 

16 do we have to sacrifice a life to save some other life. 

17 Why can't we all just breathe in a little bit of happiness.

18 MS. JORDAN: Thank you.

19 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much

20 Our next group is Marian Piedo, Isaez Garcia, 

21 Jessica Ayon and Jazmeen Corona.

22 MARIAN PIEDO

23 ISAEZ GARCIA

24 JESSICA AYON

25 JAZMEEN CORONA
312

1 MS. PIEDO: Good afternoon. My name is Marian 

2 Piedo, M-A-R-I-A-N P-I-E-D-O.

3 MR. GARCIA: My name is Isaez Garcia, I-S-A-E-Z 

4 G-A-R-C-I-A.

5 MS. AYON: Hello. My name is Jessica Ayon, J-E6 S-S-I-C-A A-Y-O-N.

7 MS. CORONA: Hello. My name is Jazmeen, J-A-Z-M8 E-E-N, Corona, C-O-R-O-N-A.

9 MS. PIEDO: Air pollution has to stop. It is 

10 harming humans and our environment. People are causing it 

11 and making it worse for themselves. The air we breathe is 

12 a mixture of many gases of which oxygen is the most 

13 important. If we were not able to breathe this precious 

14 air for even a few minutes we would die. This air is vital 

15 to us. Air is vital to the plants and animals that live on 

16 earth. We are all surrounded by air. Our bodies live and 

17 move in it. That is why it's important that the air is 

18 clean and pure. 

19 MR. PAGE: Very good. Very good, thank you very 

20 much.

21 Next group: Luis Gonzalez, Jenny Carbera and 

22 Ricardo Ramirez.

23 LUIS GONZALEZ

24 RICARDO RAMIREZ

25 JENNY CARBERA
313

1 MS. CARBERA: Hello. My name is Jenny Carbera, 

2 J-E-N-N-Y C-A-R-B-E-R-A.

3 MR. RAMIREZ: Hi. My name is Ricardo Ramirez, 

4 R-I-C-A-R-D-O R-A-M-I-R-E-Z.

5 MR. GONZALEZ: Hello. My name is Luis, L-U-I-S, 

6 Gonzalez, G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z.

7 MR. GONZALEZ: Good afternoon. I came all the 

8 way from down in California to represent Desert Mirage High 

9 School. I decided to come here to give my personal opinion 

10 about the air quality and the problems it is causing our 

11 community.

12 Our air pollution is not as clean and safe to 

13 breathe as it should be. The EPA will bring benefits only 

14 if you enforce it. Following through our community can 

15 save up to $2.2 to $4.1 billion and can end up saving 430 

16 lives. Thank you.

17 MR. RAMIREZ: Well, good afternoon. As I 

18 mentioned before my name is Ricardo Ramirez and I come from 

19 the East Coachella Valley to talk about how pollution is 

20 affecting our community. 

21 According to the EPA we can save up to 430 lives 

22 by reducing the pollution in the air. Toxic chemicals are 

23 being released into the air every day and as we all know it 

24 is affecting not only us, but the whole community. Asthma 

25 is a major aspect in our community that is affecting people 
314

1 from all ages. We can change this by passing the 60 ppb 

2 standard in the United States. Therefore I do think we 

3 should enforce the standards to promote good quality air 

4 and have a safer environment. It is time to make a change. 

5 It is time to breathe clean air. Thank you. 

6 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

7 Our next group: Elijah Cervantes, Ruben Garza.

8 ELIJAH CERVANTES

9 RUBEN GARZA

10 MR. CERVANTES: My name is Elijah Cervantes, E-L11 I-J-A-H, , C-E-R-V-A-N-T-E-S.

12 MR. GARZA: My name is Ruben Garza, R-U-B-E-N G13 A-R-Z-A. 

14 Before I start I just want to say that I'm 

15 representing for Mecca. I don't know if anybody else is 

16 Mecca, but it's a small town and I want to represent them.

17 Dirt roads, salty seas, nights always cold around 

18 my community. Have you ever heard of the place huddling up 

19 together, forgetting about race? Trying to figure out what 

20 happened, trying to retrace. 

21 The last thing they needed was air pollution, all 

22 these chemicals together using fusion. Hiding in plain 

23 sight and it's no illusion. Why can't this end, where's 

24 the solution? After all these years we haven't gotten to a 

25 conclusion. 
315

1 My little sister and my mother, they all suffer. 

2 Asthma attacks coursing through the veins of my mother. I 

3 don't want her to die. I don't need another.

4 Why is it so hard to have faith in the process, 

5 when you know you're a success? Yet people are dying, look 

6 at this mess. We have to help and don't rest. 

7 People aren't just numbers that you can't 

8 increase, just (indiscernible) but you won't have peace. 

9 We want the ppb to decrease. 

10 Is that just too much to ask? Do I need to see 

11 people wearing gas masks? 

12 Part of me, deep down inside, is telling me that 

13 I have to cry, because I came, but I don't want to leave 

14 knowing that we didn't make a change (indiscernible) having 

15 to do the walk of shame. 

16 I don't want that to occur, that's where I aim, 

17 it's not even knowing the ones to blame, you tell me 

18 because somehow I know that name. 

19 Why does someone have a job to protect lives when 

20 people die? I don't want an excuse and I don't want a lie. 

21 I don't want to hear from him that he'll try.

22 I want to see and I want to be air pollution 

23 free. I want to care for everyone here, these are my 

24 family, even I don't know them completely. 

25 I will stop to help them, because even if 
316

1 (indiscernible) fails my generation won't, because we stand 

2 as one, never alone. 

3 And here's what we will do, we will show that air 

4 pollution won't make us go slow. We know, because we all 

5 have the same goal. 

6 Now that you know us there's one thing you should 

7 know. That everyone behind me, that I will never let them 

8 go. 

9 MR. CERVANTES: As I said before earlier, my name 

10 is Elijah Cervantes.

11 We demand that we have fresh air as a human 

12 right. We don't need to ask, it's a right, no we don't 

13 ask, we demand it and John Benoit enforces it as well. 

14 Because as an older brother -- I'm sure that if 

15 you have siblings you understand where I'm coming from --

16 where you don't want to see your younger siblings suffer. 

17 I have a nine-year-old brother, about yea high, a small 

18 child for nine years old, who has asthma. 

19 One of the things he loves to play is soccer. He 

20 loves playing soccer and, of course, that involves a lot of 

21 running. It saddens me to see that he has to sit out 

22 through halftime, because he can't keep up with the other 

23 kids. He has a lot of potential. And he has the potential 

24 to become a professional soccer player, but is he going to 

25 sit and watch or become a professional soccer player even 
317

1 though he has asthma.

2 A while ago we went to Long Beach. And we saw a 

3 shop full of Lamborghinis and we have an interest in cars. 

4 We go to see it. He tells my mother something and then she 

5 goes in to a car dealer and tells them, "Tell them what you 

6 told me." He said, "Save me a car, because when I become a 

7 professional soccer player this is where I'm coming to get 

8 my first car."

9 He has such high hopes and I don't want to see 

10 them get destroyed. I want him to pursue it with all his 

11 heart, to continue to chase his dreams. 

12 So I come with you with a heart -- I didn't write 

13 any of this down, it comes from the heart. If you make 

14 sure this happens -- for our valley I speak for everyone 

15 when I say it's getting worse and worse down in our valley. 

16 Thank you. 

17 MS. STONE: Thank you.

18 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

19 Our next group is: Jose Pompa, Alomera Galvez, 

20 Kheila Toledo, Marten Valtiera and Luis Valdez.

21 JOSE POMPA

22 ALOMERA GALVEZ

23 KHEILA TOLEDO

24 MARTEN VALTIERA

25 LUIS VALDEZ
318

1 MR. POMPA: Hi. My name is Jose Pompa, J-O-S-E 

2 P-O-M-P-A. 

3 MS. TOLEDO: Hi. My name is Kheila, K-H-E-I-L-A, 

4 Toledo, T-O-L-E-D-O. 

5 MR. ZALTIERA: My name is Martan Valtiera. 

6 Martan is spelled M-A-R-T-A-N, Valtierra, V-A-L-T-I-E-R-R7 A.

8 MS. GALVEZ: My name is Alomera Galvez, A-L-O-M9 E-R-A G-A-L-V-E-Z.

10 MR. VALDEZ: My name is Luis Valdez, L-U-I-S V-A11 L-D-E-Z.

12 MR. POMPA: Hello. My name is Jose Pompa. 

13 Despite having some of the nation's strictest air quality 

14 control laws, California still has cities that fall among 

15 the nation's most polluted. This clearly shows that 

16 California needs to move towards a new direction in order 

17 to achieve positive change that will result in better air 

18 quality for today's people and as well for the future.

19 Living in the Coachella Valley, the progression 

20 of the smog can be seen clearly as it seems that the 

21 mountains around us disappear into a thick gray cloud every 

22 day. The thick gray cloud is filled with toxins that are 

23 affecting the respiratory conditions of everyone. 

24 Everyone deserves to breathe clean air and it is 

25 our duty to ensure that our future generations will be able 
319

1 to enjoy clean air as well. Thank you.

2 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much.

3 Our next two are Judith Ramirez and Jose Mendoza.

4 JUDITH RAMIREZ

5 JOSE MENDOZA

6 MS. RAMIREZ: Good afternoon. I am Judith 

7 Ramirez, J-U-D-I-T-H, Ramirez, R-A-M-I-R-E-Z.

8 MR. MENDOZA: Hello. My name is Jose Mendoza, J9 O-S-E M-E-N-D-O-Z-A.

10 MS. RAMIREZ: Unlike many others I did not write 

11 a paper or anything I could read off of. I could only 

12 share my personal experience.

13 My youngest sibling has asthma and he -- it's 

14 very hard for him to be outside, because sometimes the air 

15 triggers. Since he has asthma he is very vulnerable to 

16 bronchitis. 

17 I remember his first attack. I had to wake up at 

18 night, because I heard him coughing. And then I started 

19 yelling, because he couldn't breathe. He was turning red 

20 and his coughs were just very strong and we had to take him 

21 to the ER multiple times. And it's not something that --

22 it's not a good memory. I want to remember him as a happy 

23 kid who could run around playing tag with his friends, but 

24 instead he has to stay inside. He has to be -- he is very 

25 dependent towards my mom, because he has to be under watch. 
320

1 And it's just not something that any person wants to see or 

2 have. 

3 So it's very important that we don't have our air 

4 polluted, because people suffer. 

5 MR. MENDOZA: When families deal with the same 

6 circumstances (indiscernible) there are those who suffer 

7 from asthma or other respiratory illnesses, clean air is 

8 all we ask for. Thank you.

9 MR. PAGE: The next group is Lourdes Baez, 

10 Jessica Dimas and Yasmin Ortega. Welcome.

11 LOURDES BAEZ

12 YASMIN ORTEGA

13 JESSICA DIMAS

14 MS. BAEZ: My name is Lourdes Baez, L-O-U-R-D-E-S 

15 B-A-E-Z.

16 MS. DIMAS: Hi. My name is Jessica Dimas, J-E-S17 S-I-C-A D-I-M-A-S.

18 MS. ORTEGA: Hello. My name is Yasmin Ortega, Y19 A-S-M-I-N O-R-T-E-G-A.

20 MS. ORTEGA: I come from North Shore. It’s 

21 somewhat of a small town. It's home to many farm workers 

22 and many people who come from cities, especially L.A.

23 I have a neighbor, that he rents his house, and 

24 there was a certain family that would rent there like, each 

25 year, around wintertime, because the weather's more 
321

1 approachable here I guess you could say. And they had this 

2 little girl and I would play with her.

3 I didn't know what an inhaler was at that time, 

4 so I took it as a normal thing. As I got older when I 

5 found out what an inhaler was and what asthma was, the girl 

6 who would come each year stopped coming. So I decided to 

7 go next door and ask for her. And that's when her parents 

8 told me that she's like, hooked up to machines, so she 

9 can't come anymore. And I didn't know how to react to 

10 that.

11 And eventually, when that happened I started 

12 noticing that many people who come to North Shore are 

13 coming from big cities like San Gabriel or San Francisco or 

14 San Bernardino, especially L.A. And they're coming there 

15 to literally run away, becaue the air pollution is 

16 destroying their lives.

17 It's not a joke anymore. We have to take it 

18 seriously. It's destroying families and it's causing pain 

19 to people around us. And that's why I want this to be 

20 passing for us, because we need clean air. Everybody needs 

21 it. Nobody should suffer like that.

22 MS. BAEZ: I haven’t lost any family due to the 

23 air quality, but I know people who have. We have doubled 

24 the ppb standard advisers and medical professionals of the 

25 EPA have recommended as a 60 ppb standard. If we can get 
322

1 it to 65 ppb we can save up to 430 lives annually including 

2 our families.

3 I have a little brother and want him to be able 

4 to play outside and have fun without having to worry about 

5 the air quality affecting his lungs. I want him to have 

6 the childhood that every child deserves. Thank you. 

7 MS. DIMAS: I come from Mecca where most of my 

8 family and people live.

9 The reason why I came today is because if we do 

10 not stop this problem then my mother and younger sister, 

11 who is ten years old, with my community can be affected in 

12 the future. 

13 And I would like to lower the ppb to 60. The 

14 reason why is because medical and science advisers at the 

15 EPA recommend 60 ppb, because it will help save up to 430 

16 lives and protect those who are genetically prone to 

17 getting lung cancer and have asthma, which can affect many 

18 people in my community and my family like my younger sister 

19 who can get asthma in the near future. 

20 MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much.

21 So our next two are Christopher Avilla and Raul 

22 Zendeja.

23 CHRISTOPHER AVILA

24 RAUL ZENDEJAS

25 MR. AVILA: Welcome. My name is Christopher 
323

1 Avila, C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R, and Avila is A-V-I-L-A.

2 MR. ZENDEJAS: Hi. I’m Raul Zendejas, R-A-U-L, 

3 and Zendejas is Z-E-N-D-E-J-A-S.

4 MR. AVILA: I am here today to give a voice to 

5 the people of Coachella Valley that demand clean air, but 

6 couldn't be here today. It's ridiculous that we must 

7 travel nine hours, just to fight for something that should 

8 be a natural human right.

9 Every morning I see hordes of hard-working field

10 workers who are here to be working in fields where extreme 

11 temperatures. As bad as these conditions are, many 

12 families have no choice but to work in the fields.

13 Every year there's talk of multiple people being 

14 hospitalized and one of the first symptoms they feel is 

15 short of breath from polluted air.

16 Now, put yourself in that moment. As you're 

17 working suddenly you feel something not right, the heat of 

18 the day pouring down upon you. You take a minute to catch 

19 your breath and notice the air seems thinner. Now what 

20 could have been a life-saving moment now fills you up with 

21 panic as each inhale slowly suffocates you. You look to 

22 the left and the right, but see no one in screaming 

23 distance. And you must find your way out of the maze-like 

24 field. But for many of the people that have been affected 

25 by polluted air don't make it very far out at all.
324

1 Now, you lay totally helpless and unconscious as 

2 the sun eats you up. Hopefully, your fellow works stumble 

3 upon you, but if you're unlucky the possibility of dying 

4 increases. 

5 An actual situation that happened not so long ago 

6 was when Saul Martinez had an emergency situation where the 

7 students had to be immediately evacuated as a result of 

8 poor air quality.

9 Oil companies often say that they provide 

10 millions of jobs, which improves the economy. But at what 

11 cost for those millions and many more who are affected and 

12 it's highly likely that they could develop respiratory 

13 illnesses.

14 Surprisingly only 2.8 percent of the industry 

15 shares are owned by corporate and management; the rest is 

16 owned by tens of millions of Americans who mostly are 

17 middle class. This could potentially interfere with the 

18 retirement plans of millions of Americans since the market 

19 unstable. Not only is the health of millions of Americans 

20 being affected we're also -- our retirement plans are at 

21 risk as well.

22 I understand big money -- I understand money is a 

23 big issue here, but the old ways of doing the factory work 

24 have many problems attached to them. If a nonrenewable 

25 resource like oil, which is unstable is replaced with a 
325

1 renewable source not only will it generate the same amount 

2 of energy, but with no pollution, which will not only 

3 benefit the environment, but the health of millions of 

4 Americans. 

5 Another benefit will be the human capital it 

6 generates, which is the foundation of a strong economy with 

7 a 60 ppb smog standard, which will ensure a strong, healthy 

8 daily force ready to make a difference. 

9 If this standard is passed, the air is clean, I 

10 believe that will provide inspiration not only to me, but 

11 to my fellow classmates in the community, to push our high 

12 school, Desert Mirage, into a completely green-powered 

13 school, also strengthening an already successful green 

14 academy.

15 To reiterate we are here, because we demand clean 

16 air and want our voice to be heard. And the health of the 

17 citizens of the Coachella Valley should be of more concern 

18 than the profits of the oil field.

19 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

20 MR. ZENDEJAS: Hi, good afternoon. I'm here as a 

21 resident of the Eastern Coachella Valley, but more 

22 importantly I'm here as a representative of the entire 

23 Coachella Valley. But I'm not the only one here, everyone 

24 here is speaking for the Valley and I hope their stories 

25 have moved you like they've moved me. 
326

1 I'm here for the people who weren't able to 

2 attend. I'm here for the families that were victims of 

3 this pollution and I say victims, because that's exactly 

4 what we are. We really are in this situation. 

5 We are the victims of the corporate machine that 

6 would prefer a dollar over a human being's life and that's 

7 been proven in the past few years. There's been a number 

8 of cases in which people have had severe asthma attacks due 

9 a lack of clean air, which have led to death. 

10 A 60 ppb smog setting can prevent that, but it 

11 would also need to be enforced by John Benoit, the 

12 Riverside County Supervisor. And as he continues he is 

13 doing a great job, but right now the air quality is 

14 extremely poor. The ppb is at a 75, but always surpasses 

15 that, but some days it's almost double over the current 

16 standard.

17 This country was built on a great foundation and 

18 ideology, but it does not have the cleanest history. In 

19 fact, it has one of the worst. But how it's progressed is 

20 fascinating, all the way from what seemed to be civil, 

21 humble people turning into these savages who have been 

22 converted into some aristocrats. It's perplexing.

23 This country's motto or creed is "life, liberty 

24 and the pursuit of happiness" and we don't have that right. 

25 And instead we've been stripped of it due to the pigment of 
327

1 our skin and some due to our social class. 

2 Explain to me why we have a dirty fuel gas plant 

3 down the street and why those same owners also have a solar 

4 farm in Lancaster. Why are we deprived of this clean 

5 energy and air? Is it because we're a small valley, 

6 insignificant to a company's eyes? Or is it because 

7 there's more taco shops than Starbucks and coffee shops in 

8 the Valley? Is it? 

9 There's also been cases of companies dumping 

10 toxic waste in the Salton Sea, which has a very potent 

11 aroma consisting of dead fish and occasionally human waste 

12 or fecal matter. Hold on, what else did I want to say? 

13 They dump pesticides and other volatile chemicals in that 

14 body of water. 

15 A fun fact is when the sun hits a body of water, 

16 for example, we're talking about the Salton Sea it 

17 evaporates the water making it into a vapor, making it 

18 airborne, okay? And it makes the water airborne, which is 

19 not a good thing. The smell goes around North Shore down 

20 to Mecca and sometimes to Thermal. So imagine how fun it 

21 would be waking up early in the morning and as soon as you 

22 wake up the smell of pesticides hits you. That's not a 

23 very pleasant aroma, I mean it's not a very pleasant scent.

24 So we took a nine-hour drive. I missed a day of 

25 school, which hurts me, because our school system is the 
328

1 best. Of course, that's a bit of a sarcasm and anyways our 

2 purpose here is not to ask for clean air. It's much more 

3 of a demand. We need that 60 ppb standard. We want others 

4 to live and our future spots growing in an environmentally 

5 stable community.

6 Trust me, I could say a lot more, but I like to 

7 keep it short.

8 (Applause)

9 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Jose Alcantra, Jose 

10 Rodríguez .

11 JOSE RODRIGUEZ

12 JOSE ALCANTARA

13 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Jose, 

14 Rodriguez, J-O-S-E, Rodriguez is R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z.

15 MR. ALCANTARA: Good afternoon. My name is Jose, 

16 J-O-S-E, Alcantara, A-L-C-A-N-T-A-R-A.

17 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Today I am here not only 

18 representing myself and the peers behind me, I'm here to 

19 represent those people who couldn't make it for one reason 

20 or another.

21 As you all know our community has very little 

22 representation if any, especially because of the fact that 

23 many of them are very low-income people with very low 

24 education. And many of them don't even know how our system 

25 of government works in order to pass policies to have a 
329

1 safer environment.

2 We live in a community where pesticides are 

3 around us 24/7. You wake up and all you see are fields, 

4 agriculture, which indeed brings jobs to our parents, but 

5 at a very high cost due to the fact that they are engaged 

6 with all those chemicals every single day of their lives 

7 just to save their family. They can't stay home, because 

8 of that. How would they help their family put food on the 

9 table?

10 I work for a Boys and Girls Club in Mecca, with 

11 the community. And it's the best thing in the world to 

12 help other kids whose parents are always working, because 

13 they need to provide food for them. But what happens when 

14 all the kids are playing and having fun and all of a 

15 sudden, one of the kids gets told he can't play? Out of 

16 the 250 he's one of the two or three that can't play, 

17 because if he continues to run or he continues to do 

18 something inside the gym his asthma will start. 

19 And, you know, telling a kid that he can't do 

20 something that the rest of them can makes him feel 

21 isolated. They cry sometimes and they say, "You know what, 

22 mister? I don't want to have this, why do I have this?" 

23 All I can tell the kid is just try to do something else, 

24 try to motivate them to move somewhere else where he's not 

25 feeling isolated from the rest of the kids, because he's 
330

1 different. 

2 And our country states that we have freedom and 

3 liberty, but if we continue this way our slogan should be 

4 "you have freedom and liberty, the only cost will be either 

5 your health or your life." Thank you.

6 MR. ALCANTARA: My name is Jose. On behalf of my 

7 mother I'm here to fight for her, because she fought for 

8 me.

9 Two years ago my mom was diagnosed with 

10 bronchitis. And the doctors told her that she would need 

11 to have an inhaler with her at all times, because her 

12 bronchitis was kind of heavy for her. 

13 So one day at work she had an asthma attack while 

14 working. With the strict policies of her work you can't 

15 have any medical substance near the products, so she had to 

16 leave the inhaler in her car. And while she had an asthma 

17 attack she was panicking. She ran to the car. And then 

18 knowing the fact that my mom would not reach the car and 

19 would not get an inhaler in time scares me, because like 

20 coming back from the school and like knowing -- coming back 

21 from school and getting the news that your mom's at the 

22 hospital and your mom has died is just like, "Whew, no," 

23 you know?

24 If you guys have ever felt that before it -- I 

25 don't want to feel it myself. Or you can know if like for 
331

1 air quality or bad air quality for us -- if it happens to 

2 me -- you know, if that time comes for me or for her I just 

3 don't want it to happen for air quality reasons.

4 MS. STONE: Right.

5 MR. ALCANTARA: So that's it.

6 MR. PAGE: Thank you. 

7 (Applause)

8 The next group: Omar Gastelum, Marisela Acosta, 

9 Yesenia Hernandez, Jervoa Reyes, Alejandra Hernandez. 

10 OMAR GASTELUM

11 ALEJANDRA HERNANDEZ

12 MARISELA ACOSTA

13 JERVOA REYES

14 YESENIA HERNANDEZ

15 MS. ACOSTA: Hello.

16 MS. STONE: Hi.

17 MR. PAGE: You guys are going to have to help me 

18 out on these names here, sorry.

19 MR. GASTELUM: My name is Omar Gastelum, O-M-A-R 

20 G-A-S-T-E-L-U-M.

21 MS. A. HERNANDEZ: Press that?

22 MR. PAGE: Yes. It lights up green, did it light 

23 up green?

24 MS. A. HERNANDEZ: Yes. My name is Alejandra 

25 Hernandez, A-L-E-J-A-N-D-R-A, Hernandez, H-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
332

1 MS. ACOSTA: My name is Marisela Acosta, M-A-R-I2 S-E-L-A, Acosta, A-C-O-S-T-A.

3 MS. REYES: Hello. My name is Jervoa Reyes, J-E4 R-V-O-A R-E-Y-E-S

5 MS. Y. HERNANDEZ: Yesenia Hernandez, Y-E-S-E-N6 I-A H-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.

7 MR. GASTELUM: All of us are here as members of a 

8 program called Keystone. It's a leadership program with 

9 the Boys and Girls Club, and we're encouraged to seek 

10 improvements in our community and get involved, so we 

11 decided that air quality would be a good topic, and we had 

12 the opportunity to come over here and speak. 

13 I, myself, have asthma, and while that limits how 

14 much physical activity I can do and that affects me well, 

15 since I love to play sports too. You can see all around 

16 the community -- we are from the East Coachella Valley --

17 all around the community you can see all the pollution. 

18 You wake up in the mornings, all you see is smog from the 

19 local factories there. And during the winter it just gets 

20 bad, like sometimes I can't run at all or do any type of 

21 heavy physical activity. 

22 And so that's why I decided to come over here to 

23 speak and voice what I have to go through, and that's why I 

24 ask that you can make change to the pollution and no 

25 pollution allowed.
333

1 MS. A. HERNANDEZ: Hello. Well, and like I said 

2 my name is Alejandra. And just adding to a little bit of 

3 what Omar said we are in a group called Keystone and we are 

4 urged to make changes to our community. And today we had 

5 this gathering up like in the park and they were handing 

6 out inhalers as like a symbol of pollution that is in the 

7 Eastern Coachella Valley. And I took that very to heart, 

8 because a lot of people do suffer from asthma in the 

9 Eastern Coachella Valley. And it is hard during the 

10 winter, like Omar said. And so I found that really 

11 meaningful.

12 And I feel like we just have this very like, 

13 awesome opportunity to come here all the way to Sacramento. 

14 And just like voice our opinion about like the pollution in 

15 the air, because it does affect us. Like even if we're 

16 young, it affects us a lot. Yeah. 

17 MS. ACOSTA: Our parents try to give us a better 

18 life and we want to do all we can, so one day we can be 

19 able to offer our children the same opportunity by giving 

20 them clean air community to live in. 

21 We don't want to worry about our children having 

22 asthma problems, because of the city being polluted.

23 MS. REYES: Good afternoon, like I said again my 

24 name is Jervoa. I am currently a senior at Desert Mirage 

25 High School, and throughout my four years of high school 
334

1 I've came across many definitions for the word "future." 

2 But the one that I believe or that I take in strongly the 

3 most, is "children," because to me children are the future, 

4 and I am one of them. I want to be able to secure my 

5 future and my children's future. And by this I'm saying

6 our air pollution has to be in good condition, because 

7 otherwise where would my kids be able to play or would they 

8 even have a mother by that time? Because the air -- I 

9 mean, it's gotten to an extent that it shouldn't have.

10 MS. Y. HERNANDEZ: Someday we would like to be 

11 great leaders in our community, and the only way we can 

12 accomplish that is to speak the truth and try our hardest 

13 to make a difference (indiscernible). 

14 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. 

15 (Applause)

16 Our next two are Cecilia Dimas and Verania 

17 Barraza.

18 CECILIA DIMAS

19 VERANIA BARRAZA

20 MS. BARRAZA: Good afternoon. My name is Verania 

21 Barraza. V-E-R-A-N-I-A B-A-R-R-A-Z-A. 

22 MS. DIMAS: My name is Cecilia Dimas, C-E-C-I-L23 I-A D-I-M-A-S. 

24 MS. DIMAS: We are students from Desert Mirage 

25 High School and residents of the Eastern Coachella Valley.
335

1 We came today to be some of the group representatives of 

2 those who couldn't come today and fight for their rights. 

3 We live in a place where our ppb can go up to 110 

4 when it's supposed to be 65 ppb. Sorry, I can't say that. 

5 And according to California's ppb standards, air pollution 

6 in California kills about 25,000 people per year. 80 

7 percent of lung diseases are caused by pollution from cars, 

8 buses, trucks and other vehicles. If we reduce our ppb to 

9 65 or 60, we can yield annual health benefits of $2.2 to 

10 $4.1 billion, which can end up saving 430 lives. This is 

11 good news because we live in a community that can't afford 

12 such expensive medical bills with their current low-paying 

13 jobs. 

14 With the current ppb people can get lung cancer 

15 as well or other breathing problems. Thank you.

16 MS. BARRAZA: We have a friend who is asthmatic 

17 and she isn't able to talk good, because she got asthma. 

18 And (indiscernible) hard for her (indiscernible) so it 

19 would be better if the air was clear for her and everyone. 

20 So thank you. 

21 MR. PAGE: Our next speakers are Cynthia Ramirez, 

22 Guadalupe Perez and Perlama Gana.

23 PERLAMA GANA

24 GUADALUPE PEREZ

25 CYNTHIA RAMIREZ
336

1 MS. RAMIREZ: My name is Cynthia Ramirez, C-Y-N2 T-H-I-A R-A-M-I-R-E-Z.

3 MS. PEREZ: Hello, my name is Guadalupe Perez, G4 U-A-D-A-L-U-P-E P-E-R-E-Z. 

5 MS. GANA: My name is Perlama Gana, P-E-R-L-A-M-A 

6 G-A-N-A.

7 MS. GANA: Most of us are here to ask for better 

8 air. And I personally believe that we shouldn't ask and we 

9 should demand, because it's not a privilege, it should be a 

10 right. And we want our generation to grow up in a healthy 

11 environment.

12 MS. PERE: We've come a very long distance from 

13 Thermal, California all the way over here to talk to you 

14 guys about the air, because our air that we breathe is 

15 polluted. It has a lot of pollution and we're breathing 

16 it. And we shouldn't have to suffer about that. 

17 Humans all around the world suffer, because we 

18 are breathing bad air from youth to elderly people. It 

19 doesn't only affect humans, it also affects animals and 

20 plants around us. 

21 We demand that the air pollution decreases,

22 because many people suffer, because of respiratory issues 

23 such as asthma. I have family members that suffer from 

24 asthma and it's very hard for me to see them suffer, and I 

25 don't know what it would mean if I ever lost them because 
337

1 of asthma. 

2 We shouldn't have to be here to ask that we have 

3 better air, cleaner fresh air, because it's more of a human 

4 right. Thank you.

5 MS. GANA: I have a little cousin and in my family 

6 I'm the youngest, so for me he's like a little brother. I 

7 remember getting a phone call late at night, midnight, my 

8 mom answering the phone and telling me that he was very 

9 sick. And he had to get a helicopter to the hospital and I 

10 remember telling my mom that I didn't want him to die.

11 And I remember getting to the hospital and not 

12 even being able to see him. He looked up at me and told me 

13 he didn't want to die, to give him courage. And at that 

14 moment I didn't know what to do. That's why I'm here, I 

15 don't want to see (indiscernible). 

16 Every summer -- summer, spring, it doesn't matter

17 -- I see him go to the hospital at least two times a week. 

18 It's gotten pretty serious. He told me that if he ever 

19 dies, that he -- (Overcome with emotion.)

20 MS. RAMIREZ: We might be freshman and we might 

21 be alone. Well, we're not alone physically. If we pull 

22 ourselves together we can actually make a change.

23 (Applause)

24 MR. PAGE: Thank you, all.

25 And our next group is Ignacio Serrato, Miguel 
338

1 Sanchez, and Juan Garcia. 

2 MIGUEL SANCHEZ

3 IGNACIO SERRATO

4 JUAN GARCIA

5 MR. SANCHEZ: Hello, my name is Miguel Sanchez, 

6 that's M-I-G-U-E-L S-A-N-C-H-E-Z.

7 MR. SERRATO: My name is Ignacio Serrato, I-G-N8 A-C-I-O S-E-R-R-A-T-O.

9 MR. GARCIA: My name is Juan Garcia, J-U-A-N G-A10 R-C-I-A.

11 MR. GARCIA: I am speaking for my group. We are 

12 from Desert Mirage's Green Academy. We deserve clean air. 

13 Every year smog pollution kills 25,000 people in 

14 California. We want pollution to end, because we want to 

15 prevent 25,000 people from dying. 

16 We demand to have the ppb standards in California 

17 be 60 to save 430 lives. And that's it.

18 MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much.

19 (Colloquy regarding translation services needed)

20 Okay. The next group is Serena Monroy and I 

21 guess Diana will come up with her.

22 SERENA MONROY

23 MS. MONROY: (Speaking Spanish)

24 TRANSLATOR: And I came to talk about a condition 

25 in our environment. We have an elementary school, which 
339

1 not long ago we had some meetings, because the environment 

2 was horrible. At the school there were certain days where 

3 classes were suspended, because the children were getting 

4 sick constantly and they were having breathing problems.

5 And school staff, in fact had to take some of them to the 

6 hospital and an ambulance had to come. And they started 

7 investigating, because I don't know why -- these young 

8 people said they said everything you don't want in your 

9 community is there. I mean, we have this Salton Sea that 

10 is so polluted out there, as these young people said. And 

11 during the warm months you have these horrible smells that 

12 you can't stand, you don't even want to leave your house 

13 because it smells so bad. 

14 So we have everything there in Coachella. We 

15 also have certain factories and my husband's parents are 

16 still alive, thank God. And Coachella, it smells horrible 

17 and my father and mother-in-law never want to leave their 

18 house either, because of how badly it smells. 

19 I don't know what they do when they're doing the 

20 packing operations. So we want a better world for the 

21 future for the children for my daughter and for the future 

22 of all the youngsters who are here, so I'm here 

23 representing all of the parents. So I ask for permission 

24 to miss work today and that's all these youngsters that we 

25 came all from a long way away, many, many hours on the 
340

1 road, but I had to come to represent all the parents 

2 because we want a better world for our children. 

3 My husband has been working the field for 40 

4 years since we got to the U.S. He's been working the 

5 fields, and he has a boss who is very careful with 

6 chemicals and that's a good thing, because when I worked in 

7 Mexico I used to grab those chemicals with no protection, 

8 with nothing in my hands. And I know that his boss gives 

9 classes as far as how to protect themselves for the 

10 workers, how to handle the chemicals and what to do, all 

11 the essential aspects that they need. 

12 But I don't know if other companies do the same, 

13 because we have known of many parents who work in the 

14 fields. I mean, that's where we like to work. But many of 

15 those other parents are not treated as well. The parents 

16 of these young people who are here today, so that they 

17 can't suffer all of that.

18 I have a son who loves sports too. And very 

19 often I have to take him to the doctor, you know, and he 

20 likes to do sports, but the air is so bad. And we would 

21 ask or recommend that you please help us, those who are 

22 here reprsenting us, so that we can have a better future 

23 for our children, our young people, and also our elderly. 

24 That's what I came here to say on behalf of everyone who 

25 couldn't be here, because there are many of us.
341

1 And I think that's it, but thank you.

2 (Applause)

3 MR. PAGE: Our next group is Giovanni Villalta, 

4 Bernard Lino, Nestor Nunez, Ignacio Ramirez, Onofre Zanora, 

5 Baldwin Flores, and Mariano Corrales. Big group.

6 NESTOR NUNEZ

7 IGNACIO RAMIREZ

8 MARIANO CORRALES

9 ONOFRE ZAMORA

10 GIOVANNI VILLALTA

11 BALDWIN FLORES

12 BERNARD LINO

13 MR. NUNEZ: My name is Nestor Nunez, N-E-S-T-O-R 

14 N-U-N-E-Z.

15 MR. RAMIREZ: Hello, my name is Ignacio Ramirez, 

16 I-G-N-A-C-I-O R-A-M-I-R-E-Z.

17 MR. CORRALES: My name is Mariano Corrales, M-A18 R-I-A-N-O C-O-R-R-A-L-E-S.

19 MR. ZAMORA: My name is Onofre Zamora, O-N-O-F-R20 E Z-A-M-O-R-A.

21 MR. VILLALTA: My name is Giovanni Villalta, G-I22 O-V-A-N-N-I V-I-L-L-A-L-T-A.

23 MR. FLORES: Good afternoon, my name is Baldwin 

24 Flores, B-A-L-D-W-I-N F-L-O-R-E-S.

25 MR. LINO: My name is Bernard Lino, B-E-R-N-A-R-D 
342

1 L-I-N-O.

2 MR. CORRALES: We are students from Desert Mirage 

3 High School and we live in the Eastern Coachella Valley. 

4 I want pollution to stop, because I want to go 

5 out every day and see the sun and the moon. I want to be 

6 able to explore without worrying about air problems. Lots 

7 of days it's hard to see (indiscernible) in the air. I 

8 don't think it's fair to our generation and the coming 

9 generations. I want 60 ppb or less on smog standards. 

10 Thank you.

11 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 

12 Cecilia Gutierrez, Everlyn Vasquez, and Denise 

13 Ruiz.

14 EVERLYN VASQUEZ

15 CECILIA GUTIERREZ

16 DENISE RUIZ

17 MS. VASQUEZ: My name is Everlyn Vasquez, E-V-E18 R-L-Y-N V-A-S-Q-U-E-Z.

19 MS. GUTIERREZ: My name is Cecilia Gutierrez, C20 E-C-I-L-I-A G-U-T-I-E-R-R-E-Z.

21 MS. RUIZ: My name is Denise Ruiz, D-E-N-I-S-E R22 U-I-Z.

23 MS. GUTIERREZ: Over the last couple 1,000 years, 

24 us humans have helped cause the extinction of over 500 

25 animals.
343

1 MS. VASQUEZ: Through our pollution of water, 

2 land and oxygen. 

3 MS. RUIZ: And if we do not put a stop to it, we 

4 will cause our own extinction.

5 MS. GUTIERREZ: To keep it short, all we're 

6 demanding is to have better air quality. 

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you. Celina Flores and Angelica 

8 Tellez. 

9 ANGELIA TELLEZ

10 CELINA FLORES

11 MS. TELLEZ: My name is Angelica Tellez, A-N-G-E12 L-I-C-A T-E-L-L-E-Z.

13 MS. FLORES: My name is Celina Flores, C-E-L-I-N14 A F-L-O-R-E-S.

15 MS. FLORES: We are students from Desert Mirage 

16 High School and we believe that air pollution is very 

17 damaging for our bodies' health and it needs to be stopped.

18 There are green resoures available and 

19 financially affordable to help this process. These 

20 resources can be the first step for us to re-obtain our 

21 privileges and rights to breathe fresh air. Thank you.

22 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

23 Aloadra Urquiza, Jamilet Felis, Melissa Gonzalez, 

24 Lisbeth Martinez, and Angeles Bautista.

25 //
344

1 ALOADRA URQUIZA

2 JAMILET FELIS

3 ANGELES BAUTISTA

4 LISBETH MARTINEZ

5 MELISSA GONZALEZ

6 MS. FELIS: My name is Jamilet, Felis, J-A-M-I-L7 E-T F-E-L-I-S.

8 MS. URQUIZA: My name is Aloadra Urquiza, A-L-O9 A-D-R-A U-R-Q-U-I-Z-A.

10 MS. STONE: It's okay, take your time. No 

11 worries. I was a young girl once, I understand. 

12 MS. BAUTISTA: My name is Angeles Bautista, A-N13 G-E-L-E-S B-A-U-T-I-S-T-A.

14 MS. MARTINEZ: My name is Lisbeth Martinez, L-I15 S-B-E-T-H M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z.

16 MS. GONZALEZ: My name is Melissa Gonzalez, M-E17 L-I-S-S-A G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z.

18 MS. URQUIZA: We, like everyone behind us, we 

19 come to demand and ask for to reduce our emission where we 

20 live in the Eastern Coachella Valley, and there we don't 

21 have what is called a good environment in the way that our 

22 pollution is a sucky one (indiscernible).

23 All we're asking for, not asking for but 

24 demanding, that you guys give us 60 parts per billion smog 

25 standard. 
345

1 MS. FELIS: And just to rephrase what she said, 

2 we come from Desert Mirage High School. We are eleventh 

3 and twelve graders. We come to represent the Eastern 

4 Coachella Valley. 

5 Our struggle right now is poor air quality. Many 

6 in the community, in fact, I dare say the majority of them 

7 suffer a respiratory disease. My niece, an eight-year-old 

8 child, suffers bronchitis and has to be rushed into the 

9 emergency room at least twice a month. Probably the times 

10 she's rushed into the ER isn't as many times as others in 

11 my community, but the fact that she's this young and she is 

12 already suffering from a respiratory problem is ridiculous.

13 I want my niece and the rest of the children to 

14 breathe in clean air. No one has to die because of poor air 

15 quality. We need a 60 parts per billion smog standard.

16 Thank you.

17 (Applause)

18 MR. PAGE: Before the students go, because I'm 

19 told that that's it, unless there are any other students 

20 that want to say something. Sir?

21 MR. VEGA: The number 430 is constantly dropped 

22 today. Oh, my name is Anzel Vega, A-N-Z-E-L V-E-G-A.

23 ANZEL VEGA

24 MR. VEGA: It is literally inhumane and 

25 dehumanizing to let us live on like this. I want to put 
346

1 the number 430 on a very personal basis. 

2 If you were to put yourself in our position and 

3 think that one of those 430 could be your moms and dads, 

4 your brothers and sisters, your cousins, your wives and 

5 husbands, and I want you to just take that into 

6 consideration. Thank you.

7 MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much. I want to 

8 say that, first of all, apologies for the horrible Spanish

9 accent I have, and thank you for not laughing at me.

10 Did you want to say something else? Okay. 

11 MR. GARZA: Cristian Garza.

12 CRISTIAN GARZA

13 MR. GARZA: Well, it isn't just the disease that 

14 damages the lungs. It's kind of mental, because as a kid I 

15 was constantly bullied, because I couldn't run as fast. I 

16 couldn't keep up with other kids. I was always picked last 

17 for this and that, and I would always get picked on,

18 because I couldn't breathe well or I couldn’t do this and I 

19 always had to have an inhaler or I would have an asthma 

20 attack. And they would make fun of me, because they didn't 

21 understand what I was doing, they thought I was just joking 

22 around. And because of that like I had to (indiscernible). 

23 So I ended up going to stay in the second school 

24 and I met good friends that didn't bully me. But kids get 

25 ridiculed really bad because of it. Thank you.
347

1 MR. PAGE: Thanks.

2 MS. JORDAN: Thank you.

3 MR. PAGE: One more, okay?

4 SERENA MONROY

5 MS. MONROY: (Speaking Spanish)

6 TRANSLATOR: I apologize, first of all, because I 

7 know I already had my turn. But then I realized that I 

8 forgot to say this, but for me as everybody already 

9 mentioned it, we're here because we want a better world. 

10 We want an air to breathe, just like those wonderful 

11 commercials that you can see on TV. 

12 One of the reasons why I'm here, another family 

13 member of mine was going to come, but he's had to stay home 

14 because he's suffering from bronchitis as well.

15 And one of my problems also is that my kid loves 

16 to play soccer, but he can't really do exercise that often, 

17 because of the respiratory problems that he has. But he 

18 loves to do it, so I can't stop it. 

19 Another problem that we have in Mecca is all the 

20 factories that are chemical and they're mixing a lot of --

21 I don't know how to say this -- all of these -- they're not 

22 chemicals. They mix this organic mixes for planting 

23 different (indiscernible) but I really don't know what 

24 they're called in English. But they produce this horrible 

25 smell and it really smells bad. I don't know if it would 
348

1 be in your hands to do something about it, because it 

2 smells horribly and there's things that we have to deal 

3 with it the same as the vapor from the water. 

4 I think it might be in your hands to do something 

5 about that, because it does smell really bad. And I have 

6 kids that are sick, just a lot of these kids suffer from 

7 asthma (indiscernible) for speaking at the last minute.

8 MR. PAGE: Well, I want to say thank you very 

9 much for making the effort to come here. Nine hours to 

10 drive here and share your very personal stories with us. I 

11 mean, it's very touching for us to be up here and hear 

12 about your families and how much you care about your 

13 community. And as someone said speaking from the heart the 

14 whole time that you all were here.

15 And I want to thank the folks that spoke, but I 

16 also was very impressed with the support of you joining 

17 your colleagues up here even if you didn't speak you were 

18 here and we felt that support as well. It's just as 

19 important as speaking to be here.

20 And I will tell you I've been doing this for 38 

21 years and I've never seen this kind of presentation. 

22 You've covered all the issues that all the professionals 

23 that have been trained and are much more educated. You've 

24 touched all the subjects: the jobs, the health, everything 

25 that they touched. And you did it, like I say, speaking 
349

1 from the heart. 

2 So I'll tell you from me personally, thank you 

3 very much for coming here. It's something I'll never 

4 forget. I really appreciate you being here.

5 (Applause)

6 Well, we wish you safe travels back. And we're 

7 going to take a five-minute break to allow the students to 

8 go.

9 FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Two adults want to 

10 speak before they go, then take a break.

11 MR. PAGE: I'm sorry?

12 FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBERS: You have two adults who 

13 want to speak and then you can take a break.

14 MR. PAGE: Good, then let's have the two adults 

15 come down.

16 FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBERS: I'm sorry, just one.

17 MR. PAGE: One, okay.

18 MR. HERNANDEZ: Sorry about that.

19 MR. PAGE: That's okay, no problem.

20 MR. HERNANDEZ: I'm the coordinator, so --

21 MR. PAGE: Are you? They should've let you go 

22 first. Your name and --

23 ALLEN HERNANDEZ

24 MR. HERNANDEZ: My name is Allen Hernandez, A-L--

25 L-E-N H-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z. I'm the regional representative 
350

1 for San Bernardino-Riverside Counties for the Sierra Club, 

2 working on clean air, clean energy issues. 

3 I've been working with the students at Desert 

4 Mirage School High School after school program called The 

5 Great Sierra Alliance, a partnership between Desert Mirage 

6 and the Sierra Club to work on clean energy, clean air 

7 issues. And just before I share a little bit why this is 

8 so important to me.

9 But I'm 15 years older than the students here, so 

10 not that much removed but still kind of removed, kind of 

11 next generation. And this is very -- I was not doing this 

12 when I was in ninth grade or even senior year, so I'm very 

13 proud of them for coming up today. I know there were a lot 

14 of jitters, I know there was a lot of speaking from the 

15 heart, that's never easy to do. And I'm just very, very 

16 proud of these young boys and girls who came out here to 

17 speak today.

18 MR. PAGE: We are too.

19 MS. STONE: Thank you.

20 MR. HERNANDEZ: For me personally I've been in 

21 their shoes. I'm from Fontana, California in the Inland 

22 Empire. Outside of the Central Valley we have the worst 

23 pollution in the nation and I grew up with childhood 

24 asthma. I grew up going to the ER three times a week from 

25 the ages of three until I was twelve. I remember one of 
351

1 the most dramatic experiences was to have six injections go 

2 into each lung at one ER visit. And I was six and so I 

3 still haven't forgotten it. And so I lived right by the 

4 railroad tracks, lived by the warehouses and lived by the 

5 one of the gas plants, so I was stuck right in the middle.

6 So the reason I'm here is I outgrew that. They built a 

7 wall on the railroad tracks, helped mitigate some of that.

8 But my little three-year-old niece, about two 

9 weeks ago was hospitalized with what was thought was a 

10 cold. She wasn't kicking her cold, she had been having 

11 colds. And it turns out now the doctors are saying that 

12 she has asthma, lives right by the freeway too, lives by 

13 the warehouses. This little girl is my life. I have her 

14 name tattooed on my forearm and I did that the day she was 

15 born. She was literally born and I ran to a tattoo shop. 

16 And so I went through a lot from the ages of 

17 three to twelve with childhood asthma. She's beginning to 

18 get those. They have her on an inhaler. They have her 

19 doing breathing practices. I hope it's not that. I don't 

20 want to see her go through that same thing. I don't want 

21 to be in a situation. She's my world, so if she falls down 

22 I panic. Even if she's just running and she falls and she 

23 skins her knee I go crazy. I don't know what I would do if 

24 I had to rush her to the hospital and she starts turning 

25 blue.
352

1 So like the students here behind me have said, 

2 the 60 parts per billion for us is -- you know, it's not 

3 something we want to have a kid -- it's something we just 

4 need. Too many of us are suffering and I think it's very 

5 important for this to stop. They're young. They're 

6 worried about their families, their mom and dads that work 

7 in the work in the fields, I'm worried about my little 

8 niece. And so I just, you know, beg of you to really 

9 consider the best possible standard. Thank you, so much.

10 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

11 MS. JORDAN: Thank you.

12 MS. STONE: Thank you.

13 MR. PAGE: All right. I guess the students need 

14 to --

15 STUDENT: Rest.

16 MR. PAGE: -- rest, yeah. Thank you all very 

17 much. (Applause)

18 (Off the record at 7:08 p.m.)

19 (On the record at 7:10 p.m.)

20 MR. PAGE: Craig Thomas and Rick Bettis.

21 Mr. Thomas, you can start when you're ready. 

22 Please spell your name for the court reporter.

23 CRAIG THOMAS

24 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. My name is Craig Thomas. 

25 It's C-R-A-I-G T-H-O-M-A-S and I am the conservation 
353

1 director for Sierra Forest Legacy and we're a coalition of 

2 over 80 environmental organizations that work on federal 

3 forest policy in the Sierra Nevada. That's 11 national 

4 forests and about 11 million acres.

5 I've got some written testimony and some 

6 reference papers that I want to put in the maker. I only 

7 made three copies, but I'll only give out the first one.

8 So thank you very much for this opportunity to 

9 speak tonight. It's really something to be in a room full 

10 of young folks from high school. I'm 68, so I go back 

11 between the dinosaurs and the moon walk, you know, before 

12 federal EPA? I know that for sure. And I've spent a fair 

13 amount of my life working for environmental protection. 

14 So first of all I want to say that Sierra Forest 

15 Legacy, and many of our partner groups, are strong 

16 supporters of the public health concerns expressed in the 

17 new ground-level ozone standard rule package and that need 

18 for clean air and throughout the many different regions of 

19 the country.

20 Interestingly from the perspective that I work 

21 from, ozone pollution and higher ozone levels do 

22 significant damage to one of the resources that we work to 

23 protect, which is the large pine trees, the iconic trees of 

24 the Sierra Nevada. And there's a photo in the statement 

25 that shows the needle damage up close, not a god thing at 
354

1 all. 

2 But I want to speak to you about a very 

3 particular nuance for our concerns, because I want to be 

4 clear we are very supportive. But we seek and request and 

5 hope that you target the primary pre-ozone pollution 

6 precursors that we strongly support the regulation of. But 

7 we have one concern beyond public health and environmental 

8 damage from ozone. And that is that our conservation 

9 coalition research scientists and forest service land 

10 management folks share a significant concern about the 

11 proposed rule. And that concern is that the regulations do 

12 not limit the ability of land managers to use natural 

13 ignitions and prescribe fire as a critical resource 

14 management tool. 

15 And that gets into the conversation about 

16 background effects and background levels of certain 

17 portions of air quality that we look at today and look at 

18 very appropriately.

19 I want to speak to fire and fire management. 

20 Fire is a primary natural disturbance process that 

21 regulates fuel build-up, enhances biodiversity such as 

22 snags and logs and all other elements of biodiversity 

23 really in the Sierra Nevada. It recycles nutrients. It 

24 creates various vegetation patterns that limit 

25 uncharacteristic fire like we've been seeing out here. 
355

1 fires of a size I couldn't imagine 25 years ago, largely 

2 because of suppression of the kind of fire that we need. 

3 So it's a very nuanced thing.

4 I'll mention one bit about a historic fire, the 

5 natural background if you will. Pre-1850 landscape fire 

6 had a much larger natural ecosystem regulation. In a 

7 recent fire paper by Dr. Scott Stephens et. al. 2007, which 

8 is in the package he noted an astounding statistic. The 

9 estimates of annual area burned in California is 88 percent 

10 of the total wildfire area in the entire U.S. during the 

11 decade of 1994 to 2004, which we characterized as an 

12 extreme decade.

13 Fire researchers note that approximately 1.8 

14 billion hectares or 3.4 million acres burned annually in 

15 California historically pre-1850. That's 500,000 acres a 

16 year in a timeframe that we call pristine and natural 

17 functioning. And it becomes a target reference condition 

18 now, so it's astounding. But it was a very different kind 

19 of fire than we see today. It was small fires happening 

20 regularly that wound up being self-regulating. The fires 

21 from this year burned into the fires from last year. we 

22 didn't see the kind of magnitude of fire effects or the 

23 emissions that we're seeing today.

24 Another couple of pieces of research that are 

25 really important is that the amount of the landscape that's 
356

1 actually treatable in the Sierra Nevada by other means, is 

2 roughly 58 percent of the landscape is forested and 25 

3 percent of that is treatable with mechanical treatments. 

4 And on the rest of those acres we've got two choices. And 

5 one of them is not "no fire." It's either the kind of fire 

6 that we manage and use natural ignitions or prescribed fire 

7 to manage the landscape. Or uncontrollable wildfire that 

8 we have very little say-so and very little chance to stop

9 any more it appears, and a huge increase in emissions and 

10 the elements that you don't want to see and we don't want 

11 to see, occurring across the landscape. 

12 The last thing I'll mention is -- I'll be done in 

13 just second here. We've been working hard with the Forest 

14 Service and other partners such as the Lung Association and 

15 the San Joaquin Air Board to develop an alert system that 

16 helps work in the medical community, the Fresno-Madera 

17 Medical Society and their contacts. So the Forest Service 

18 and we partner with them to send out an alert system of 

19 notifications that are three in sequence, that basically 

20 explain why the Forest Service is doing a burn project. 

21 And also equally important is, "Here's what you can do to 

22 protect yourself and your family from those affects." 

23 And we use a thing called Blue Sky Modeling that 

24 helps capture very tightly where the smoke plumes are 

25 headed for each community, so we can get it to those school 
357

1 nurses, those public health officials and the physicians 

2 who are actually treating the people. So we're not just 

3 putting an article in the paper that few people read, but 

4 it's a very direct contact. It's a, "Here's what's 

5 happening. Here's when it's going to happen. Now it's 

6 happening. Now it's been lit and here's what you can do to 

7 protect yourselves." So we give these communities a lot of 

8 notice up front through the system of people that they are 

9 normally, naturally in contact with.

10 So the bottom line is that we ask that while you 

11 consider the new limits on ozone emissions and their 

12 precursors, in California and elsewhere in the country to 

13 protect public health, please do not limit the ability of 

14 land managers to use fire as a natural disturbance process 

15 and as a critical restoration tool.

16 Treat the major ozone pollution sources: 

17 automobiles and diesel exhaust, coal plants and other 

18 stationary sources. And recognize that fire suppression 

19 effects have largely failed to limit their resource damage 

20 in the Sierra Nevada and failed to limit uncharacteristic 

21 high-severity fire. 

22 Fire is -- let's see, so the final thing I'll say 

23 is that fire is a very important tool for restoration. It 

24 builds resilience and it limits the uncontrolled emissions 

25 from large wildfire. Thank you, very much.
358

1 MS. JORDAN: Thanks.

2 MS. STONE: Yeah.

3 MR. THOMAS: Any questions?

4 MS. STONE: Yeah, I have a question.

5 MR. THOMAS: Yeah?

6 MS. STONE: This project that you talked about, 

7 about alerting communities that there's going to be a 

8 prescribed fire, that it's happening and here's what you 

9 can do?

10 MS. THOMAS: Correct.

11 MS. STONE: Who's in charge of that, because I 

12 think that might be a good model for other places.

13 MS. THOMAS: Well, thank you very much. I 

14 grabbed the idea from a Forest Service employee in Northern 

15 California, actually she was a very astute public affairs 

16 officer. And she started just calling the personal doctors 

17 in the community where she lived as another way to get to 

18 people, so that they'd see and hear about the plan.

19 So Sierra Forest Legacy took that and we 

20 partnered in an agreement with the Forest Service that we 

21 would write these series of alerts. And our logo goes on 

22 and the Forest Service logo goes on these -- they're one23 page notifications, maybe a page and a half, basically. 

24 And it starts out with, "The Forest Service's planning a 

25 project in this area and here's why," you know? But the 
359

1 next thing we say in the message is -- like we do, we're 

2 all feeling human beings like you and, "We care about you. 

3 Here's the proposed timing and here's the things you can do 

4 to protect yourself. And those things we don't make up, we 

5 take it from you guys.

6 MS. STONE: Right.

7 MS. THOMAS: And California Airborne has a huge 

8 amount of literature, so we go through all of that and we 

9 work with the Forest Service officials to develop the 

10 things that people can do, general knowledge things people 

11 can do to protect themselves.

12 But the more important thing is we try to target 

13 and get some really good information about where those 

14 pollutants are likely to go. So it's not just 100 miles 

15 away that nobody reads. It's zoning right into the schools 

16 that are in the pathway of the thing, so we created it and 

17 we did that with the Fresno-Madera Medical Society, Sequoia 

18 National Forest, that particular district where we have a 

19 big 10,000 acre burn planned and it's a place where no 

20 mechanical treatment can even get to. So it's fire we like 

21 or fire we don't want of the two other choices. 

22 And the Forest Service has a large restoration 

23 objective to treat a whole bunch of acres and some of them 

24 we can a mechanical. Most of them all have to be 

25 maintained with fire or we lose the value of the treatment 
360

1 sooner or later. So we thought let's step into this in a 

2 new way. And the medical society was wonderful to work 

3 with. They're a large organization and they have this 

4 massive list of all health community members and doctors 

5 that work in respiratory health.

6 MS. STONE: Right, well we do a lot of that work 

7 with respect to fires that are actually wildfires that are 

8 out of control. And so we work very hard on our 

9 communication approaches, who we reach out to, how we 

10 convey the information. And so it would seem like this 

11 would be the type of thing that would also be useful. Lots 

12 of places do it different ways. In eastern North Carolina 

13 they have door hangtags that they put on doors when they 

14 think they're going to have a prescribed fire. It's not as 

15 precise, but this was ten years back.

16 MS. THOMAS: Yeah. I can email you that 

17 notification sweep, so it's like there's going to be a 

18 fire, it's in planning. Then the next one is it's being 

19 lit."

20 MS. STONE: So I could get up with you if it's --

21 MS. THOMAS: Absolutely. It's going to be lit 

22 and then the third one is it's going to end soon.

23 MR. PAGE: Did you have a question?

24 MS. JORDAN: I was just going to ask do you 

25 coordinate with whichever local air district has 
361

1 jurisdiction in that area?

2 MS. THOMAS: We have. So we do this alert system 

3 and then we get a call from the San Joaquin Air Public 

4 Affairs and they picked it up and the Fresno representative 

5 from the Lung Association and they called us up and said, 

6 "Let's have lunch." And you know, honestly I wasn't sure

7 if they were going to be happy about us engaging like this 

8 or not. And then it was a wonderful meeting. It was very 

9 powerful. They were like, "We need help understanding the 

10 ecological reasoning for why we're putting smoke in the 

11 air. And we can help broadcast this kind of thing."

12 So now it's much more closely aligned. And you 

13 know, honestly the government shutdown prevented that 

14 10,000 acre burn right on the day it was going to get lit, 

15 which was very tragic and costly for everybody. But we 

16 still had the system put out and we've refined it a bit now 

17 and we're happy to share that with anybody if it's useful.

18 MS. STONE: Okay. 

19 MS. THOMAS: That's great. And I think the key 

20 thing is getting to the physician community who talks to 

21 the patients.

22 MR. PAGE: Right.

23 MS. STONE: Yeah, we know that.

24 MS. THOMAS: And the school nurses are talking to 

25 the parents and you guys know that. A lot of it seems like 
362

1 it was a new thing to a lot of folks, but I give a lot of 

2 credit for the Forest Service, because they're the ones 

3 that came up with the idea.

4 MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much.

5 MS. THOMAS: Thank you very much. Thank you for 

6 being here.

7 MR. PAGE: Mr. Bettis?

8 RICK BETTIS

9 MR. BETTIS: yes, thank you. My name is Rick 

10 Bettis, that's R-I-C-K B-E-T-T-I-S. And I'm speaking as a 

11 retired engineer and a volunteer with several organizations 

12 on air quality, climate change, energy issues. And that's 

13 Breathe, California which is a spinoff of the Lung 

14 Association and also (indiscernible) at the state level. 

15 Breathe is a -- I work with their local affiliate, the 

16 Sacramento Chapter, and also the Sierra Club and the League 

17 of Women Voters and a little bit with Physicians for Social 

18 Responsibility who you've heard earlier today.

19 And I am here to well urge your assertive action 

20 on this. And I recognize your background paper says 

21 there's uncertainty with respect to the benefits of going 

22 below the 65 parts per billion, but I would think this is a 

23 time when they're talking about health and human lives, to 

24 take what I would call a progressionary principle, in 

25 pushing for 60 parts per billion if we can justify that, 
363

1 and I think you can strictly on the health benefits.

2 I believe that we have to do this, because other 

3 factors are making this problem worse. One of them is 

4 climate change. As our global warming occurs that's going 

5 to make the effects of ozone worse and actually I think it 

6 accelerates the formation of ozone as I understand it. 

7 And another thing, all these young people back there, 

8 they are wonderful and I think we should do all we can to 

9 protect them. But I've got a factor is the aging newer 

10 population. Our baby boomers are reaching an age where 

11 they're more at risk from these health effects, 

12 cardiovascular as well as other health effects.

13 So I feel -- I just wanted to make sure -- and I 

14 really didn't prepare like Mr. Thomas did, but I really 

15 feel that we should move this as far and as fast as we can. 

16 And like I say I'm speaking for these three organizations, 

17 they're local chapters. And I hope you can move forward. 

18 I don't mind pitching, but I'm a little bit familiar with 

19 the forest practices world and I certainly think that what 

20 Mr. Thomas mentioned is a great idea. And he'll have a 

21 welcome here in Sacramento. 

22 And Larry Greene, who I think spoke earlier 

23 today, will I think be a welcoming person to work with. 

24 He's our local air pollution control officer. So thank 

25 you.
364

1 MR. PAGE: Great, thank you for much for coming.

2 MS. STONE: Thank you.

3 MS. JORDAN: Thank you.

4 MR. PAGE: Is Sarah Matsumoto?

5 MS. Matsumoto: Yes.

6 MR. PAGE: Very good, okay. Welcome.

7 (Colloquy between Ms. Matsumoto and panel members)

8 SARAH MATSUMOTO

9 MS. MATSUMOTO: So I'm Sarah Matsumoto, S-A-R-A10 H, Matsumoto is M-A-T-S-U-M-O-T-O. I'm from Oakland, 

11 California and work with the Sierra Club. 

12 So I will try to keep it brief, because you've 

13 heard from hundreds of our volunteers and members today. 

14 But we really just wanted to say thank you to the EPA for 

15 one, working to address smog pollution through these new 

16 standards. And two, for having this space for us to come 

17 and speak about. So you've heard from the students from 

18 Coachella Valley just how critical an issue this is and how 

19 personal an issue. And so we hope to work with you to save 

20 thousands of lives and millions of dollars by a stronger 

21 smog pollution standard.

22 So personally, I am going to have a baby in the 

23 summer. 

24 MS. STONE: Congratulations.

25 MS. MATSUMOTO: Thank you. I've told some of my 
365

1 friends, but now it's on the record.

2 MR. PAGE: Yeah. It's official federal business 

3 now, yes.

4 MS. MATSUMOTO: But I wanted to speak about that, 

5 because as someone who may know, it makes you worry all the 

6 time about everything about what you're eating and what 

7 you're putting on your skin and the cleaning products you 

8 use. I mean, I constantly am worrying about the whole 

9 thing. And there's this one huge threat to my children and 

10 me and my family and my community that I can't do very much 

11 about personally, which is air pollution. 

12 And so that's why we're really hoping that you 

13 all can protect us, protect our children. Of course, you 

14 know that children and the elderly are some of the most 

15 vulnerable to air pollution. I really don't want my kids 

16 to grow up like many of the children we heard, not being 

17 able to run around and play. And we've had a number of 

18 Spare the Air Days where we're worried about going outside. 

19 And, you know, I don't want them to struggle for air and 

20 not be able to play soccer like some of the kids we heard. 

21 Or I don't want them to grow up with asthma worrying about 

22 midnight emergency visits.

23 But unfortunately, that really is the reality of 

24 too many people in our communities, especially here in 

25 California. As you may know a majority of the people in 
366

1 California live in counties with bad air and I think that's 

2 just really unacceptable. And I hope it's unacceptable to 

3 people that are working to set these standards and clean up 

4 the air. 

5 And in addition, this personally impacts low6 income communities and communities of color. As you may 

7 know, African American and Latino children are two-to-six 

8 times more likely to die from asthma, which I think is just 

9 horrible and unfair and highly unjust.

10 So I could go on longer, but you've heard a lot. 

11 So I just wanted to say again, you know, we are really 

12 depending on you all to set as strong a pollution standard 

13 as possible. And we really hope that you'll take 

14 everything that you heard and everything that you know. 

15 You've been researching for lives and personal careers and 

16 worked to save thousands of people and millions of dollars 

17 for California and the rest of the country. So thank you.

18 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

19 MS. JORDAN: Thank you.

20 MR. PAGE: Thank you very much for coming.

21 (Panel colloquy off re: closing hearing)

22 MR. PAGE: Well, that concludes this hearing on 

23 the proposed NAAQS. We had a great turnout today, lots of 

24 variety in the folks that testified. I can tell you I 

25 never come to one of these things without learning 
367

1 something and this was no exception. We had a really 

2 thoughtful group of folks here.

3 And again, I want to thank the folks that helped 

4 support the hearing today. If you'll pass on the thank you 

5 to the folks in California for providing this space and to 

6 this space. Thank for the translation, we did need you. 

7 Thank you very much.

8 TRANSLATOR: I know.

9 MR. PAGE: And thanks to everybody. We'll 

10 conclude this hearing and if anybody's moved to submit 

11 comments they can still be done through the EPA website 

12 through March 17th. 

13 And with that do any of the other panel members 

14 have anything to say?

15 (No audible response.)

16 We'll close it. Thank you very much for your 

17 services. I appreciate it. All right.

18 (Whereupon, at 7:32 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.)

19

20 * * *

21

22

23

24

25

26
368

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

I do hereby certify that the testimony in 

the foregoing hearing was taken at the time and 

place therein stated; that the testimony of 

said witnesses were reported by me, a certified 

electronic court reporter and a disinterested 

person, and was under my supervision thereafter 

transcribed into typewriting.

And I further certify that I am not of

counsel or attorney for either or any of the 

parties to said hearing nor in any way interested 

in the outcome of the cause named in said 

caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 

hand this 3rd day of March, 2015.

PETER PETTY

CER**D-493

Notary Public 

 

1 
369

1
370

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

I do hereby certify that the testimony in 

the foregoing hearing was taken at the time and 

place therein stated; that the testimony of 

said witnesses were reported by me, a certified 

electronic court reporter and a disinterested 

person, and was under my supervision thereafter 

transcribed into typewriting.

And I further certify that I am not of

counsel or attorney for either or any of the 

parties to said hearing nor in any way interested 

in the outcome of the cause named in said 

caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 

hand this 3rd day of March, 2015.

Rebecca Hudson

 

 
371

TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE

I do hereby certify that the testimony 

in the foregoing hearing was taken at the time and 

place therein stated; that the testimony of said 

witnesses were transcribed by me, a certified

transcriber and a disinterested person, and was under 

my supervision thereafter transcribed into

typewriting.

 And I further certify that I am not of 

counsel or attorney for either or any of the parties to 

said hearing nor in any way interested in the outcome 

of the cause named in said caption.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 

my hand this 3rd day of March, 2015.

 

 _________________

 

Myra Severtson

Certified Transcriber

AAERT No. CET**D-852