1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING ON

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

FOR OZONE

SACRAMENTO, CA

MON DAY, FEBRUARY 2 , 201 5

9:00 A.M.

Reporter: Peter Petty

Rebecca Hudson2

INDEX

PAGE

OPENING STATEMENT: 1 7 By Steve Page , Presiding Officer

M ORNING SESSION : 1 7 Steve Page, Hearing Officer Deborah Jordan

- Panel Member Susan Stone

- Panel Member Pat D o lwick

- Panel Member

Public Testimony Begins 2 4

AFTERNOON SESSION 16 7 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 D o lwick

- Panel Member

*Replaced Amy Zimpfer during the evening session

Public Testimony Resumes 280

HEARING ADJOURNED 367

Reporter Certificate

Transcriber certificate3

APPEARANCES

PUBLIC SPEAKERS : PAGE:

Robert Sawyer, 2 4 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 District4

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

A my 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 Calif ornia Interfaith Power & Light (CIPL)

Michael Monasky 92

Lindsay Stovall, 98 American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Kenneth Champion 102

Evan Gillespie, 104 Sierra Club5

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, 12 5 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 Justice6

APP EARANCES (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, Californ ia

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 1857

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 War heit, (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 2 18

Ivett Carnes 22 2

Deborah Drechsler, 223 California Air Resources Board

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, 227
En vironmental Justice Program of Catholic Charities8

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 2679

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 29 5 Student

Jose Aoba, 29 5 Student

Gilbert Gonzalez, 295 Student

Cristian Garza, 29 5 & 346 Student10

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Marlene Torres, 29 7 Student

Rebecca Ayale, 29 7 Student

Maria Huerta, 29 7 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 Student11

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 Student12

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 Student13

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 Student14

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 Student15

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 Club16

APPEARANCES (CONT.)

PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE:

Craig Thomas, 352 Sierra Forest Legacy

Rick Bettis, 362 Breathe, CA. Sierra Club

Sarah Matsumoto, 364 Sierra Club17

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

9:00 a.m. 2

Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the 3

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS) 4

February 2, 2015 5

Sacramento, California 6

Steve Page, Presiding Officer 7

* * * 8

MORNING SESSION 9

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

you to this proposed o zone h earing, the hearing for the 11

proposed NAAQS standards. 12

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

Environmental Protection Agency. And we have some 14

announcements to make, which is a form al part of these 15

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

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

good thing. 18

We really appreciate people turning out for these 19

hearings. Many of us

-- all of us on this panel, I k now, 20

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

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

not only within the EPA , but universities and other 23

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

put it into proposals. B ut it's really an important step 2518

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

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

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

much. 4

I want to let the panels introduce themselves

. 5

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

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

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

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

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

are charged with pull ing the science and the policy 11

together for the NAAQS proposals for the EPA 12

Administrator's decision. 13

And with that: 14

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

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

Regional Office in San Francisco. 17

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

Environmental Health Scientist with the Office of Air & 19

Radiation and the project lead for this review. 20

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

housekee ping items and a little bit of background for 22

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

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

all. 2519

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

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

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

required to evacuate this room immediately and go 4

downstairs and out of the building. When the all

- clear 5

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

resume the hea ring. 7

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

the proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 9

Standards for Ozone. EPA announced this proposed rule on 10

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

on December 17, 2014. 12

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

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

another hearing in the Dallas

- Fort Worth Area. This will 15

be the third and final hearing. 16

EPA’s proposal for revising the ozone standard is 17

based on e xtensive scientific evidence about ozone’s 18

effects on public health and welfare. The proposed updates 19

will improve public health protection, particularly for 20

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

diseases such as asthma, as well as i mprove public welfare 22

protection, particularly related to ozone

- sensitive trees 23

and other plants in protected forested ecosystems, such as 24

national wilderness areas. 2520

We've proposed to strengthen both the primary 1

ozone standard to protect public health, and the secondary 2

ozone standard to protect public welfare. 3

We are proposing to set the levels of the primary 4

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

per billion. These standards would be met when the 3

- year 6

average of the annual fourt h

- highest daily maximum 8

- hour 7

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

The proposal would also extend the ozone 9

monitoring season for many states, and update the Air 10

Quality Index to ensure people are informed about their air 11

quality. 12

These proposed standards do not establish 13

emission control requirements for any particular industry. 14

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

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

That is the way the Clean Air Ac t is written. 17

States will have time to develop and implement 18

plans to meet revised standards. Existing and proposed 19

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

proposed standards by 2025. 21

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

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

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

proposal, including on retaining the existing standards. 2521

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

few more housekeeping items and ground rules that will help 2

the hearing run smoothly. 3

First, everybody in the room should have checked 4

in at the registration desk

-- even if you are not planning 5

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

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

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

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

to speak. 10

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

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

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

and remain at the table until both speakers have completed 14

their comments. 15

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

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

wil l be transcribed and included in the official record of 18

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

Each speaker will have five minutes to give 20

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

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

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

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

your testimony. The light will flash red and beep when you 2522

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

When you a re finished speaking, please remain at 2

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

her testimony. 4

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

panel member may ask questions to clarify your comments. 6

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

and so on. 8

If you have a written copy of your testimony, 9

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

you leave today. We will put any written comments 11

submitted today in the official docket for the proposed 12

rule. 13

If you h ave additional comments you would like to 14

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

Instructions for submitting additional written comments are 16

available at the materials table near the registration 17

desk. 18

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

to 2:30 and a 20

- to

- 30 minute dinner break towards evening. 20

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

mentioned earlier. We also may take occasional short 22

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

posted a s we go. 24

If you have any questions during the day, please 2523

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

to help you. 2

We will have Spanish translation, G entleman 3

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

that don't speak E nglish? 5

(Spanish announcement re: translation services.) 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you, Carlos. 7

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

respectful of everyone who speaks today. We have people 9

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

to hear from all of you. So we can do that

-- and to be 11

fair to everyone

– - we ask that everyone listen quietly. 12

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

everyone who has signed up to speak. 14

Thank you again for taking the time today to 15

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

started. 17

PUBLIC TESTIMONY 18

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

Sawyer and Ted Steichen. 20

Again, just as a reminder if you will please 21

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

you want to indicate the organization you're representing 23

that would be fine. 24

All right. Mr. Sawyer. 2524

ROBERT SAWYER 1

MR. SAWYER: Good morning . M y name is Robert 2

Sawyer, S

- A

- W

- Y

- E

- R. I'm a p rofessor of e nergy e meritus at 3

the University of California Berkeley, served as c hairman 4

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

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

Association in California. 7

Thank you for the opportun ity to speak in favor 8

of strengthening the national standard for ozone pollution 9

to better protect the health of millions of Americans. 10

I commend the EPA for aggressively pursuing 11

science

- based air quality standards as mandated by the 12

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

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

per billion to protect the health of our most vulnerable 15

populations including the elderly, children and those 16

living with chronic respiratory illness e s such as asthma, 17

which is a significant concern here in Sacramento and 18

throughout the State of California. 19

It is appropriate to hold this discussion in 20

California where we face severe ozone pollution and its 21

health impacts. 22

Our enactment of strong emission control 23

regulations for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have 24

reduced our peak ozone levels by more than a factor of 4 2525

from the levels experienced when I was growing up in 1

Southern California. 2

We know fully that stronger air quality standards 3

requir e emission reductions that produce cleaner air and 4

drive technical innovation. The modern automobile is 5

largely the result of technologies introduced to reduce 6

emissions. The combination of California's strict 7

passenger vehicle tailpipe standards, zero e mission vehicle 8

requirements, heavy

- duty truck and bus rules and clean 9

fuels programs reduce transportation impacts on our air and 10

our climate. 11

While we have made progress far too many 12

Californians continue to suffer the impacts of ozone 13

pollution. We are particularly concerned, because we know 14

that the impacts fall disproportionately on our most 15

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

low

- income communities, communities of color and those with 17

heart and lung disease. 18

In the most rece nt American Lung Association's 19

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

of the ten communities most impacted by ozone pollution 21

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

Los Angeles remains ranked as the nation's most ozon e
23

polluted metropolitan area where some residents in inland 24

parts of the region still experience an average of over 100 2526

unhealthy days per year at the current standard. 1

Adopting an ozone air quality standard based on 2

the best science available is essenti al to protecting our 3

most vulnerable citizens. Failing to bring our ozone 4

standards down to 60 parts per billion misses clean air 5

opportunities. Meeting such a standard will be difficult 6

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

difficu lt tasks. 8

We welcome the opportunity to continue to protect 9

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

this opportunity to strengthen the ozone standard to 60 11

parts per billion to address this issue here across 12

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

We urge you to adopt the strongest standard to 14

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

air and protect the public health from ozone pollution. 16

Thank you. 17

TED STREICHEN 18

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

S

- T

- E

- I

- C

- H

- E

- N, and I'm a s enior p olicy a dvisor at the 20

American Petroleum Institute. 21

API represents about 265 oil and natural gas 22

companies, leaders in technology

- driven industry that 23

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

jobs and 8 percent of the U.S. economy . S ince 2000, it has 2527

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

of energy, including alternatives. 2

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

an d natural gas industry, operate facilities, and produce 4

products impacted by regulations adopted by the National 5

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

oil and gas industry has made significant contributions to 7

cleaner air. 8

Since 1990 , the oil and gas industry has invested 9

more than $28 5 billion to improve products and processes. 10

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

lower criteria and greenhouse gas emissions. A combination 12

of cleaner gasoline and diesel fuels, modernized equipment 13

and facilities, and more fuel

- efficient vehicles have 14

helped reduce emissions of air pollutants by 62 percent 15

between 1980 and 2013

-- even as vehicle miles traveled 16

gone up 95 percent. 17

Progress is clear

-- ozone concentrations und er 18

the current ozone rules have dropped by 18 percent since 19

2000. 20

These improvements are impressive, and will 21

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

most stringent levels ever, and these standards are only 23

now being implemented by states and businesses. 24

Ironical ly, some of the guidance to meet these 2528

2008 standards is still under review by the Obama 1

A dministration . OMB is looking at that and has not 2

released to help the states meet the se current standards. 3

Nonetheless, EPA has now pro posed to further tighten the 4

standards with the potential for far

- ranging negative 5

impacts. 6

If EPA chooses to unnecessarily lower ozone 7

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

overall economic output and millions of American jobs coul d 9

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

these change or these standards highlight the need for a 11

robust debate about the science EPA is using to justify 12

these regulations. 13

Regarding this proposal, API offers four points 14

that should gui de the EPA Administrators decision

- making 15

process

. 16

First, new ozone standards are simply not needed

. 17

Careful analysis of the health studies indicate that the 18

current standard of 75 ppb are working to protect air 19

quality and public health. Again, w e urg e the Agency to 20

carefully review our forthcoming written comments to 21

understand our understanding of the limitations and the 22

lack of significance in the health studies. 23

Second, the 2008 standards have not been met over 24

a vast portions of the country. From a public policy 2529

perspective, it makes no sense to impose more requirements 1

on states and businesses until further progress is made 2

toward achieving compliance with the present standards. 3

And t hird, the negative economic impacts of a 4

lower ozone stan dard could have such a catastrophic to 5

businesses and families that the EPA would do more harm 6

than good by adopting them. Depending on the level 7

selected, decreasing the ozone standards could put almost 8

the entire country out of compliance. Specifically , 9

standards of 65 ppb today w ould indicate non
- attainment in 10

45 of the lower 48 states. Furthermore, tighte ning the 11

standards could cause our economy to nosedive and people to 12

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

considered as we look at the health science. 14

Fourth, such standards c ould be virtually 15

unattainable given the very high levels of peak background 16

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

the new standards would impose unachievable emission 18

reduction requirements on virtually every part of the 19

country including rural and undeveloped areas. Even 20

pristine areas where there is no industrial activity such 21

as national parks would be out of attainment. Unattainable 22

standards are not smart public policy or good governme nt. 23

Together we have made great progress in cleaning 24

up our air and we will continue to do so with the existing 2530

ozone standards. Any option to tighten the standards and 1

impose additional burdens on states, localities and 2

businesses should be rejected. The EPA Administrator has 3

the discretion to affirm the current ozone standards ; we 4

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

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

unnecessary burdens on states, businesses both large and 7

smal l, and citizens. 8

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

Our next two speakers, Larry Greene and Cynthia 10

Cory. Good morning. 11

MR. GREENE: Good morning. 12

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

Greene, you're up first. 14

LARRY GREENE 15

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

G

- R

- E

- E

- N

- E. 17

Good morning. I'm Larry Greene, Executive 18

Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 19

Management District and a past president of NACAA

- – the 20

National Association of Clean Air Agencies. The national, 21

non
- partisan, non

- profit association of air pollution 22

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

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

testify today on behalf of NACAA on EPA's proposed National 2531

Ambient Air Qual ity Standards for Ozone. 1

NACAA welcomes this EPA proposal to revise the 2

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

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

evidence to establish a primary ozone NAAQS that protects 5

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

current standard is not adequate to do so. 7

The serious threats to public health from 8

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

Integrated Science Assessment for this NAAQS review, EPA 10

conclud ed, among other things, that ozone pollution causes 11

respiratory harm , is likely to cause premature death and 12

adverse cardiovascular impacts , and may cause damage to the 13

central nervous system and reproductive and developmental 14

effects. 15

EPA’s independent science advisors who comprise 16

the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee also believe 17

the primary ozone NAAQS must be more protective to public 18

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

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

Assessm ent, " CASAC finds scientific justification that 21

current evidence and the results of the exposure and risk 22

assessment call into question the adequacy of the current 23

standard. F urthermore, there is clear scientific support 24

for the need to revise the standar d. The CASAC supports 2532

the scientific rationale presented in the Second Draft PA 1

on these points.” 2

CASAC also went on to say that it , “

... further 3

concludes that there is adequate scientific evidence to 4

recommend a range of levels for a revised primary ozone 5

standard from 70 ppb to 60 ppb.” 6

NACAA, therefore supports EPA’s proposed revised 7

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

billion, which is at the upper end of the science

- based 9

range recommended by CASAC. 10

With respect to the seconda ry ozone NAAQS, NACAA 11

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

recommendations to the agency and will provide a 13

perspective in our written comments. 14

On the issue of the Air Quality Index, NACAA 15

supports EPA’s proposal to revise the AQI a t the same time 16

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

risk communication tool developed by EPA to keep the 18

general public informed about its local air quality and to 19

help make informed decisions about exposure to air 20

pollutants. The effectiveness of the AQI as a public 21

health tool will be undermined if EPA undertakes regulatory 22

changes to the ozone NAAQS without simultaneously revising 23

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

to move forward with revisions to the NAAQS and the AQI at 2533

the same time. 1

Finally, while NACAA firmly believes EPA must 2

maintain a strong firewall between standard

- setting 3

issues and implementation issues, we do acknowledge that 4

whatever decisions EPA makes on the primary and secondary 5

ozon e NAAQS will have a profound impact on the work of 6

state and local air pollution control a gencies. EPA must 7

also recognize this and take timely actions on several 8

fronts. 9

First, EPA should commit to, and follow through 10

on, proposing the implementation rule for the revised ozone 11

standards at the same time it issues the final revised 12

s tandards and issuing the final implementation rule within 13

one year following this proposal. It is imperative that 14

development of the implementation rule and any related 15

gui dance be done in close collaboration with state and 16

l ocal air agencies. EPA should also work in close 17

partnership with state and local air agencies to increase 18

efficiencies in the planning process. 19

Second, EPA should take timely action to adopt, 20

or fur ther strengthen, federal measures to control a range 21

of emission sources. It is extremely important that these 22

measures be adopted and implemented in time for the 23

associated emission reductions to contribute to the 24

attainment by the specified deadlines. Further, EPA should 2534

ensure that states are able to take credit for federal 1

measures that achieve real emission reductions. 2

Third, in order to fulfill our responsibilities 3

to attain more protective ozone standards by the prescribed 4

deadlines, state and lo cal air agencies will need more 5

resources than we currently have. This is especially true 6

since many areas of the country will face nonattainment 7

status for the first time and will require additional 8

training and resources to develop and implement state 9

p lans. EPA must assis t states and localities in this 10

regard and request additional, adequate federal funding to 11

enable us to successfully fulfill our statutory 12

responsibilities and our obligation to provide our citizens 13

with clean, healthful air as expedit iously as practicable. 14

In the coming weeks, NACAA will continue to study 15

the proposal and will offer written comments by the March 16

17 deadline. In the meantime, we appreciate the 17

opportunity to provide comments today and look forward to 18

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

form by October 1 st. T hank you. 20

CYNTHIA CORY 21

MS. CORY: Good morning. Cynthia Cory, C

- Y

- N

- T

22

H

- I

- A C

- O

- R

- Y, California Farm Bureau Federation. Welcome 23

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

I'm happy to say that Californians are now 2535

breathing the cleanest since we started recording 1

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

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

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

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

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

year. That's phenomenal. 7

ARB and the local air districts have continued to 8

do cutting

- edge research. We do things t hat are not done 9

anywhere else in the world. We do community health 10

programs. We do indoor air quality assessments, consumer 11

product regulations, stationary and mobile regulations. We 12

have a toxic air contaminant program. California has the 13

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

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

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

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

going to require farmers to re place their equipment with 18

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

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

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

of electrification in our goods movement. 22

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

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

cost. And we're getting down to the point where we've got 2536

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

being from California, that we're the num ber one 2

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

60

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

and vegetables and the Central Valley is the most important 5

agricultural area in the nation. 6

And the APCO down there has said t hat you could 7

basically stop all fuel combustion from transportation in 8

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

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

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

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

computers or watching television if we really want to 13

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

obviously not an option. 15

So what we propose is that EPA looks at 16

incorporating more flexibility into t heir air quality 17

oversight and take advantage of the air quality monitoring 18

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

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

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

unique. With our 39

- plus million people spread across 22

various eco systems we've got a challenge and having a one

23

size

- fits

- all approach from Raleigh or D.C. is

-- you know, 24

we need to like look at this a little harder. 2537

We ask that you reevaluate and include mor e 1

accurate modeling designs that reflect the scientifically 2

justifiable fraction of ozone that is coming from bio genics 3

and international transboundary emissions. 4

If we continue to regulate commerce in our state 5

while the dramatic increases are coming from China and 6

Asia , from fossil fuel consumption, and being transported 7

in the troposphere, this is becoming our responsibility to 8

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

sustainable. We cannot continue to do that. 10

You might be aware of sig nificant air quality 11

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

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

air sheds is being generated by

-- that is not being 14

generated by stationary and mobile sources that are under 15

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

from outside. 17

The NOAA 2010 CalNex Study found that 80 percent 18

of the ozone in the bottom three kilometers of the 19

atmosphere in the Central Valley is not from North American 20

a nthropogenic sources, but instea d is a composite of 21

biogenic and trans

- boundary ozone being transported via the 22

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

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

sources. 2538

So this simply cannot be ignored. We cannot 1

cont inue to ratchet down on our sources when it is not our 2

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

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

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

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

a careful evaluation of that for California specifically. 7

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

the standards are lowered to 70 parts per billion that 9

background ozone would not be a problem to implement

-- fo r 10

implementation challenges for implementing and meeting 11

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

the case in California. Once baseline and international 13

emissions are more equitably recognized then making 14

reasonable further progress can be supported instead of 15

being penalized in Section 185. 16

We can't continue to demand unrealistic 17

expectations of our resources and we ask that you continue 18

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

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 20

Our nex t speakers are Allen Biaggi and Jaxin 21

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

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

court reporter. Thank you. 24

Welcome, good morning. 2539

MR. BIAGGI: Good morning. 1

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

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

Thank you. 4

MR. PAGE: Okay. All right. 5

ALLEN BIAGGI 6

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

spelled A

- L

- L

- E

- N, last name is Biaggi, B

- I

- A

- G

- G

- I. 8

I'm here today representing the Nevada Mining 9

Association. For background, the Association has been in 10

operation for 102 years and was formed to address workplace 11

safety and environmental issues. The Nevada Mining 12

Association has hundreds of members repr esenting mining 13

operators, expiration professionals and vendors who serve 14

the industry. 15

The Nevada Mining Association has great concerns 16

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

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

economy through the designation of inappropriate and 19

technically inaccurate nonattainment areas, the imposition 20

of stringent permit requirements and expensive emission 21

controls with little or no concurrent public health 22

benefits. 23

Nevada is one of the st ates hardest hit by the 24

Great Recession. One area of the state that remained 2540

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

presence of minding. The proposal will impact rural 2

economies, stifle new and existing commerce and industrial 3

activity and impact tax revenues that support education, 4

social programs and public safety. 5

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

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

taxes generated for the state General Fund. Mining in 8

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

of doing business and regulatory uncertainty are factors 10

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

South America, Africa or other mineralized areas of the 12

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

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

Nevada is a lightly industrialized state with few 15

ozone or ozone precursor emitting facilities. And Nevada, 16

like many western states have elevated background, ground

17

level ozone concentrations and is impacted by transport 18

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

proposed, even in its upper

- boundaries of 79 parts per 20

billion, will result in significant areas of the state 21

being classified as nonattainment. 22

Instate businesses and industries will bear the 23

burden of achieving attainment through mandated NOx and VOC 24

reductions even though those businesses and industries are 2541

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

might be unable to achieve com pliance under any 2

circumstances given the high background levels. The rule, 3

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

Nevada's economy now and into the future. 5

And from a scientific and technical perspective 6

the proposal has shortcoming s. Research has strongly 7

suggested elevated naturally occurring ozone levels occur 8

throughout the West due to native vegetation. Other 9

natural

- occurring phenomenon such as wildfire also make 10

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

ant hropogenic sources of air pollution that may impact 12

public health. It is poor public policy to impose 13

restrictions on manmade sources to compensate for naturally 14

occurring conditions. 15

Nevada sits in the inner

- mountain west and within 16

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

mountainous in the Union with more than 250 mountain 18

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

research suggests the spatial placement of air quality 20

monitors plays a significant role in ozone readings. 21

Mon itors placed on a valley floor have markedly different 22

results than those placed at altitude. This has 23

fundamental implications to the findings of the presence of 24

ground

- level ozone and ultimately to public health. 2542

A basic precept of the Clean Air Act i s the need 1

for scientifically valid data on which regulatory decisions 2

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

ozone monitoring in mountainous terrain. Until the science 4

of low concentration ozone monitoring in complex terrain is 5

better u nderstood this rule is premature. 6

Preliminary research also suggests weather, 7

temperature and atmospheric density phenomenon can 8

influence ground

- level ozone concentrations by the movement 9

of upper

- level atmospheric ozone to the ground surface. 10

This phe nomenon is not well understood, but may have 11

significant impacts to ozone concentrations within the 12

Great Basin. 13

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

and Nevada businesses and industry forced to make expensive 15

and ineffective emission reducti ons, the relationship 16

between upper

- atmospheric and ground

- level ozone must be 17

better understood. 18

Finally, ozone transport into the Great Basin is 19

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

likely impacted and triggered for ozone nonattainm ent, the 21

sources of those air pollutants will be transported 22

hundreds or thousands of miles away from California, from 23

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

businesses and industries within those nonattainment areas 2543

will be saddled with th e burden of emission reductions and 1

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

burned rural, instate industry with regulatory controls, 3

because of the failures of some distant, urban jurisdiction 4

to control those emissions. 5

The Nevada Min ing Association therefore calls up 6

EPA to put aside the proposed rule and undertake a 7

reevaluation of the science underlying ozone, ozone 8

monitoring, ozone transport and reconsider the economic and 9

public health implications. 10

I want to thank you for prov iding this meeting 11

today and the Association will be providing additional 12

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

you. 14

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

you're our first student today. 16

JAXIN WOODWARD 17

MS. WOODWARD: He llo. My name is Jaxin Woodward, 18

J

- A

- X

- I

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

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

pollution has on my ability to breathe clean air. 21

Ozone pollution is very serious for me as an 22

asthmatic preteen and athlete. I take medication daily to 23

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

daily to play with my friends and train for my sport of 2544

track and field. 1

Although I take my medication smog still triggers 2

my asthma symptoms and w hen I inhale my nose starts to 3

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

imagine getting a full breath of clean air becomes an 5

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

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

My long

- term goal is to compete in cross

- country 8

and track in high school and college. My short

- term goal 9

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

medals in the 800 m eter and 1500 m eter runs this summer 11

from Illinois

. 12

To accomplish th is I must follow my asthma 13

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

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

follow my treatment plan, smog keeps my respiratory system 16

vulnerable especially during the summer months. 17

When I am competing at championship levels I 18

would like to continue playing outdoors and competing in 19

cross country and track and field. Strengthening the air 20

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

you. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you both, very muc h. 23

All right. Our next speakers are Bonnie Holmes

24

Gen, I believe it is, and Lisa Hoyosi. (phonetic) Again, 2545

please correct my pronunciation if you will. 1

MS. HOLMES: Good morning. 2

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

Holmes

- Gen, you're up firs t. 4

BONNIE HOLMES

- GEN 5

MS. HOLMES

- GEN: Good morning. My name is Bonnie 6

Holmes

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

Climate Change with the American Lung Association in 8

California. 9

I am pleased to speak today in support of 10

strengthening the National Ambient Air Quality Standard s 11

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

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

them at other hearings. 14

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

member of our state Gover ning Board. And he spoke earlier 16

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

Act requires the federal EPA to set standards that protect 18

public health and protect health for everyone. 19

In California, with the dirtiest air in the 20

country, th e added health protection from this proposed 21

standard is especially important. Everyone, including 22

children, seniors, people suffering from lung and heart 23

disease and people in all communities have a right to 24

clean, healthy air. 2546

You have an important opportunity today to save 1

thousands of lives across the country by adopting a 2

stronger standard that will drive stronger pollution clean

3

up efforts. We have testified before you before as you've 4

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

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

act. 7

The Clean Air Act requires the standards be set 8

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

margin of safety. Th e clear intent of Congress has been 10

affirmed by a unanimous decis ion of the Supreme Court. 11

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

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

quickly to implement th at standard. 14

You have already hear d from opponents today 15

say ing that economic considerations should be placed before 16

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

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

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

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

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

And e vidence has continued to mount up about the 22

health dangers posed by ozone below the existing standard 23

as you are well aware

. These health dangers impact 24

everyone, even healthy adults, but esp ecially children and 2547

individuals with compromised lung health. Newer evidence 1

warns that inhaling dangerous smog worsens heart disease, 2

causes harm to the central nervous system, and increases 3

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

worsen ing lung illnesses. 5

Unfortunately, ozone pollution can also lead to 6

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

the story you just heard from Jaxin Woodward about the 8

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

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

conditions as part of their daily lives. 11

The benefits of a stronger standard are clear. 12

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

prevent up to over 7,900 premature deaths, 1 .8 million 14

asthma attacks in children and 1.9 million missed school 15

days each year. It will certainly provide essential public 16

health protection. The costs of maintaining the status quo 17

are unacceptable. The health benefits from adopting a 18

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

by 2025 and more after that. 20

Striving for clean, healthy air is personal for 21

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

children that play soccer constantly for club and school 23

teams, and these activ itie s keep us constantly on the run 24

almost every day. However, my son Lucas has seasonal 2548

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

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

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

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

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

smog can make his asthma worse. 6

The Clean Air Act requires that the ozone 7

standard protect all children whose lungs are still gr owing 8

and developing. 9

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

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

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

clean up carbon pollution and all climate pollutants . And 13

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

moving forward to transition away from dirty petroleum 15

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

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

truly protects public health. 18

I n closing, we are depending on you. P lease 19

remember that setting a standard of 60 parts per billion 20

will provide more certainty , cleaner air , and avoid 21

billions of dollars in health costs. 22

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone 23

Review Panel

- – 20 esteemed and independent scientists

- – 24

looked at the evidence from over 2,000 studies. These 2549

scientists unanimously concluded EPA must set a standard 1

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

lower bound of 60 would offer more publi c health protection 3

and would provide an adequate margin of safety. 4

On behalf of the American Lung Association in 5

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

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

residents of California , decrease lung emergencies and 8

decrease health care costs faced by our residents every 9

day. 10

A standard of 60 p arts p er b illion will help 11

everyone breathe easier in California and across the 12

country. Thank you for your consideration. 13

MR. PAGE: Than k you, very much. 14

MS. WEBBER: Thanks, Bonnie. 15

LISA HOYOS 16

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

and c o
- founder of a national organization called Climate 18

Parents. 19

We represent 50,000 parents and grandparents 20

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

your leadership in calling for a strengthened standard for 22

ground

- level ozone

. 23

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

a final standard that is strong enough to protect the 2550

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

said, according to the recommendations of the Clean Air 2

Scientific Advisory Committee whose recommendation your 3

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

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

cross all demographics and economic classes. We all have 6

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

fuel pollution toward the end of securing two essential 8

outcomes for our kids. 9

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

other words, that it doesn't cause ast hma or other 11

respiratory diseases that are harming our kids and other 12

high risk groups while costing our society of billions of 13

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

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

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

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

kids that is climate safe. 18

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

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

climate pollutan t that we need to dramatically reduce, but 21

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

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

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

already, from fossil fuel interests telling you that we 2551

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

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

necessary and that advocates and people who have asthma are 3

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

Parents and imp acted communities who can't afford to 5

advertise during the Super Bowl like the fossil fuel 6

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

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

standard. 9

I've already touched on the links between ozone 10

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

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

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

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

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

greatest strides on both fronts. 16

Since the EPA hearings you all held in Texas and 17

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

submitted comments and will continue to submit them until 19

the March deadline. I n a June 2014 letter submitted to the 20

EPA by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee it was 21

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

billion would certainly offer more public health protection 23

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

provide an adequate margin of safety. " 2552

I want to end with a quote by EPA Administrator 1

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

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

protections have endured because they’re engine ered to 4

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

update air quality standards

– - to fulfill the law’s 6

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

air.” 8

In that spirit please implement the 60 ppb 9

standard that the Clean Air S cientific Advisory Committee 10

asserts is the most protective to our kids and our 11

communities. Thank you. 12

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

here today with us. Thank you. 14

Terry Webber and Mike Wang. 15

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

TERRY WEBBER 17

MR. WEBBER: Great, so it's Terry Webber, T

- E

- R

18

R

- Y W

- E

- B

- B

- E

- R. 19

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 20

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

American Forest and Paper Association and the American Wood 22

Council. We're the national trade associations 23

representing wood products, pulp, paper, packaging, 24

manufacturing

. 2553

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must upd ate its 1

assessment of the latest science and consider whether any 2

changes are needed to the National Ambient Air Quality 3

Standards at least every five years. The Administration 4

has significant discretion in determining what is requisite 5

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

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

but President Obama intervened and asked Administrator 8

Jackson to withdraw the rule, which she did. 9

States should proceed with implementing the 2008 10

ozone s tandard first before EPA moves the ozone goal posts 11

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

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

many ser i ous, sever e and extreme nonattainment d esignations 14

in the South Coast and the Central V alley, including right 15

here in the Sacramento area. 16

EPA’s ill

- timed attempt to tighten ozone NAAQS in 17

2011 drew focus away from the important tasks of 18

designating areas as non

- attainment and then identifying 19

additional controls from mobile and stationar y sources 20

through s tate i mplementation p lans. States, EPA and 21

regulated entities should focus on those designation 22

efforts. Constantly moving these air quality goal posts 23

creates significant business uncertainty for investments 24

that are critical to our g lobal competitiveness. 2554

Air quality has gotten significantly better over 1

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

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

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

compou nd emissions from pulp, paper and wood product mills 5

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

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

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

secondary standard more stringent than the primary standard 9

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

secondary standard instead keeping to the 8

- hour form. Our 11

analysis concludes that any cumulative form of the 12

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

documents, is r edundant with the 8

- hour form and not based 14

on any tree growth data. 15

In addition, forestry and potential biomass loss 16

from ozone exposure have not been demonstrated at current 17

concentrations so the current standard is adequately 18

protective of trees. 19

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

science

- based air quality standards. However, the health 21

effect evidence for ozone has not changed significantly 22

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

change is not justified. EPA continue s to rely on studies 24

that reinforce their concerns while ignoring or giving 2555

little weight to negative or ambiguous studies. 1

Specificall y, there is a lack of definitive 2

evidence linking low levels of ozone exposure , those below 3

the current standard , to adverse health impacts. The 4

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

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

Furthermore, EPA’s new conclusions are not 7

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

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

adversely affected by ozone at the current standard. 10

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

sources and pollution from other countries , which must be 12

considered when EPA reviews the ozone limits. 13

Some ozone is generated naturally from plants, 14

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

troposphere. The proportion of ozone coming from other 16

countries as far away as China is steadily increasing and 17

becoming part of the bac kground. In some places background 18

concentrations , ozone that originates from natural sources 19

or transported international emissions , contribute to over 20

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

notes the lack of clarity regarding how ozon e standards are 22

impacted by background concentrations. 23

Finally, while EPA cannot consider costs when 24

setting the NAAQS, the costs of mistakenly tightening the 2556

standard are significant when there is such scientific 1

uncertainty. 2

EPA’s own cost benefit analysis would make the 3

ozone rule one of the most expensive air regulations ever 4

at over $15 billion. More complete industry assessments 5

put the economy

- wide annual cost many times higher with 6

significant energy cost increases and job losses. The 7

revisi ons could place most of the country in nonattainment, 8

putting five times more paper and wood product mills at 9

risk. Our industry has already invested billions of 10

dollars to help make our air clea n er while making products 11

essential for everyday life. 12

Giv en the significant scientific uncertainties 13

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

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

protective of public health and not set a different 16

secondary standard. Thank you. 17

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 18

MICHAEL WANG 19

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

Wang, W

- A

- N

- G, and I am with the Western States Petroleum 21

Association. 22

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

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

here

- - one of the previous speakers

-- so I get credit for 2557

finding it. Thank you. 1

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

yes. 3

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

organization that represents 25 companies that explore for, 5

develop, refine, market and transport petroleum and 6

petroleum products in the Western United States. Our 7

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

standard as many regions in the west, particularly in 9

California, are already doing everything possible to attain 10

the current Ambient Air Quality Standards. 11

WSPA supports the option EPA included in the 12

proposal to retain the current ozone

-- the primary 13

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone at the 14

level of .075 parts per million. Further, WSPA su pports 15

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

equal to the primary standard and again supports the level 17

of .075 pp b for the NAAQS. 18

Recognizing that our oral comments are limited we 19

will highlight three issues here and provide writte n 20

comments as EPA has requested. 21

First, we see that no new confirmed and 22

applicable data have been provided. We understand that no 23

new confirmed and applicable data have been provided beyond 24

what was reviewed as part of the previous ozone setting. 2558

While we understand that the previous review 1

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

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

two small studies that have been based upon assumptions 4

inapplicable to the public , t hat have no t been confirmed by 5

other studies , and that compound areas and assumptions by 6

assuming the most conserved decision for all parameters. 7

Therefore, with no real additional substantiating 8

documentation given that much of the nation, especially 9

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

emissions with little resulting increase in health 11

protection. 12

The proposed tightening of the already health 13

protective standard makes little sense. 14

EPA needs to conduct further analysis of the 15

safety and uncertainty factors used in the ozone risk 16

assessment, because any further reduction in the standard 17

would be significantly more difficult and expensive to 18

comply with. The sensitivity and accuracy of those factors 19

should be firmly established and confirmed. A small change 20

in just one risk or uncertainty factor could mean the 21

difference between an achievable standard and one that 22

could cast the whole country into nonattainment for a long 23

period of time. 24

We note that a new standard will not provide 2559

demonstrable in addition to health protection. EPA should 1

make clear that standard setting by itself does not provide 2

additional health prote ction to the public. Additional 3

health protection is only provided when that level is 4

achieved. We recognize that standard setting is a 5

scientific exercise, but science doesn't take into 6

consideration the uncertainty in achieving the standard. 7

The chal lenge facing the United States is that 8

each successive tightening of a health standard assumes 9

that zero risks or zero health impacts is an achievable 10

goal and that efforts to achieve that standard can be 11

reasonably undertaken. However, our collective exp erience 12

is that attaining increasingly stringent standards is 13

becoming increasingly costly and potentially unfeasible in 14

the short

- term. 15

Finally, a lowered standard can approach 16

background ozone levels making attainment a virtual 17

impossibility irrespecti ve of the control strategy chosen 18

or level of health protection. We note here that 19

background ozone makes a substantial contribution to 20

observed ozone at concentrations greater than 50 ppb in the 21

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

Recent model results suggest that background 23

ozone has greater contributions from stratospheric sources 24

than earlier models suggest, especially relative to Asian 2560

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

already. 2

We understand that the North America n background 3

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

ozone concentration. In California where WSPA has much 5

experience clean ocean air might have background 6

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

California and the West , the Asian pollution component can 8

add 3 to 10 ppb to background levels. 9

Again, thank you for allowing us to speak and 10

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

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

Our next speakers are Christoph er Emery and 13

Kathleen Karle. 14

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

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

CHRISTOPHER EMERY 17

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

Emery, E

- M

- E

- R

- Y, and I am a Senior Manager at ENVIRON 19

International Corp oration. I developed the photochemical 20

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

Regulatory Impact Analysis. 22

My comments today to relate to four specific 23

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

of the RIA and given my short time today I will include 2561

additional supporting detail in the written docket. 1

Number one, ozone is a unique problem and 2

presents unique challenges. Ozone is formed from complex 3

nonlinear chemical interactions and ozone background or the 4

amount no t formed from U.S. sources can approach or even 5

exceed alternative ozone standards of 60 to 70 ppb, 6

particularly in areas of the Western U.S. 7

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

ozone concentrations that are already near background. And 9

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

increasing global background, particularly the 11

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

assuming an unchanging background in the RIA, regardless 13

the RIA states itself that the ozone at 20 of 2 6 remote 14

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

response to emission reductions in the U.S. 16

Number two, EPA simulated a series of incremental 17

region specific emission reductions applied to 2025 18

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

comprise various known and unknown controls with associated 20

cost estimates. The incremental loads and response from 21

each test were linearly added until a standard was reached 22

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

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

that EPA carefully revise it for clarity. EPA recognizes 2562

limitations in this approach, particularly the linear 1

assumption and the lack of co

- benefits from transport among 2

regions. A final verifyin g model simulation should be 3

conducted to correct ly account for these effects. 4

Number three, EPA projects a 6 million ton per 5

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

2011 to 8 million in 2015. This 14

- year forecast involves 7

numerous assu mptions and uncertainties and yet it remains 8

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

deep NOx cuts of several million tons per year by 10

admittedly unknown means are estimated to meet standards 11

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

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

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

per billion. 15

While our analysis used the same model version 16

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

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

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

finding illustrates the uncertainty resulting from modeling 20

assumptions and techniques. Such uncertainty associated 21

with deep unidentified reductions ra ises concerns about the 22

feasibility of meeting lower ozone standards. 23

Number four, the vast majority, about 75 percent 24

of the reported total benefit of alternative ozone 2563

standards is actually associated with the PM2.5 co

- benefit. 1

A simple benefit per t on of NOx reduction was set 2

according to prior EPA analyses from last year based on 3

older modeling projections for a different set of years. 4

EPA acknowledges limitations with the approach such as 5

ignoring nonlinear relationships between NOx and PM2.5. 6

Th is effect is likely significant in areas expecting very 7

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

that uncertainty related to air quality projections cannot 9

be quantified for this co

- benefit. This presents a major 10

weakness in the cost bene fit analysis, which should be 11

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

scenarios. 13

The RIA suggests that the approached estimate 14

PM2.5 co

- benefits reduces uncertainty, relative to more 15

spatially

- refined estimates, but provides no evidence or 16

argument to support this statement. Elsewhere the RIA 17

suggests that uncertainty increases when dollar pretend 18

benefits are applied outside the specific scenario used in 19

their derivation such as this case. Arguments about 20

directionality are i n conflict, demonstrating the need to 21

improve confidence ranges for the PM2.5 co

- benefit. Thank 22

you for your time. 23

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 24

// 2564

KATHLEEN KARLE 1

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

Kathleen with a K, Karle, K

- A

- R

- L

- E. I am the d ivision 3

m anager for h ealth p romotion at the San Luis Obispo County 4

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

miles south of Sacramento. 6

In my work I manage programs, which promote the 7

good health of our residents including tobacco contro l, 8

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

climate change messaging. I am also here today 10

representing the nearly 3,000 local health departments 11

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

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

the National Association of County and City Health 14

Officials. 15

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

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

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

o n code orange and code red unhealthy ozone days vulnerable 19

people like children and the elderly can be limited in 20

their outdoor activities. And this can impact their health 21

and well

- being. 22

Currently, San Luis Obispo County is designated 23

as nonattainment of the federal ozone standard in the 24

e astern part of our county. The eastern part of our county 2565

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

traffic on surrounding roads. Exceedences of the federal 2

ozone standard in this area are due to tr ansport of 3

pollution from Californian metropolitan areas and the San 4

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

air quality stands to improve as well. 6

Breathing ozone causes shortness of breath, 7

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

numerous respiratory

- related health concerns from increased 9

risk of infections to more frequent emergency department 10

visits and hospitalizations. 11

R esearch has shown that concentrations of ozone 12

above 60 parts per billion cause risk to many healthy 13

adults as well. And most critically to vulnerable 14

populations: children, seniors, people with asthma and 15

other chronic heart and lung disease. Research also 16

indicates that long

- term ozone exposure may cause premature 17

death. 18

We are all w ell aware of the obesity epidemic in 19

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

either overweight or obese. The health educators I 21

supervise in my division are continually educating our 22

community about the importance of regular exercise and 23

act ive transportation as a means to combat obesity. 24

The content of the air we breathe, especially 2566

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

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

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

between May and October when higher temperatures increase 4

sunlight and stagnate atmospheric conditions transform air 5

pollutants into ozone. Rising temperatures from climate 6

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

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

possible. 9

I am here today to applaud the new ozone standard 10

proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The 11

current standard is out

- of

- date and is long overdue for 12

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

the current standard is not sufficient to protect the 14

public's health. As a co

- benefit updating the ozone 15

standard will also improve protection for trees, plants, 16

agriculture and ecosystems that are sensitive to ozone 17

pollution. 18

I stand with the public health and medical 19

community in asking EPA to adopt the most protective 20

standard recommended by independent doctors and scientists 21

of 60 parts per billion. Strengthening the ozone standard 22

will go a long way toward reducing po llution and improving 23

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

nation. Thank you. 2567

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

Mr. Jack Broadbent and Amy Mmagu. 2

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

first. 4

JACK BROADBENT 5

Mr. BRO ADBENT: Good morning. Again, my name is 6

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

pollution control officer for the Bay Area Air Quality 8

Management District . Thank you for the opportunity to be 9

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

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

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is 12

the local air pollution control agency for the Greater San 13

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

with a wide variety of sources including 5 million vehicles 15

and a diversity of stationary sources including over 100 16

Title 5 sources. 17

In partnership with the EPA and the State of 18

California we have made significant progress in reducing 19

ozone concentrations over the last sever al decades. And 20

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

significant growth over the last several decades and also a 22

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

said, we believe that

-- and today we find ourselves with a 24

desi gn value of in the low 70s. So what we expect to see, 2568

of course, with a lower ozone standard is continuing 1

nonattainment with regard to federal ozone standard. 2

That being said we believe, and strongly believe 3

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

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

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

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

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

expeditio usly and reestablish the standard. And that's 9

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

So thank you very much and we continue to look 11

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

continue to make progress in reducing ozone concentr ations 13

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

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

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

you supporting the entire range? 17

MR. BROADBENT: We would not necessarily take a 18

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

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

the best science. 21

AMY MMAGU 22

MS. MMAGU: Good morning. Amy Mmagu, A

- M

- Y M

- M

23

A

- G

- U, here on behalf of the California Chamber of 24

Commerce. Cal Chamber is the largest broad

- based business 2569

organization in the state representing over 10,000 1

businesses who are dire c tly or indirectly affected by this 2

regulation. 3

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

proposal to lower the National Ambient Air Quality 5

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

not believe the scientific evidence supports a lowering of 7

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

per billion through a series of significant control 9

programs will continue to provide ample protection of 10

public health not to mention there are numerous questions 11

surrounding the science to justify a lower standard. 12

Air quality has significantly improved and 13

continues to improve with new voluntary and regulatory 14

programs in place. And there a re others still being 15

implemented in the coming years for the regulations will be 16

implemented, therefore further reducing our air quality 17

problems. 18

Lowering the ozone standards will impede 19

industries in the state and will strain the economy by 20

putting much of California out of attainment. New 21

facilities and expansion in nonattainment areas cannot 22

precede until emissions are offset and offsets are not 23

always available. Industries located in nonattainment 24

areas face increased operating costs, permitting delays, 2570

and restrictions on building or expanding. 1

The current ozone standard is the most stringent 2

and has not been fully implemented across the United 3

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

current standard and helping industries reach attainment of 5

this standard before considering a lower standard. 6

We appreciate your time and consideration. Thank 7

you. 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 9

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

Rothschild are our next speakers. 11

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

first. 13

ANN ROTHSCHILD 14

MS. ROTHSCHILD: Hello. My name is Ann 15

Rothschild, R

- O

- T

- H

- S

- C

- H

- I

- L

- D

. I'm a mother and a 16

grandmother and a teacher and a member of a church 17

environmental group from Trinity Episcopal Cathedral here 18

in Sacramento. 19

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

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

billion recommended by scientists and health professionals. 22

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

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

for this opportunity. 2571

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

most vulnerable to air pollution and apparently asthma is 2

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

How a ppalling that some children cannot play outside, 4

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

billion would prevent approximately 1.8 million asthma 6

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

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

own reports. 9

Smog also disproportionately affects communities 10

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

counties with worse smog pollution. They have nearly two 12

times the rates of current asthma than white children and 13

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

appalling . T here is no excuse. I believe we cannot allow 15

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

justice in mind and not let such persons of discrimination 17

exist. 18

We must act for those wh o are underrepresented: 19

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

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

breathe is a sacred responsibility and I believe we must 22

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

to ad opt the standard for ozone recommended by our health 24

professionals, no more than 60 parts per billion. 2572

If a standard does not protect the most 1

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

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

that oil and gas companies and the fracking industry are 4

exempt from critical statutes in the Safe Drinking Water 5

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

is this unconscionable. These industries are the precise 7

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

close all loopholes for large polluting industries. Thank 9

you, so much. 10

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 11

Mr. Slover? 12

JIMMY SLOVER 13

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

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

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

comes when it comes

. 17

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

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

suffering daily from our ozone. We are right now

-- most 20

people don't know this

-- but we are right now on day 33 of 21

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

standards, just not good. 23

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

tell you here and now this morning that the ozone affects 2573

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see another 15 years just by being abl e to breathe cleaner 9

air. 10

I like the most here that said this morning about 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many people do not realize the warming 18

temperatures caused by pollution are increasing pollen 19

lev els and ozone can actually exacerbate allergic 20

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

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

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

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

guys and mankind I'll get to see another 15 hopefully. 2574

Thank you. 1

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

Mr. Gibbe Parsons and Karina Silvas

- Bellanca. 3

Mr. Parsons, you're first up. 4

GIBBE PARSONS 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

delegate to the AMA House of Delegates representing 13

American Thoracic Society. 14

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

all know ozone is a po tent oxidant that damages airways and 16

lungs, especially in asthmatics, young children and other 17

susceptible populations. And the most recent standard for 18

ozone in an 8

- hour level of 75 parts per billion was last 19

revised in 2007

- 2008. 20

And the main comm ent is that during those years 21

science has progressed and there's new information that 22

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

60 parts per billion. 24

Pediatric asthma emergency department visits, 2575

there's a long

- term study of air pollutio n and health 1

effects ongoing in Atlanta, Georgia since 1993 that 2

monitors daily ozone and other pollutants and takes daily 3

counts of emergency department visits for asthma and 4

wheezing among children ages 5 through 17. Increased ED 5

visits occurred with wa rm season ozone levels of 55 parts 6

per billion and during cold seasons of 34 parts per 7

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

A newer review of these data showed that children 9

born preterm and children born to African

- American mothers 10

h ad an especially high rate of visits for asthma and 11

wheeze. 12

Data from the 17

- year Atlanta study also shows 13

that preschool children ages 0 to 4 had increased 14

susceptibility for pneumonia with increasing levels of 15

ozone. For each 30 part s per billion incr ease in the 16

three

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

risk of pneumonia. 18

The San Joaquin Valley in California ranks very 19

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

report some of the highest rates of asthma and asthma

21

rela ted ED visits and hospitalizations in California. This 22

clearly is a pressing issue for California. 23

Even in normal adults ozone exposure causes 24

measurable changes. And a study done at UC Davis enrolled 2576

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

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

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

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

expiratory volume in one second, which is a pulmonary 5

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

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

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

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

normal, non

- sick, non

- asthmatic adu lts. 10

So the review of the ozone standard is entirely 11

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

scientific data published since 2007 when this was reviewed 13

that led to this 75 part s per billion standard. 14

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

levels permitted by the current standard is damaging to 16

human lung and contributes to disease. And we strongly 17

encourage the EPA and the Administration to move forward 18

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

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

Thank you. 21

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

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

have all of the background information that you're 24

referring to? 2577

Mr. PARSONS: Right. 1

MS. STONE: Thank you, so much

. 2

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

KARINA SILVAS

- BELLANCA 4

MS. SILVAS

- BELLANCA: Karina Silvas

- Bellanca and 5

that's K

- A

- R

- I

- N

- A, last name, S

- I

- L

- V

- A

- S

- B

- E

- L

- L

- A

- N

- C

- A. 6

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

Karina Silvas

- Bellanca again. I'm here representing Sierra 8

Forest Legacy. We're an environmental conservation group 9

that promote protecting conservation values for wildlife 10

species and the resiliency of our ecosystems. 11

I'm also here today to re present the Southern 12

Sierra Prescribed Fire Council where we use fire to 13

maintain landscapes for longevity of forest ecosystems, 14

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

the future . S o more stringent ground ozone standards as 16

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

that fail to meet the standards. 18

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

many ecosystems that are fire dependent where it may become 20

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

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

habitat quality, sustain the forest and rangeland 23

resources, as well as provide for increased safety for 24

human and health. 2578

An increase in these standards from 75 parts per 1

billion to 70 parts pe r billion would result in a doubling 2

of federal and nonfederal acres that would be in 3

nonattainment nationally. That's 140 million acres 4

currently that are in nonattainment and that would increase 5

to 280 million acres. 6

In California that would be near ly two

- thirds of 7

the state that would fall under nonattainment if the EPA 8

determines that 60 parts per billion would be the new 9

standard. 10

Many of the nonattainment areas will be in the 11

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

Klamath region s of California, which are fire dependent. 13

And these standards could lead to control strategies at the 14

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

decrease the susceptibility of high

- intensity wildfires. 16

These un characteristic wildfires produce long duration and 17

widespread smoke events that have widespread negative 18

impacts on the communities, both from a health perspective 19

as well as an economic impact as well. 20

Prescribed fire activities are vital to maintain 21

are vital to maintain and enha nce the resiliency of these 22

ecosystems and to prevent the long duration severe impacts 23

of wildfires. The proposed rule

-- in the proposed rule 24

EPA acknowledges the complex interrelationship of 2579

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

specifi c language to ensure prescribed fire activities will 2

be treated differently than any other contributing 3

industrial source in nonattainment areas. 4

Wildfire is noted as a natural background 5

condition, but no clear statements have been made to 6

outline h ow prescribed fire and fire

- adapted ecosystems fit 7

into the natural background. This is concerning, because 8

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

of good fire; fire that promotes ecosystem resilience to 10

stressors such as climate chan ge and uncharacteristic 11

wildfires. 12

The EPA does not address the current changes in 13

climate trends and increasing wildfires ; although they do 14

point out that the trends could result in more stringent 15

requirements to meet programs towards nonattainment. 16

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

standards, these trends and relationships, and smoke events 18

that are produced by large and uncharacteristic wildfires , 19

such as the R im F ire of last year or the King Fire , versus 20

short

- duration impacts from prescribed fire activities. 21

And the cost benefits that those will have for the 22

ecosystems and for people. 23

Additionally, the proposal outlines the 24

exceptional event policy and this is a risky strategy to 2580

rely on, because the cost of monitoring is current ly high 1

and it's not user

- friendly. So we would like to see the 2

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

a role in our ecosystems and how fuels accumulations will 4

be considered in fire

- dependent ecosystems for California 5

and nationally. Thank you. 6

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

Mr. Eric Moore and John Friedrich. 8

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

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

ERIC MOORE 11

MR. MOORE: Hello. My name is Eric Moore, E

- R

- I

12

C M

- O

- O

- R

- E. I'm here today for the Central Coast 13

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

heart condition. 15

And I wanted to start out with just a little 16

history. The earliest Europeans to come to California, 17

such as Juan Crespi, one of the original missionary 18

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

Scientific studies show that before the arrival of the 20

Europeans, an average of 10 percent of California burned 21

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

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

Ice Age. 24

These frequent fires created a fire

- dependent 2581

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

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

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

and endangered species need fire to survive. These species 4

started going into decline as modern fire suppression 5

policies were introduced. Both of California’s famous 6

redwood species are pyrophytes whose seeds germinate b est 7

after a fire. 8

Modern fire suppression’s legacy is that 9

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

the last 12 thousand years. Firefighting agencies are 11

increasingly unable to suppress large fires due to this 12

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

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

current mega

- fires such as the Rim Fire and the massive 15

impacts these things have on air quality. 16

These fires can also sterilize large tracts of 17

land and era dicate endangered plant s and animal populations 18

there

. 19

The only practical way to restore fire to the 20

ecosystem and enhance the survivability of these endangered 21

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

Anything else involves massive qua ntities of diesel. It's 23

also the most effective. Controlled burns are also the 24

only way that catastrophic air quality impacts from mega

- 2582

fires can be mitigated. For these reasons, controlled 1

burns need to be considered as part of the natural 2

background l evels in this regulation. 3

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

must accept the liability and responsibility for forcing 5

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

extinction. 7

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 8

JOHN FRIEDRICH 9

M R. FRIEDRICH: Hello. I am John Friedrich with 10

Climate Parents, a group of parents and grandparents 11

working for a healthy climate for our children and 12

grandchildren. And I'm one of those parents with an eight

13

year
- old daughter who motivates my work. 14

We support the EPA's init iative to set stronger, 15

clean air protections against ground

- level ozone pollution 16

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

proposed to adequately protect the most vulnerable 18

breathers. 19

Former Senator Hubert Humphrey once said that, 20

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

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

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

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

tes t clearly applies to the standard for smog, which causes 2583

the most harm to children, the elderly an d those with 1

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

standard that is sufficient to protect these most at

- risk 3

groups. 4

EPA's Clean Air Scienti fic Advisory Committee 5

provides clear guidance on the smog limit needed to protect 6

our children, grandparents and others most at

- risk to 7

respiratory illnesses. The Committee noted that children 8

are especially at

- risk to ozone pollution. School

- age 9

childr en spend an increased amount of time outdoors in high 10

levels of activity, which increases air intake. 11

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

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

standard lower than 70 parts per billion. The Com mittee 14

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

parts per billion provides little margin of safety for the 16

protection of public health, particularly for sensitive 17

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

proposed range will not protect kids from the pollutants 19

fueling asthma and other devastating diseases. 20

The Committee concluded that 60 parts per billion 21

would certainly offer more public health protection than 22

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

ad equate margin of safety. The Committee said that the 24

frequency of lung ailments and premature mortality from 2584

short

- term exposure to ozone decreases when the standard is 1

lowered to 60 parts per billion. There is scientific 2

support that 60 parts per billio n is an appropriate 3

exposure of concern for asthmatic children. Translated, 60 4

parts per billion means fewer children suffer, fewer 5

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

So we urge EPA to take the advice of its 7

Scientific Advisory Committee and set the smog standard at 8

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

limit for ground

- level ozone will compliment EPA's proposed 10

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

on power plant pollution that is both harming lungs and 12

driving climate change. 13

A lower limit on smog will incentive clean energy 14

policies and practices that we need right now to avoid 15

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

a burden some regulation, it is an important market signal 17

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

skies to a clear new dawn of possibilities. 19

Given the stakes for our children and 20

g randchildren with the health of their planet and 21

themselves this is not a time for meek measures . S o 22

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

children, communities and climate by setting the new 24

standard for smog at 60 parts per billion or lower. Thank 2585

you, very much. 1

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

Our next speakers are Reverend Will Scott and 3

Victoria Chu. 4

REVEREND WILL SCOTT 5

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

the p rogram d irector for California Interfaith Power and 7

Light. 8

The world’s religious traditions all spe ak of the 9

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

honored this gift, and industrial air pollution creates 11

serious health consequences for too many of our 12

communities. Our most vulnerable members

-- children, the 13

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

as asthma

-- are most endangered, and lives are lost 15

unnecessarily every year. 16

California Interfaith Power and Light , and our 17

640

- member congregations across the state , believe we have 18

a moral responsibility to advocate for our neighbors and 19

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

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

quality of life for all people. 22

We urge the EPA to adopt the standard for ozone 23

recommended by health pro fessionals

-- no more than 60 24

parts per billion. If a standard does not protect the most 2586

vulnerable among us

– - children, the elderly, and those 1

with asthma

– - then it’s not strong enough.” 2

As a minister, my colleagues and I hear stories 3

every day of fa milies struggling with the consequences of 4

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

children and grandchildren, parents and grandparents 6

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

work together for the common good, to ens ure that those 8

whose job it is to protect public and environmental health 9

are supported in their efforts. 10

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

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

Sam. Please remember them, remember u s as you undertake 13

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

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

VICTORIA CHU 16

Good morning. My name is Victoria Chu , C

- H

- U, 17

and I work as an e nergy a nalyst at the Sierra Club in 18

Washington D.C. 19

Thank you for the opportuni ty to share my 20

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

NAAQS of 60 parts per billion consistent with the standard 22

of protecting public health. My statement today takes a 23

dual approach

-- u nderstanding the deeply emotional 24

connection I have with this issue locally and expanding it 2587

to the scale across my own understanding and expertise. 1

As a 23

- year
- old Vietnamese American I have the 2

opportunity to view my world with a dual lens. 3

In t he aftermath of the Vietnam War my parents 4

escaped their homeland from the violence that devastated 5

their country. For years they endured refugee camps and 6

reeducation camps before finally being sponsored to the 7

United States. Their goal in combating the se great odds 8

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

be under conditions that offered the greatest opportunities 10

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

My dad worked tirelessly as a gardener to provide 12

the best educat ion and opportunity for his three daughters. 13

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

treasure and that is the direct connection of my identity 15

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

week before his 50th birthday I came t o appreciate the 17

spirit behind this movement, providing safeguards for 18

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

protect our planet. 20

I sit here today as one of three daughters who 21

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

gre atest lessons were to live a life of conviction, 23

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

here, fighting for clean air. 2588

With my dual lens I have a keen understanding of 1

the disproportionate impacts that smog pollution has on 2

communities of color, and impoverished communities across 3

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

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

the University of Southern California I am no stranger to 6

the effects of ozone pollution. As a student of 7

Paleo climatology and E nvironmental S cience I not only knew 8

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

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

The duality of already persistent ozone pollution 11

coupled with global climate change has a lasting 12

synergistic effect on our economy, environment and 13

communities. As temperatures increase across the globe 14

days conducive to ozone formation will be more frequent. 15

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

to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century due to 17

anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and heat

- trapping gases our 18

futures in our ability to mitigate and reduce future 19

emissions to stop a feedback loop between warming 20

temperatures and ground

- level ozone

. 21

The benefit of acting now is that both ozone 22

pollution and climate change are fundamentally linked by 23

our actions to use dirty fossil fuels to generate 24

electricity. Let us address both issues by investing in 2589

more fuel

- efficient cars, using more renewabl e energy 1

sources like wind and solar, and revolutionize our own 2

ability to breathe clean air. 3

I comp el the EPA to seize the opportunity today 4

to lower the precursor pollutants leading to ground

- level 5

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

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

use, and the pollution we emit impact the health and well

8

being of the future. The benefits of pushing for the 9

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

quality, public health and economy. Thank you. 11

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

Our next speakers are Susan Stephenson and Mike 13

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

SUSAN STEPHENSON 15

Good morning. My name is Susan Stephenson and 16

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

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

other hearings in other parts of the country. 19

I appreciate you holding this hearing on these 20

important ozone standards. Reducing ozone pollution, which 21

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

people across the country. The proposed stronger 23

regulations would especially help children who are at 24

greatest risk from air pollution. In addition, studies 2590

have shown that smog pollution disproport ionately affects 1

communities of color. 2

The se regulations were last updated in 2008. 3

That year, the Bush A dministration rejected the 4

recommendations of expert scientists and medical health 5

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

billion standard was insufficient to protect public health. 7

In November 2014, EPA proposed lowering the 8

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

billion , while also accepting comment on 60 par ts per 10

billion

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

parts per billion. We believe t he body of peer

- reviewed 12

science makes clear that to adequately protect public 13

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

parts per billion. 15

Int erfaith Power and Light works with 15,000 16

faith communities around the country reaching 5 million 17

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

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

all bound together by our shared religious mandate to care 20

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

vulnerable members of our society. 22

We feel we have a moral duty to advocate for 23

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

themselves. While t hese hearings are apprecia ted, they are 2591

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

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

without any opportunity to testify before you. 3

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

or school or may be ill or unable to attend. But al though 5

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

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

respiratory illness are over

- represented as sufferers of 8

ozone pollution. 9

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

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

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

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

and prevent 1.9 million missed school days. 14

We know that c hildren are at the greatest health 15

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

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

number one issue causing kids to miss school. 18

Smog also disproportionately affects communities 19

of color. Afr ican Americans are more likely to live in 20

counties with worse smog pollution, have nearly two times 21

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

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

kind of disparity to continue

. 24

I urge the EPA to adopt the standard for ozone 2592

recommended by health professionals

— - 60 parts per 1

billion. If a standard does not protect the most 2

vulnerable among us

– - children, the elderly, and those 3

with asthma

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

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

Thank you. 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 7

MICHAEL MONASKY 8

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

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

-- 10

MR. PAGE: Spell that last na me, please? 11

MR. MONASKY: It's spelled M

- O

- N

- A

- S

- K

- Y. I'm 12

here to speak on the proposed changes to human ozone 13

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

Low

- level ozone, a highly active molecule with 15

three oxygen atoms, is created when the sun e nergizes 16

manmade smog in the atmosphere. It inflames and excoriates 17

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

we can take into our lungs, and worse n s asthma and chronic 19

lung disease. Excess ozone at ground level harms 20

susceptible human p opulations of infants, elderly, those 21

with compromised immune systems and those persons with 22

fragile cardiopulmonary systems. 23

According to U.S. OSHA standards

-- and that's of 24

course Occupational Safety and Health

-- the output of 2593

ozone generators otherw ise used to disinfect water is 1

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

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

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

general atmosphere be allowed to exceed 50 parts per 5

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

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

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

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

actually caused a decreas e in forced expiratory volume in 10

one second. 11

Excessive ground

- level ozone interferes with 12

physical activities of healthy persons who exert themselves 13

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

ozone poses a three

- fold risk of asthma, decr eased lung 15

capacity and lung disease in otherwise healthy persons. 16

A lower ozone exposure level will lead to better 17

overall public health outcomes with fewer episodes of 18

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

young, otherwise healt hy children during exercise ; less 20

exacerbation of chronic lung disease in afflicted 21

individuals ; and fewer cases of chronic intrinsic asthma, 22

which is what we r eally should be concerned about in the 23

long run. Less ground

- level ozone will lead to cost 24

savi ngs due to less expenditure of public funds for 2594

otherwise preventable lung disease. 1

Ozone seems to be part of the business plan. 2

Central Valley has been called the salad bowl of the 3

nation . T here are physical and monetary costs to those who 4

become af flicted with lung disease due to excessive ground

5

level ozone exposures. Those costs are external to 6

commercial businesses that grow plants in the Central 7

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

a web of deleterious effects between ind ividuated 9

transportation systems of cars, trucks propelled by 10

internal combustion engines, highways engineered to support 11

sprawling communities in the suburbs. 12

Food from the salad bowl of California trucked an 13

average 1,500 miles, served on plates thro ughout this 14

nation and the world, disappearing glaciers in our national 15

parks, disrupted weather patterns of drought and flood that 16

breech and exceed all known meteorlogic records. 17

A consumer society drunken with the gluttony of 18

faster and bigger vehic les fed by the availability of 19

progressively cheaper fossil fuel s through what I consider 20

the obscene gesture called fracking. The government tends 21

to stand by the very businesses that guarantee economic 22

growth and financial resources at any cost

. 23

I applaud the agency in its efforts to reduce the 24

adverse effects of air pollutants upon our people and 2595

planet by applying more stringent enforcement regulation of 1

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

years ago on soot and there have been more stringent 3

standards applied since then. 4

And I'd like to close

-- well not close, but 5

further state the social justice role in the faith 6

community in mitigating global warming and other 7

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

children deserve better than floods, droughts, maelstroms 9

and economic mayhem. They deserve clear skies, clean 10

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

unfunny joke played upon the unsuspecting and the 12

unprepared. 13

There are no sharp lines delineating our water, 14

air and soil. Carbon dioxide warms our atmosphere and 15

acidifies our oceans in the water cycle, which replenishes 16

our soil and aquifers. Ozone is essential to the 17

atmosphere, but intensely destructive of lif e at the 18

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

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

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

children today. 22

Human ozone exposure is an alarming problem, but 23

planet ary warming has already taken hold as the ice pack of 24

Greenland and the western ice shelf of Antarctica melt low 2596

lying coastal and inland regions will drown under water 1

including Bangladesh, the Netherlands, Long Island and 2

Manhattan, New York, the Sacrame nto

- San Joaquin Delta, New 3

Orleans, the list long and indiscrim inate. I am discussing 4

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

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

Power and Light endeavors. 7

Right now we're actua lly reading "The Collapse of 8

Western Civilization," which is a rather interesting tome 9

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

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

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

C hanges Everything," of course on bestseller lists. 13

I'm encouraging them to submit that my fellow 14

folks in faith

-- to submit their concerns and remarks to 15

this agency before the March 2015 deadline as they become 16

more informed about how various chemical byproducts of 17

carbon combustion including ozone affect our atmosphere, 18

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

safety. 20

There is still much more to be said and done 21

regarding economic and externalities, the unaccounted for 22

costs of doing b usiness as usual that have been mentioned 23

before by other witnesses, and our carbon combustion 24

society. 2597

The foulest outcome afflict the poorest among us, 1

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

asthma and other lung diseases is not i ncluded in the price 3

of commodities such as petroleum fuels and agricultural 4

produce. Blacks and Hispanics have two

- to

- three

- fold 5

incidents of lung disease compared to white population and 6

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

areas with high pollution and low access to health care 8

resources. 9

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

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

with

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

MR. PAGE: Yeah, great. 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

you very mu ch for coming today. 20

Our next speakers are Mr. Robert Boughton and 21

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

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

you go ahead? 24

MS. STOVALL: Okay. 2598

MR. PAGE: All right. 1

LINDSAY STOVALL 2

MS. STOV ALL: Good morning. My name is Lindsay 3

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

represent the leading companies engaged in the business of 5

chemistry. We apply the science of chemistry to create 6

products and services that make people's liv es better, 7

healthier and safer. 8

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

the economy providing hundreds of thousands of skilled, 10

good

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

exports and investments in research and development. ACC

12

membe r companies make a wide range of solutions such as 13

plastics and insulation products, which help save energy in 14

vehicles, homes and businesses. The energy savings result 15

in lower emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone 16

precursors. 17

I am here to voice ou r opposition to EPA's 18

proposal to lower the ozone standard. ACC believes in 19

appropriately peer

- reviewed sound science. We do not 20

believe the scientific evidence supports a lowering of the 21

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

billion w ill continue to provide ample protection of public 23

health. 24

Moreover, there are numerous questions about the 2599

science being used to justify a lower standard. Some 1

recent health studies contain inconsistent or conflicting 2

findings while others are re

- ana lyses of previous studies 3

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

air quality has significantly improved and continues to 5

improve. Voluntary and regulatory emission reduction 6

programs including cleaner fuel and utility regulations 7

will continue to yield benefits for decades to come. 8

ACC members understand and value the importance 9

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

the environment. Our commitment is reflected in our 11

significant and continued progress in reducing emissions 12

due to a combination of voluntary member company 13

initiatives such as responsible care and regulatory 14

requirements. A lower ozone standard could impede 15

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

proposal to lower the ozone standar d would result in much 17

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

Currently, 222 counties covering a population of 19

over 120 million people are classified in non

- attainment 20

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

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

estimate that more than 2,000 counties

-- both urban and 23

rural

-- would be in nonattainment based on modeling and 24

current monitoring data

. 25100

Nonattainment is not a new concept to much of 1

California. Southern Calif ornia counties have the highest 2

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

the South Coast Air Quality Management District as well as 4

Fresno and Sacramento all have 2011 to 2013 design values 5

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

projected to attain the current ozone standard in the near 7

future, let alone meet a lower ozone standard. 8

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

announced this proposal it also noted that EPA has analyzed 10

costs and benefits for Califo rnia separately, because a 11

number of California counties would likely have attainment 12

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

levels. 14

Furthermore, EPA acknowledged the need to work 15

with California as it continues to explore regulatory 16

strategies and technologies to reduce pollution and improve 17

public health protection. California has faced a uniquely 18

difficult attainment task due to the combination of adverse 19

meteorology and topography, population growth and the 20

pollution burden assoc iated with mobile sources. 21

Communities designated as nonattainment have a 22

hard time attracting and retaining industry and sustaining 23

economic activity and growth. Manufacturing growth could 24

slow or stop in states that find themselves in 25101

nonattainment as industry located in nonattainment face 1

increased operating costs, permitting delays, and 2

restrictions on building or expanding facilities. New 3

facilities and expansions in nonattainment areas cannot 4

proceed until emissions are offset. Offsets are not al ways 5

readily available and increase in price as they become 6

scarce. 7

Offset prices in Southern California 8

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

Facilities located in counties designated as in severe or 10

extreme nonattainment will f ace significant Section 185 11

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

facilities have already spent many millions of dollars or 13

emission reduction technologies. From 2010 to 2013 the San 14

Joaquin Valley residents and businesses were subjec t to a 15

29 million per year penalty under Section 185. Similarly, 16

the South Coast Air Quality Management District has been 17

required to collect fees under Section 185 since 2010. 18

In conclusion, the current ozone standard of 75 19

parts per billion is the mos t stringent ever and has not 20

yet fully been implemented across the U.S. particularly 21

for California, EPA and states should focus on fully 22

implementing and attaining the existing standard before 23

contemplating a lower standard

-- an approach that will 24

conti nue to provide necessary health protection. 25102

As the science develops further EPA will have the 1

opportunity to determine whether any additional actions 2

might be warranted in the future. Thank you, very much for 3

your time. 4

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much

. 5

Has Mr. Boughton returned to the audience, Robert 6

Boughton? All right, we'll try to work him in later if he 7

returns. 8

How about the next speakers then? Mr. Ken 9

Champion and Evan Gillespie? Welcome gentlemen, thank you 10

for being here this morning. 11

Mr. Champion, you're up first. 12

KENNETH CHAMPION 13

MR. CHAMPION: Okay. Mr. Champion, I'm a retired 14

transportation planner and my name is K

- E

- N

- N

- E

- T

- H, 15

Kenneth Champion, C

- H

- A

- M

- P

- I

- O

- N. 16

What I've come to bring to the attention of some 17

future discourse is in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento, we 18

have a air cargo base. It provides a lot of heavy body 19

jets that can go to many places throughout the world or the 20

United States. And it's underutilized at the current point 21

and time. What is important is if we could get some more 22

industry in the Sacramento County region that would be 23

green energy oriented. 24

A proposal to put before you is to consider 25103

having an assembly parts corporation for methane 1

concentrators of the best designs ; t hose for dairy barns 2

w her e methane from flatulent cows occurs , also from all the 3

different landfill garbage pits throughout the United 4

States and other countries , i f they have a need for methane 5

concentrator t echnology. And the universities and the 6

research and development bioeng ineering industry, I would 7

hope, would enter into this. 8

And I would hope from you standpoint maybe there 9

could be some federal grants or federal programs that would 10

act as incentives for the design and patenting of the best 11

of the methane concentrator ap plications such as in the 12

dairy barns; perhaps something in the roof of these barns 13

if the methane rises. 14

Also, at Keifer Landfill near Sacramento there is 15

a possibility of using their model of methane concentrator 16

capture where they have actually reus ed the methane. It 17

remains to be seen how many different after

- uses of the 18

methane could be done, but I would look to the 19

Infrastructure Bill which is before the U.S. Congress. 20

There are 69,000 bridges in the United States that are in a 21

critical conditio n and they need to be repaired. And a lot 22

of these bridges may have welding involved in that repair, 23

so that would be a huge use of the acetylene gas of which 24

methane is a part of. 25104

The economics remain to be worked out as to how 1

the systematic use of capture through these dairy barns and 2

wet garbage landfill bins, if they were standardized, for 3

all the different landfills to have a design for these 4

methane concentrators for two or three or four 5

applications. One for dairy barns, one for landfills, one 6

for perhaps where they drill down into coal bed although 7

they have pockets of methane and we're trying to get away 8

from the coal industry. But for the time period in which 9

coal is still being used they could still use methane 10

capture at those mining site s as well. So I'm trying to 11

give you specific examples of methane that is released into 12

the air. 13

Now, there's 153 percent more methane in the air 14

globally according to the National Meteorological 15

Association than there was at the beginning of the 16

indu strial revolution in the early 1800s. This is quite a 17

bit, methane is reburnable, and I don't know how much BTUs 18

through the burning of welding machines and things that we 19

might put into the atmosphere. But I would like to leave 20

this for you for future d iscourse and future and 21

possibility for grants. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Gillespie? 23

EVAN GILLESPIE 24

MR. GILLESPIE: great, thank you so much. My 25105

name is Evan Gillespie. I work for the Sierra Club and 1

live in Los Angeles. 2

MR. PAGE: Spell your name, Mr. Gillespie? 3

MR. GILLESPIE: Sure, G

- I

- L

- L

- E

- S

- P

- I

- E. 4

So I wanted to just start off with a personal 5

appeal and then respond to some comments that were made 6

earlier. 7

As I mentioned I live in Los Angeles. My wife 8

and I have a two

- year
- old son and as a child I grew up with 9

childhood asthma. We're expecting a second child this May 10

as the smog season ramps up and health is obviously a chief 11

concern as a parent. And we moved back to Los Angeles, my 12

wife grew up there, it's a place that we both love, our 13

family is there. And living in Los Angeles, as other 14

commenters have noted, it's the dirtiest region in the 15

country. And so the science is very clear, statistics are 16

very clear, when you live in a region like Los Angeles you 17

are more likely to die at an early age. 18

And so as a family we're forced to make a choice 19

between living in a place that we love, living near the 20

people that we love, and enabling our children to live the 21

life that they deserve. And as a family, as a dad, that's 22

a heartbreaking d ecision to be forced to make. And so I 23

want to appeal that you please set a standard that is as 24

health protective as is humanly possible. 25106

I was reflecting on some of the comments that 1

were made earlier and I did just want to just square away a 2

couple of quick things. On those on background ozone 3

pollution, air pollution needs to be reduced to levels that 4

do not harm human health. 5

When EPA sets the standard by law it must base 6

that decision solely on what it takes to protect public 7

health with an adequate margin of safety. In other words, 8

the only legitimate concern that we really need to be 9

talking about here is what is going to p rotect public 10

health, what's going to protect people like my son. 11

Having said that, background ozone levels are not 12

a significant or major issue here. Looking at just the 13

natural levels of ozone in spring and summer means, for 14

example, they're found to range between 15 and 35 parts per 15

billion including high elevation sites where natural ozone 16

levels are more likely to occur at a higher level. And 17

then on average they range between 20 and 25 parts per 18

billion. So even including manmade emission sources from 19

international regions background levels are only slightly 20

higher with the mean levels typically falling between 30 21

and 35 parts per billion

. 22

So to give a specific example even in Denver, 23

which is a major metropolitan level at a very high 24

elevation level manmade emissions are still responsible for 25107

about 45 percent of total ozone in the region. So I say 1

this to make a point that there's a lot of room for further 2

action. And even though background ozone levels are not an 3

issue here I think it's just worth pointing it out that EPA 4

can't actually set standards based upon attainability. It 5

has to be based on public health. 6

So a little bit of history here, in 1979 the City 7

of Houston sued EPA challenging the 120 parts per billion 8

standard and the c ourt rejected that , s o we've heard this 9

argument before from industry. And I think that's one 10

other point that I wanted to make is that time and time 11

again industry comes out and they say look, we can't meet 12

this standard. The sk y is g oing to fall, the e conomy is 13

going to collapse, we can't do it. 14

A nd yet we've eliminated lead from gasoline. 15

We've dealt with acid rain. We have phased out CFCs and 16

the economy has grown and grown and grown, so we can do 17

this. We can innovate and we can hit these stan dards in a 18

way that both grow the economy and protect public health. 19

Two other just quick points here. N ext time I 20

would really encourage you to set this hearing in an 21

impacted community, so somewhere like the Central Valley or 22

Los Angeles. There are p eople who got on a bus at 1:30 23

this morning to come up here and you'll be hearing from 24

th em later today, but it's a huge burden for impacted 25108

communities to come all this way. And so next time we'd 1

love to have you out back out in California again, eight o f 2

the eleven dirtiest regions of the whole country are here 3

in California, so we love that you're coming to California, 4

but we want to make sure that it's a little bit easier for 5

people to get out here. 6

Lastly, we get hammered with ozone pretty much 7

here in parts of the region almost year

- round and so we'd 8

really encourage you to think about extending the ozone 9

monitoring season to go a little bit further than it is 10

today. I think that's it for my

-- thank you, very much. 11

MR. PAGE: All right. Thank y ou both very much 12

for being here today. 13

Our next speakers are Kim Garcia and Oscar 14

Garcia. 15

All right. Kim, you're first up. 16

KIM BERLY GARCIA 17

MS. GARCIA: Hello. My name is Kimberly Garcia. 18

I'm a senior at Innovations High School in Reno, Nevada. I 19

plan to go to college right after high school and pursue a 20

degree in a STEM career. When I'm not at school I love to 21

be outdoors and take long walks. 22

One way that the air pollution impacts me is that 23

like many of us I have a close friend with asthma, Janessa. 24

(phonetic) I can't put myself in her shoes, but I do see 25109

how much she suffers. Having a friend at school with 1

asthma has made me realize what the world is capable of. 2

And by that I mean how much damage we can cause just by 3

living our daily lives, buying our stuff, using electricity 4

for everything and driving around. 5

Her asthma has often made her miss school and 6

fall further and further behind. 7

The American Lung Association states asthma 8

causes more than 14 million missed school days ev ery year. 9

With numbers like this we should take every chance to 10

reduce the amount of air pollution that affects kids. If 11

you do not ensure the health and safety of our future, who 12

will? 13

Many people think my generation is not capable of 14

doing anything to make a difference. I am here today to 15

challenge that way of thinking. I am a young woman driven 16

to make a difference and I have. I have worked with 17

Alliance for Climate Education to ensure better air quality 18

in my city. 19

ACE came into my leadersh ip class and gave a 20

presentation on engine idling and air pollution. I learned 21

that children were most affected by idling cars, because 22

their lungs are still developing and they are close to car 23

tail pipes. I knew at that moment I wanted to make a 24

differ ence, not just for myself, but for the kids and 25110

everyone else who is affected by air pollution, for my 1

friend Janessa who suffers from asthma. 2

I was going to make schools in Washoe County 3

School District commit to being idle free. Today I am very 4

proud to say my fellow classmate, Oscar Garcia, and I have 5

made both our own school, Innovations High, as well as 6

Palmer Elementary School an idle

- free school. 7

A t this point you might be asking yourself, what 8

is an idle

- free school? It is a program in Washoe County, 9

Nevada that teaches students, parents, teachers and school 10

staff about the harmful effects of car exhaust and strives 11

to get schools to reduce vehicle and bus idling. 12

To make Palmer Elementary School idle free I gave 13

an assembly presentation to the whole school about the 14

health environmental impacts of engine idling. I thought 15

the kids would just ignore me, since I'm not much older 16

tha n they are. But they were all waving their hands, 17

asking questions, asking for stickers. These are the 18

stickers. They say, "Turn your key and be idle free." 19

To make sure the students understood about idling 20

and air pollution I asked them to submit the ir drawings for 21

an art contest. Here are some of their drawings. This is 22

a picture of a boy going into Jack In The Box with his 23

family, turning off the engine while going through the 24

drive

- through. 25111

So let's think for a couple of minutes and figure 1

ou t what we really want our future to be like. Young 2

people deserve to grow up breathing clean air and not 3

suffer from the health effects of smog pollution. If I can 4

make a difference to work for the health and safety of 5

future generations in my community, what can't you ensure 6

the same thing for the people in this country? On behalf 7

of young people across the country, I am asking you to 8

lower the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion. Thank 9

you. 10

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 11

MS. STONE: Thank you. 12

MR. PAGE: Mr. Garcia? 13

OSCAR GARCIA 14

MR. GARCIA: Hello. My name i s Oscar Garcia. 15

Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a senior at 16

Innovations High School in Reno, Nevada. I will be 17

starting college this summer at Truckee Meadows Community 18

Colle ge. 19

I would like to major in a field that allows me 20

to help people. I haven't decided how, but I do know that 21

I want to help as many people as possible. 22

In my free time I like to hike and be outdoors. 23

I care about the issue of ozone, because I want to be able 24

to walk out of my house and see the bright green mountains. 25112

I want to be able to breathe fresh air and hike the 1

beautiful trails in the Half Acre Hills near my home. 2

Sometimes when I look outside and see the mountains across 3

the valley while the sun is shining, the bright colors 4

stand out. But more often than not, when I look outside 5

the mountains are blanketed in a dark thick haze. The haze 6

is affecting my view of Reno, just like it affected my view 7

in Los Angeles, my home town, which has t he worst smog in 8

the country. 9

But the effects of smog are not just aesthetic, 10

there are health issues as well. Thus, smog and air 11

pollution severely impacted my little nephew, Gabriel while 12

we lived in Los Angeles. No one ever wants to see their 13

love d ones in the hospital, but my family did. Gabriel had 14

asthma attacks constantly. One or two or sometimes even 15

three asthma attacks per week. He was in the hospital a 16

few times a month and this kept him from attending school. 17

My sister was stressed and sometimes had sleepless nights. 18

The fact that Gabriel was in and out of the hospital caused 19

my sister to miss work. Not only did this affect her 20

emotionally, but it affected her financially. 21

We used to visit Reno, Nevada every once in 22

awhile until my parents decided they wanted to leave the 23

L.A. area. That summer while we were visiting Reno my 24

parents and sister noticed that Gabriel had fewer asthma 25113

attacks. This was because he was breathing fresh air. 1

Thankfully, since moving to Reno my little neph ew has not 2

had an asthma attack since. 3

Your agency has the power to prevent people like 4

my sister and nephew from suffering from the adverse health 5

effects of ozone pollution. If young high school students 6

have the ability to make a difference in our ow n 7

communities then I believe you, the EPA, has the ability to 8

make a difference for our nation. 9

I was introduced to the Idle Free Campaign by a 10

representative of the Alliance for Climate Education, 11

Rebecca Anderson. The presentation about climate change 12

triggered something inside me. I decided I wanted to help 13

my community by trying to make the air cleaner. 14

To start the Idle Free Campaign students at six 15

high schools in the Washoe County School District in Reno 16

monitored how much idling was currentl y happening at our 17

schools. Then we educated classmates about the health , 18

money and environmental benefits of not idling by 19

distributing fliers and stickers like these. And then this 20

tells them all the information, okay? Oh, and installing 21

idle free sig ns outside of the schools like these, at least 22

three to every school. 23

Okay. Then we monitored idling outside of our 24

schools again to see how much less people were idling. 25114

Overall across the six schools we reduced the average 1

idling time by 38 percent. Pretty cool, huh? 2

MR. PAGE: Uh

- huh. 3

MR. GARCIA: Therefore as a student on behalf of 4

Washoe County Schools I am asking that you lower your ozone 5

standards to the strongest possible standard of 60 parts 6

per billion. 7

Think of the children like my n ephew Gabriel who 8

suffer from asthma and those who have respiratory issues. 9

Think of the young people like those you are hearing from 10

this morning, who are working for a cleaner air in their 11

own lives. You owe it to them, to us, to our future and 12

yours t o protect our health and well

- being. Thank you. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you for coming today

. 14

Let's take Mike Rogge and Weny u Ma. 15

Mike, you may have to help me with that 16

pronunciation. 17

MR. ROGGE: Rogge. 18

MR. PAGE: Rogge, okay. Thank you. Welcome to 19

both of you, thank you for coming. 20

Mr. Rogge, you're up first. 21

MICHAEL ROGGE 22

MR. ROGGE: Okay. Good morning. I am Mike 23

Rogge, Environmental Quality Policy Director for the 24

California Manufacturers and Technology Association. 25115

That's CMTA. 1

CMTA is California's largest trade association. 2

Our mission is to improve and preserve a strong business 3

climate for California's over 25,000 small, medium and 4

large manufacturers, processors, and technology

- base d 5

companies. CMTA strongly supports reasonable efforts to 6

improve air quality and protect public health. However, we 7

are deeply concerned about the Environmental Protection 8

Agency’s proposal to drop the 8

- hour ozone standard to 65 9

parts per billion or lo wer. 10

To do so will place virtually the entire state in 11

non attainment : everything except a little strip along the 12

Northwest Coast, along the border with Oregon, and two 13

small patches of down the Central Coast. A significant 14

portion of this area is rural with negligible industry and 15

little traffic. These standards do not t ake into 16

consideration background, the fact that the Grand Canyon 17

would be a nonattainment makes that readily apparent. 18

This proposal will unnecessarily burden the 19

economy at a time when the country , and California in 20

particular, are finally starting t o recover from the 21

recession

. A substantial portion of compliance with the 22

new standard will come from controls that are unknown, even 23

to EPA . a nd if these controls are not invented in 24

time, manufacturers will be forced to consider scrapping 25116

plants and e quipment. A National Ambient Quality Standards 1

process that does not allow the administrator to consider 2

cost or technical feasibility is no longer productive. 3

California has made monumental strides in 4

reducing air pollution emissions in the last 40 y ears with 5

an approximate 80 percent reduction. Incremental 6

improvements in the ozone are now coming at an exponential 7

cost. The financial burden on manufacturers, the economy 8

and low

- income families has been significant. California 9

has 11 percent of U.S . manufacturing, but we attracted only 10

1.5 percent of the country's manufacturing investment in 11

2013. It looks like only about 2 percent in 2014. 12

Since 2011, the country's manufacturing grew by 13

more than 6 percent while California's manufacturing job 14

ba se grew by less than 1 percent. If we want to retain and 15

attract manufacturing jobs we need to improve our 16

manufacturing investment climate. Manufacturing provides 17

tremendous opportunities for California's working class, 18

middle class families. An averag e salary in California's 19
manufacturing pays $77,000 a year. 20

In order to meet the new EPA requirements , states 21

will impose costs on all entities, large and small a nd 22

limit permits for construction and manufacturing

. Small 23

companies will suffer from hig her costs and the reduction 24

in busine ss activity from the large companies that will be 25117

displaced. Companies building new facilities or performing 1

major modifications to existing facilities in or near a 2

nonattainment area will be required to install the mo st 3

effective emission reduction technology, regardless of 4

cost. Most will undoubtedly pick another state or country 5

to locate their jobs. 6

The current ozone standard of 75 parts per 7

billion is the most stringent ever and has not been fully 8

implemented in Southern California and throughout the 9

Central Valley, but progress continues to be made. The EPA 10

and the states should focus on fully implementing and 11

attaining the existing standard before contemplating a 12

lower standard. A decision can be made at a la ter date to 13

determine if additional actions are warranted. This is an 14

approach that will continue to provide necessary health 15

protection and continue improvements. 16

When policy makers push beyond the limits of what 17

is technologically feasible the critica l balance between 18

environmental improvement and economic growth is lost to 19

manufacturers and the economy will suffer. Thank you for 20

the opportunity to speak today. 21

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 22

WENYU MA 23

MS. MA: Good morning. My name is Wenyu Ma a nd 24

I'm a senior at John F. Kennedy High School here in 25118

Sacramento. 1

MR. PAGE: Could you spell your name for 2

reporter? 3

MS. MA: Yes. Wenyu, W

- E

- N

- Y

- U, Ma, M

- A. 4

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 5

MS. MA: I plan to study chemical engineering in 6

college this fall, to advance renewable energy and energy 7

efficiency developments. 8

I'm here today to ask you to limit ozone 9

pollution levels to the strongest of 60 parts per billion. 10

Even though attainment might be difficult and it will not 11

be a quick and easy journ ey, I believe in achieving the 12

impossible as an American. 13

Growing up in Zhongshan, China I witnessed 14

firsthand how devastating air pollution can be. I never 15

understood as a child how to count stars or imagine 16

constellations , because of the thick smoke that covered all 17

the stars. It might be difficult to imagine in here how 18

many stars can be covered, but when I came to the United 19

States it was almost impossible to believe the sheer amount 20

of stars that are visible in the sky . To this day, it is 21

always gratifying to look up and see there are skies

-- has 22

been protected and undisturbed. I do not want to see any 23

more children to be robbed of the right to admire a star, 24

admire a sky. I do not want to see my seven

- year
- old 25119

sist er to not be able to play outside anymore because of 1

high

- level ozone pollution. I do not want to see my 70

- 2

year
- old grandparents not be able to take their morning 3

walks, because of poor air quality. 4

I envision a future with clean air. That is why 5

I volunteer with Breathe California of Sacramento

- Emigrant 6

Trails, a local nonprofit that is dedicated to clean air 7

where I serve as a Clean Air Committee Chair on its Youth 8

Advisory Board and currently I'm organizing anti

- idling 9

campaigns at different local high schools. This is why I 10

plant trees with the Sacramento Tree Foundation, to help 11

our city to live up our name as a city of trees and to 12

improve our air quality. This is why I founded an 13

environmental club and started a recycling program at my 14

school : to educate, to empower, and to provide the means 15

for students like me to take action. 16

Although many individuals, even young people, 17

have already contributed to the environmental movement in 18

small and large ways, but large scale and long

- term change 19

mus t come from the government. As clean air is a 20

fundamental right, our government is responsible for 21

protecting its citizens. As the clean air is a survival 22

investment our government is responsible for future 23

generations. 24

America has always been prized for its progress 25120

in the world, but we must not for eshore our environmental 1

protection. We must lower our ozone standard to 60 parts 2

per billion and serve as a model for other nations. 3

As a student and environmental club president, as 4

a granddaughter and a sister and as a star admirer I'm 5

asking the EPA to lower the ozone standard and ensure a 6

clean air future for all. Thank you. 7

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both, for coming 8

today. 9

Scene Wan and William Wang are our next speakers. 10

Welcome, th ank you for being here. Mr. Wan is up first. 11

SCENE WAN 12

MR. WAN: Hello, my name is Scene Wan, S

- C

- E

- N

- E, 13

like the movie, scene, you know, scenery. And Wan, W

- A

- N. 14

So yes, I am a senior at John F. Kennedy High School in 15

Sacramento. There I like to use math and science, so I'd 16

like to be an engineer and build things in the future. 17

But today I'm here to build a future and ask you, 18

the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to lower the 19

ozone standards to 60 parts per billion. So why 60 and not 20

say , you know, 70 or something? 21

Well, the fact is the negative effects of ozone 22

can be felt as low as 60 parts per billion in regular 23

people like you and me and others who don't have asthma. 24

So with the current standard at 75 parts per billion, like 25121

all of us in this country, healthy or ill, we all stand to 1

lose. 2

While I'm fortunate I don't have a respiratory 3

illness I have an older brother who does have asthma. You 4

know, I've known him all my life, because he's my older 5

brother. It'd be weird if I don't. Yeah, this is my older 6

brother, who's in the picture. He's the one who's not a 7

baby, because that'd be awkward right? 8

Y eah, so he's always worked hard to achieve all 9

his potential, you know? Right now he's an engineer. 10

That's part of the rea son why I want to be an engineer too. 11

And he still helps our family out, and me, financially. 12

Here's him graduating. 13

So my brother is not alone, there are so many 14

like him, who have so much potential and want to achieve 15

what they want to do in life. But due to prior conditions 16

or like their poor health, they just can't do it. And, you 17

know, thanks to this poor air quality many have to miss 18

school and miss connections and miss life. They can't go 19

to school or go find friends or graduate from college

. 20

An air standard of 60 parts per billion, the 21

opportunities and saved health care costs given back to 22
these people amount to approximately 44 to even $74 billion 23

in gain. As things stand though, thousands of lives are 24

lost. 25122

In our country, you kn ow, people are said to have 1

undeniable rights in life to certain things. We ought to 2

have a home, right? We all ought to have a meal. We all 3

ought to as you guys obviously need, have some water, you 4

know? But s houldn't we also all get to breathe clean? 5

You know, every day what kicks off my day is 6

getting a breath of fresh air, you know? The fresh chill, 7

the lifting breeze, it clears my mind. And it brings me 8

peace. And for all of us, air brings us life. 9

I'm pretty sure right now we're breathi ng air, 10

you know? We will always need to breathe air, but we can't 11

always control what we're breathing. We can't, "Oh, I feel 12

like I got 60 percent carbon that time, or 20 percent 13

oxygen right now." We can't

-- our bodies can't filter 14

ourselves like tha t. That's why we need regulations and 15

limits just like right now what we're proposing. 16

It's a real blow when what's supposed to bring us 17

life instead suffocates us to death. So in short, I'd like 18

to breathe a bit easier myself. So please help me and 19

m illions of other people, young and old, breathe easier by 20

lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion. Thank 21

you. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Mr. Wang. 23

WILLIAM WANG 24

MR. WANG: Hi. My name is William Wang and I'm a 25123

junior at John F. Kennedy High School. 1

I'm sure you've all heard enough about why air 2

pollution is a terrible thing and the statistics on the 3

subject. So I'll try to freshen the subject a bit. 4

A little bit about myself. I'm a junior in high 5

school, as I said before. I'm a tennis player, performer, 6

procrastinator and aspiring comedian. I have three friends 7

who have asthma and half my family lives in China and are 8

forced to breathe heavy smog created from all the factories 9

and traffic nearby. So I'd say air quality is pretty high 10

up there in the things that I care about. It affects the 11

lives of the ones I love and that's why I'm here today. 12

So for my story, I'm sure many of you have gone 13

to San Francisco before? My family likes going there and I 14

just went there recently, my fir st time in about a year 15

actually. But, you know, the first thing I noticed when I 16

got there, the delicious food. So the second thing I 17

noticed after I ate lunch was that the city was covered in 18

smog. I knew Sacramento had a smog problem and that day 19

San Francisco had it worse. It was sunny, but there was 20

like this layer of brownish gray that was between me and 21

the blue sky. So my first thought went back to my family 22

in China and how they had to deal with worse pollution than 23

I ever had to deal with. B ut I digress. 24

The reason why I went to San Francisco that day 25124

was to meet up with one of my friends named Janine. Janine 1

brought her inhaler and I discovered she had asthma that 2

day. It was news to me, because it never came up and when 3

I asked her abou t it she says she carries around her 4

inhaler a lot, because of all of the air quality problems 5

and because she's prone to asthma attacks. And that really 6

struck home to me, because I've seen what asthma attacks 7

can do and how really scary they can be. 8

One of my friends that I mentioned earlier, he 9

had an asthma attack in PE once and it just terrified me to 10

see him laying on the ground. I didn't know what to do at 11

all. The thought of Janine having an asthma attack while 12

we were hanging out just distur bed me to say the least. My 13

fear was unfounded, thankfully, but I don't think anyone 14

deserves to live in a place where asthma is a major 15

disease. 16

Janine isn't alone either and I hate to be a 17

politician here and bring up numbers, but nearly every one 18

o ut of ten kids in the country have asthma. That's just 19

wrong. Lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion 20

will prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks per year and that's 21

great. If we can do that, that'd be awesome. And how can 22

you turn your back on something like that? 23

So that's my story. Air quality is important to 24

me and it frightens me to think that one of the people I 25125

love could potentially die from something like that. 1

America is one of the leading super powers in the world. 2

We've got some of the busiest cities, greenest trees and 3

smartest minds. People look up to America as one of the 4

best and as one of the best, w e have a responsibility to 5

ensure that we maintain a green world. We can solve this 6

problem. It may take years, decades or even a century, but 7

I believe we can do it. 8

And with that I would like to leave you with a 9

thought. Why wait for the problem t o get worse when we can 10

start solving it now? Thank you. 11

MR. PAGE: Thank you both very much for coming 12

today. 13

And our next speaker is Bill Magavern, I think it 14

is, and Yolla Hagar. 15

All right, is it Mr. McGovern? (phonetic) 16

MR. MAGAVERN: Magavern

. 17

MR. PAGE: Magavern, sorry. 18

BILL MAGAVERN 19

MR. MAGAVERN: Good morning. My name is Bill 20

Magavern. I live here in Sacramento. It is M

- A

- G

- A

- V

- E

- R

21

N. I live in the Southside Park neighborhood in downtown. 22

We're bordered on both the west and the sou th sides by 23

freeways, so we live close enough that we're always hearing 24

the sound of that traffic. And as you know, Sacramento is 2512 6

one of the most polluted areas for air pollution, so thank 1

you for having this hearing today. 2

And I'm the Policy Director for the Coalition for 3

Clean Air, which is a California organization which was 4

born out of the smog crisis in Los Angeles is the early 5

70s. And we now work statewide to try to provide clean and 6

healthy air to all Californians

. 7

We applaud U.S. EPA's lo ng
- delayed proposal to 8

revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 9

ozone. As you know, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to 10

create standards that are protective of public health based 11

on the latest science. And the science shows that the 12

current s tandards underestimate the health impacts of smog, 13

so this update is very necessary. 14

In California over three

- quarters of us breathe 15

unhealthy air, about 25,000 people a year die from it. in 16

fact, there are twice as many people in California who die 17

fro m traffic

- related air pollution than die from traffic

18

related accidents. So that shows the urgency of the task 19

we have at hand. We think that the proposal that you're 20

considering moves in the right direction, but you should 21

consider the full range of pol lution limits that have been 22

recommended by credible independent scientists including 23

your own scientific advisers. And that means that a 60 24

parts per billion level should be included in the analysis. 25127

Contrary to the predictable cries that we here 1

from the fossil fuel and chemical industries of looming 2

economic catastrophe, decades of history that we have with 3

air quality standards starting of course here in 4

California, demonstrate that clean air protections provide 5

benefits that far outweigh their cost. And the U.S. can 6

and must continue the progress that we've already made in 7

reducing emissions from power plants, vehicles and other 8

sources of pollution. 9

And we know that we have solutions available 10

including energy efficiency, renewable power, elect ric 11

vehicles, public transit and improved land use planning. 12

There are efforts underway in this state in all of those 13

areas. We need to do better and I think the rest of the 14

country could also learn a lot from what California has 15

done successfully so far

. 16

We've had in California the worst smog in the 17

nation and so we've also taken the lead in finding ways to 18

reduce ozone pollution. So we know that other state and 19

local governments already look to our state for solutions 20

and we think the federal government should do the same as 21

it already has in the area of motor vehicles for example. 22

All Americans deserve air that is healthy and 23

safe to breathe. Vulnerable populations like children, the 24

elderly and those with sensitive respiratory systems are 25128

particularly in need of greater protections from lung

1

searing ozone

. And it's particularly encouraging to me to 2

see the number of young people, students that have come 3

today to talk with you. So thank you again for listening. 4

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 5

YOLL A HAGER 6

MS. HAGER: Hi. Let me begin by thanking the EPA 7

for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. 8

My name is Yolla Hager and I'm the p resident of 9

Environmental and Atmospheric Technologies located in 10

Knoxville, Tennessee. We are a remote sensi ng company 11

focused on vehicle emissions with a solution to help clean 12

the air with less hassle and less cost. 13

Today, you're hearing from manufacturers and the 14

fossil fuel industry that these regulations would impose a 15

heavy burden on the economy. You're also hearing from 16

public health advocates who say the ozone is causing 17

millions of people to have health issues, which increase 18

health costs and death rates. 19

As an asthma sufferer and an entrepreneur, I'm 20

here today in support of lowering the ozone st andards. 21

At the 2014 Climate Summit President Obama said 22

he had confidence in the ability of the technological 23

entrepreneurs and scientific innovators to lead the way. 24

The President is right. I'm here today to let you know 25129

that the United States does not have to look into the 1

future for solutions that will not burden manufacturers or 2

motorists when it comes to identifying and testing 3

emissions. 4

As you are aware vehicles are one of the leading 5

causes of ground ozone. And while the newer vehicles a re 6

cleaner their emission levels will change in a relatively 7

short period of time. One of the ways to ensure the 8

reduction of ozone caused by vehicle emissions is to be 9

able to assess emissions in real time by using newer 10

technologies like remote sensing. 11

Hager Environmental was founded by molecular 12

physicist, Dr. John St ewar t Hager, to develop and advance a 13

unique technology aimed at revolutionizing the emissions 14

industry. Prior to starting Hager Environmental, Dr. Hager 15

worked with NASA Langley on the ASCENDS satellite, which 16

will soon be orbiting the earth to measure the e arth's CO2 17

column abundances. 18

Our remote sensing technology is referred to 19

EDAR, which is an acronym for Emission Detection and 20

Reporting. EDAR can remotely detect, read and analyze 21

exhaust coming from virtually any moving vehicle. It is an 22

unmanned mu lti

- lane system that sits on a pole beside the 23

road. This technology can help states achieve a lower EPA 24

ground

- level ozone standard and reduce cost, time 25130

requirements and frustrations for the motorist. 1

I sit before you in support of lowering the ozone 2

standard and ask that you show the same confidence 3

President Obama has shown in the ability of the 4

technological entrepreneurs and innovators to help lead the 5

way. 6

The most important issue here today is to clean 7

the air in order to ensure a better envi ronment for 8

generations to come. It's not about costs and industry. 9

It's about saving lives. 10

In Governor Brown's recent inaugural address he 11

stated that he wants to take significant amounts carbon out 12

of California out of the economy of California with out 13

harming its vibrancy. Hager Environmental can assist the 14

EPA and Governor Brown in achieving its contemplated new 15

standards with the attributes of less cost and less hassle, 16

which will result in less pollution. 17

Across this country there are companie s like 18

Hager Environmental that stand ready to help the EPA clean 19

the air without costing our country jobs or our country's 20

economic growth. Thank you. 21

MR. PAGE: Thank you, both. 22

All right, Gretchen Dahlkemper and Adenike 23

Adeyeye. Welcome, thank you for being here. 24

Gretchen, you're first. 25131

GRETCHEN DAHLKEMPER 1

MS. DAHLKEMPER: Good morning. Thanks for having 2

me. I tried to get the hearings last week, but I had the 3

flu. So I'm happy to be here this morning talking to you. 4

And I'm not contagious any more. 5

Good morning. My name is Gretchen Dahlkemper and 6

I'm the national field manager for Moms Clean Air Force. 7

We are a group of 410,000 parents who are working together 8

to protect America's children from air pollution. Today 9

I'm here to speak on behalf of all of those families and 10

the millions of children whose lives will be positively 11

impacted by EPA moving f orward with a strong ozone standard 12

rooted in the best science available. 13

I am also here for my own three children. 14

They're one, three and five, especially for my three

- year
15

old Fiona. Fiona was not yet one the first time her lips 16

turned blue and she struggled to take a breath. Watching 17

your child fight for every breath has to be one of the most 18

scary moments as a parent. For myself an d other parents of 19

children with asthma we rely daily on EPA's Air Quality 20

Index to inform our schedules and protect our precious 21

children. 22

From the first moment I learned I was going to be 23

a mom I did everything to protect my kids. I took my 24

prenatals, gave up deli meat, wine and tuna fish. Once my 25132

babies were born I put them in the safest car seat I could 1

find, covered the outlets of my home, tested our new home 2

for lea d and radon and hold their hand every time we cross 3

the street. Do you know what I can't protect my children 4

from? Air pollution. 5

The science is unequivocal that smog is bad for 6

our health. Smog harms babies in utero, it harms children 7

interfering wit h their lung development and triggering 8

asthma attacks. It cuts our children's lives short and it 9

causes people to die prematurely. Fiona is not alone. 10

Approximately one in ten children across the United States 11

suffers from asthma and in many places lik e my own 12

neighborhood as many as 25 percent of our children are 13

suffering from this national epidemic. 14

In addition to the nearly daily suffering of 15

children with asthma the costs of treatment is a burden on 16

American families like mine and also on the Ame rican 17

economy. The effects of days lost from school and work are 18
enormous, costing our society more than $30 billion each 19

and every year. An extensive and growing body of 20

scientific evidence shows that smog causes measurable 21

serious health impact s at a l evel commonly found in 22

metropolitan areas across the United States from here in 23

California to my home state of Pennsylvania. 24

I am here today in support of your efforts to 25133

move forward in strengthening these vital public health 1

protections. But the prop osed range of 65 to 70 parts per 2

billion is not strong enough to protect developing lungs in 3

children like mine who are suffering from asthma. 4

Clean Air Advisory Panel has concluded that the 5

adverse health effects of smog are apparent at levels as 6

low as 60 parts per billion. Parents just like me agree 7

with the weight of the science and urge you here today to 8

set a standard of 60 parts per billion in order to 9

adequately protect our nation's most precious resource, our 10

children. 11

Parents have the right t o know whether the air 12

our children are breathing is safe. There are some here 13

today that will claim, as they do each and every time your 14

agency moves to protect our families, that improving the 15

current standard will cost us jobs in the economy. Like 16

bef ore, that's simply not true. We do not have to choose 17

here in America between clean air and strong economy. All 18

Americans have the right to breathe clean, healthy air. 19

Children like my Fiona have the right to enjoy each and 20

every day without breathing d angerous levels of smog. 21

Thank you for your time. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 23

ADENIKE ADEYEYE 24

MS. ADEYEYE: I guess for the recording my name 25134

is spelled A

- D

- E

- N

- I

- K

- E and last name A

- D

- E

- Y

- E

- Y

- E. 1

So good morning. Thank you for allowing me to 2

testify. My name is Adenike Adeyeye and I'm a research and 3

policy analyst at Earth j ustice. 4

And Earth j ustice is a nonprofit environmental law 5

firm . We represent clients in the San Joaquin Valley and 6

we're also a member of the Central Valley Air Quality 7

Coalitio n or CVAQC and I work with fellow CVAQC members to 8

improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. 9

And so I'd also like to second what Evan 10

Gillespie said earlier that it would be nice for them to 11

have the hearing in Fresno or L.A., because it was hard fo r 12

others from the coalition to make it here today. 13

I'm here to testify, because the science strongly 14

supports setting the new ozone standard at 60 parts per 15

billion to protect public health and make the air safe to 16

breathe for everyone. EPA's own scient ific advisors 17

recommended setting a 60 to 70 parts per billion ozone 18

standard way back in 2008 and since then the data in 19

support of a 60 parts per billion ozone standard has only 20

gotten stronger. 21

There are studies showing adverse affects like 22

constricte d and painful breathing and lung inflammation at 23

ozone levels as low as 60 parts per billion, which is far 24

below the current standard. EPA itself has estimated that 25135

in some cities tens of thousands of more asthmatic children 1

will struggle to breathe at a 65 or 70 parts per billion 2

ozone standard. 3

The American Lung Association and other medical 4

societies have supported setting the standard at 60 parts 5

per billion due to the data that shows the negative health 6

impacts at that level. The data shows that the risk 7

associated with ozone levels at 60 parts per billion are 8

real and EPA must set the new standard no higher than 60 9

parts per billion to ensure the absence of adverse health 10

effects. 11

The people who have testified from the oil and 12

gas industry and other major polluters have argued that 13

there is no point in strengthening the standard when areas 14

like the San Joaquin Valley have not even met the 1

- hour 15

ozone standard that was adopted much further back in 1987. 16

Not only does this argument lack any legal basis, but like 17

others have said I believe that we can attain these 18

standards. 19

California has done really tough things to 20

improve environmental quality and this, very well could be 21

one of them. But it also ignores another key function of 22

the national standards. A 60 parts per billion standard, 23

based on current science, gives people vital information 24

that they need to protect themselves when air quality is 25136

poor. Under the current standard people really don't have 1

a good idea of when they're putting t heir health at risk 2

simply by going for an afternoon jog or just showing up at 3

soccer practice. 4

And nowhere is there more true than in the San 5

Joaquin Valley, which is where rates of asthma

- related 6

hospitalizations and emergency room visits are far hig her 7

than other parts of the state. People in the San Joaquin 8

Valley actually truly do rely on the Air Quality Index. 9

For example, schools use color

- coded flags to 10

alert children and their parents the day's air quality 11

forecast, to schedule school sports practices, and to even 12

decide whether or not kids can go outside for recess. And 13

right now, in the San Joaquin Valley people are putting 14

their health in jeopardy without even realizing it, because 15

the current standard does not accurately define when the 16

air is safe to breathe. 17

A 60 parts per billion standard is necessary 18

again to give people the knowledge that they need to 19

protect themselves as best they can. So Earth j ustice and 20

our colleagues urge EPA to do the right thing and to set a 21

standard that l ets everyone breathe freely. Thank you. 22

MR. PAGE: All right, thank you both for coming 23

today. 24

Yes, please pass that on to Pat. Thank you. 25137

Thank you very much. Our next speakers are Sarah 1

Hodgdon and Betsy Reifsnider. And you'll tell me if it's 2

pronounced Reefsnider. 3

MS. HODGDON: No, it's not. 4

MR. PAGE: I was right the first time. Okay. I 5

should've stuck with that. Yeah, all right Ms. Hodgdon. 6

SARAH HODGDON 7

MS. HODGON: Okay. My name is Sarah Hodgdon, 8

S

- A

- R

- A

- H H

- O

- D

- G

- D

- O

- N. A nd I am the national program 9

d irector for the Sierra Club. Thank you for this 10

opportunity. 11

On behalf of my organization and our 2.4 million 12

members and supporters, I would l ike to commend the EPA’s 13

effort to reduce smog pollution nationwide and ask that the 14

Agency finalize a rule that will truly protect public, 15

environmental, and economic health. 16

In 2008, the former Administration finalized a 17

smog standard that has proven to be inadequate. The 18

failure of that rule is evident in California, which has 19

the nation's five most smog

- polluted cities. Statewide, 20

smog pollution is responsible for 25,000 premature deaths 21

annually. In the Los Angeles region alone, where smog 22

concentrations far surpass all other U.S. regions, the 23

death to ll is 5,000 a year. 24

Every year, air pollution costs federal, state, 25138

and private health insurers in California over $193 1

million, as millions suffer from lung cancer, asthma, 2

cardiovascular disease, and other health problems. In the 3

state's S outh C oast r egion, which includes Greater Los 4

Angeles, workers miss 400,000 days of work every year, and 5
in total air pollution costs the region’s economy $22 6

billion annually. 7

However, this dirty air does not affect us all 8

equally. In Southern California, B lack a nd Latino youth 9

are two

- to

- six times more likely to die from asthma than 10

their white counterparts. Nationwide, people of color are 11

breathing air that contains 38 percent more nitrogen oxide 12

pollution. 13

At 1:30 this morning, three 50

- passenger buses 14

departed the Inland Empire in Southern California. All of 15

the passengers we re of Latin

- American descent, and many of 16

them are the sons and daughters of migrant farm workers. 17

At 3:00 a.m. two more buses depar ted from Los Angeles, 18

representing diverse communities. We have individuals here 19

from Fresno, Bakersfield, Oakland, and Richmond. They have 20

are here to participate in today’s hearing because this is 21

more than just a public, economic, and environmental he alth 22

issue. It is also an issue of racial inequality. 23

Now, I know that air quality has gotten better in 24

the United States and in California, largely thanks to the 25139

work of the EPA and other air regulators. However, we 1

still have a long way to go before e very person is 2

breathing safe, clean air. The Clean Air Act mandates that 3

if air protections aren’t doing enough to protect public 4

health, then they must be strengthened. That is why the 5

EPA has proposed that the current standard be changed from 6

75 parts per billion to a range of 65

- 70 parts per billion

. 7

That's a great step in the right direction but, 8

according to a committee of EPA science advisors, it is not 9

enough. They recommended a 60 parts per billion standard 10

to adequately protect our health. I, along with many 11

others in this room, stand by that scientific assessment. 12

This level would result in enormous benefits nationwide, 13

save hundreds of lives, millions of dollars, and reduce the 14

toll from smog

- related diseases. Will it be easy? No. 15

But is it achievable? Absolutely. 16

A stronger standard will also lead to greater 17

deployment of clean energy and electric vehicles, which in 18

turn will create jobs, further reduce air pollution, and 19

grow the tax base. Expanding our clean energy economy will 20

create significant job growth in California and across the 21

nation. 22

I understand that change is hard, but it is also 23

necessary. We owe it to the thousands of people whose 24

lives and health are at stake not to settle for less than 25140

the best we can achieve. If the science and the statistics 1

are not sufficiently persuasive, then listen to the stories 2

of any of the hundreds of people who have come here today. 3

It is time to move forward to a future where no matter what 4

community you come from, no matter who y ou are, you will be 5

free to breathe clean air. 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 7

BETSY REIFSNIDER 8

MS. REIFSNIDER: Good morning. My name is Betsy 9

Reifsnider spelled R

- E

- I

- F

- S

- N

- I

- D

- E

- R. I'm a member of 10

the nationwide Catholic Climate Covenant. And my own 11

par ish here in Sacramento is a member of California 12

Interfaith Power and Light. 13

You've already heard scientific, public health 14

and faith

- based reasons to adopt an ozone standard no 15

higher than 60 parts per billion and I'd just like to add 16

my own story. 17

I grew up in Glendora in the 1960s, one of the 18

smoggiest towns in all of L.A. County. The smog was so bad 19

that I couldn't see the mountains that were literally just 20

a mile from my home. And walking home from my elementary 21

school, my chest burned every day. 22

California began phasing out lead in gasoline in 23

the 1970s and completely banned it in 1990. The auto 24

industry did not go out of business nor did the oil 25141

companies. In fact, they adapted and flourished. When we 1

learned that lead in gasoline caused pe rmanent and 2

debilitating health effects we banned it. Now, scientists 3

and health professionals tell us we need to reduce the 4

current ozone standard to prevent 6,400 premature deaths. 5

Mother Theresa once said, "It is poverty to 6

decide a child must die, s o you may live as you wish." 7

Some businesses claim that reducing the ozone standard will 8

be a terrible economic burden. Pope Francis has said, "A 9

person who dies is not a news story, but a 10

- point drop in 10

the stock market is a tragedy." So people are d iscarded as 11

if they were trash. 12

By reducing the ozone standard down to 60 parts 13

per billion we can make this country richer in what 14

matters: healthier children and better protections for 15

elderly and vulnerable people. Thank you. 16

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for coming 17

today. 18

All right, we've got some kids from Fruitvale 19

Elementary School. And the next seven speakers are with 20

them. How about if we call up Angelo Logan and Ramon 21

Guerra? 22

Good morning, Mr. Logan, okay. 23

ANGELO LOGAN 24

MR. LOGAN: Thank you. My name is Angelo Logan, 25142

A

- N

- G

- E

- L

- O L

- O

- G

- A

- N. I'm with the East Yard Communities 1

for Environmental Justice and we're an environmental health 2

and justice community

- based organization in East Los 3

Angeles and Long Beach. 4

I'm her e to support the strengthening of the 5

ozone standards. The communities that we represent and 6

that we live in, have disproportionate impacts in terms of 7

respiratory illnesses. And my own son, Cesar, is asthmatic 8

and is a soccer player. And as I am here t oday testifying 9

before you, I can hear him gasping for air as he runs down 10

the field. He's one example of many children in our 11

communities that suffer from asthma and other respiratory 12

illnesses. 13

As a matter of fact, we work with a partner 14

organizatio n called Partner Play, which are school

- aged 15

children. There's about 60

- plus children in this 16

organization. They are located just downwind from the 17

Ports of Long Beach. Of these members about one

- in

- five 18

participants are asthmatic and as we engage in ph ysical 19

activities most of the participants avoid physical 20

activity, so that they do not have an asthma attack. 21

It's very dramatic when you have an asthma attack 22

and you rush off to the emergency room, especially amongst 23

your peers. And when you have n o ability to really

-- the 24

resources to get back into shape it's very difficult. And 25143

they do that, not just for their own sake, but for the sake 1

of their family and so they don't pull their parents out of 2

work and cause more financial burden on their fami lies. 3

These are just some examples of the respiratory illnesses 4

and impacts to our communities, because of exposure to air 5

pollution and to ozone specifically. 6

That's why I'm here today to urge the EPA to move 7

towards the most stringent ozone standards and that we move 8

towards no more than 60 parts per billion for ozone. 9

As you know the most significant sources of ozone 10

are mobile sources. And of those mobile sources freight is 11

probably the most significant contributor in our 12

communities. Freight f acilities such as sea ports, rail 13

yards, logistics centers, tend to be cited in working 14

class, working poor communities of color. And these 15

particular communities are overburdened like I mentioned 16

earlier with respiratory illnesses. 17

Again, that's why I want to urge the EPA to move 18

towards the most stringent standards, no more than 60 parts 19

per billion. With that said, I'd like to request or 20

recommend some specifics. 21

I think the EPA should require the states to 22

include significant sources in their im plementation plans. 23

The EPA needs to make it absolutely clear that the Clean 24

Air Act requires state to demonstrate attainment or include 25144

all feasible measures. 1

We think that including freight facilities in 2

these plans is necessary. Especially if we'r e going to be 3

having more stringent standards we need to look at all the 4

significant sources and look at every source that can bring 5

us an attainment, so that we can protect public health and 6

meet our standards. 7

And furthermore, the solution to this prob lem is 8

not only health protective, but it can also be an economic 9

opportunity. And that's why I also want to encourage the 10

EPA to require in the guidance, the states move towards 11

implementing zero emission technologies. This will both 12

move us towards hea lthier air and job opportunities and 13

development of zero emission technologies. Thank you. 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

RAMON GUERRA 16

MR. GUERRA: Hey, there. My name's Ramon Guerra, 17

I'm a fifth

- grade teacher from Fruitvale Elementary in 18

Oakland, California. I'm here to represent my family

-- 19

MR. PAGE: I'm sorry. Would you spell your name 20

for the court reporter? 21

MR. GUERRA: Sure. R

- A

- M

- O

- N G

- U

- E

- R

- R

- A. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 23

MR. GUERRA: I'm here today to represent my 24

students, their families and my own family. My brother 25145

suffered from asthma when he was younger, had difficulties 1

breathing. Coming from a low

- income family it was often 2

difficult for us to purchase the medicine he needed for 3

that, so he often had to stay away from sports and 4

differ ent recreational activities. 5

I myself, am an avid biker. I bike about 16 6

miles per day: 8 miles to work from Berkeley and 8 miles 7

back in an attempt to not contribute to, you know, the 8

emissions being put out into the air by cars and whatnot. 9

So I myse lf have to deal with those issues in the morning, 10

passing by various trucks, buses and different things like 11

that, which often leaves me very tired and gasping for air 12

by the time I get to work and home from work. 13

So I bike from Berkeley and into Oakla nd past 14

many trucks, trains, different things like that, that often 15

put out these harmful chemicals and particles and smog into 16

the air. And I bike into these low

- income communities that 17

are surrounded by much development , many buildings, many 18

businesses, factories that also produce these same effects. 19

And I speak on behalf of many of my students 20

suffering from asthma. As you guys probably know asthma is 21

one of the leading causes of absenteeism among students

. 22

A nd with schools like mine, low

- income schools that already 23

lack the funding they need for resources and experiences 24

like this , taking field trips, trying out new things, 25146

gaining new experiences , it's important for us to have all 1

of our students attending school on a daily basis. It 2

makes it d ifficult if they're struggling breathing or they, 3

themselves, can't afford the same sort of medication that 4

my brother required when he was younger. 5

So I'm here just to bring awareness to you guys 6

and have them also bring awareness to everyone around h ere. 7

And let you guys know that we're trying to push for more 8

clean air, cleaner laws, because it's important for these 9

guys. They're the future, the future of our great country 10

here. And I think it's important to be watching out for 11

their best interest s even over my own, so thank you for 12

hearing me out. And yeah, I hope some good stuff gets 13

passed. 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all very much. 15

So where is Fruitvale Elementary School, where is 16

Fruitvale located? 17

MR. GUERRA: East Oakland. 18

MR. PAGE: East Oakland, Okay. Thank you. 19

Very good, our next speakers are Kareta Williams 20

and Nancy Reiser. Welcome. 21

MS. WILLIAMS: I guess it's just me. 22

MR. PAGE: Just you, you're Kareta Williams. 23

MS. WILLIAMS: Kareta Williams, K

- A

- R

- E

- T

- A, last 24

name Williams. 25147

MR. PAGE: And Nancy Reiser? 1

MS. REISER: Here. 2

MR. PAGE: Ah, good. Thank you for joining us. 3

Ms. Williams, you're first. 4

KARETA WILLIAMS 5

MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name is Kareta 6

Williams. I've lived in Oakland my whole life. I was an 7

asthma sufferer from age 12 to age 18, but unfortunately 8

some kids who cannot overcome asthma. I was just one of 9

the lucky ones. 10

But I came just to let you know that I work for 11

Alameda County. And we have a sustainability program in 12

wh ich we have clean air vehicles that bring people from the 13

BART stations to our various buildings. We've developed 14

clean air buildings where we have recycled air inside of 15

our buildings, one being such as the Juvenile Justice 16

Center. I was housed there fo r three years. 17

Before we went into the Juvenile Justice Center I 18

worked in the Juvenile Hall, which we had clean air where 19

we could open the windows and breathe fresh air. But then 20

on smoggy days we were breathing smoggy fresh air. We were 21

across the B ay, so we could look out the windows and be 22

able to see the Bay. But on the smoggiest days we couldn't 23

even see beyond the City of San Leandro. 24

Another thing is we've developed a program where 25148

it's called Zimride, where you can calculate your points 1

a mong like

-- for instance, I carpool with my kids daily. 2

I take them to and from school, so I qualify for the 3

Zimride Program and we got various prizes for 4

participating. We ha ve people that bike to work every day. 5

We ha ve people that walk to work every day , b ut then on the 6

smoggiest days they're breathing the smoggiest air. 7

And therefore, our schoolchildren, they have 8

windows in their classrooms where they can open and breathe 9

fresh air. But then, at the same time, sometimes the 10

heating system is n ot good and it's overheated in their 11

classrooms. So those are things we need to work on in 12

terms of developing recycled air in the school systems, 13

because if they can't go outside and play what happens if 14

they have to stay inside? 15

So I just wanted to speak on behalf of our 16

Fruitvale students and the City of Oakland and the County 17

of Alameda, just to see if we can develop something better 18

for our environment. Thank you. 19

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 20

NANCY REISER 21

MS. REISER: Thank you. I'm going to read my 22

comments, it's hard to follow such an eloquent speaker. 23

My name is Nancy Reiser. I'm one of the co

24

founders of Cro ckett

- Rodeo United to Defend The 25149

Environment, otherwise known as C

- R

- U

- D

- E, CRUDE. 1

I live in a small h amlet of Crockett, which is 2

six miles west of Martinez in Contra Costa County, home to 3

four oil refineries. Across the water of the Carquinez 4

Strait is a fifth refinery in Benicia in Solano County. 5

Believe me, we who all live in the oil refinery 6

fence line communities know all about emissions that reduce 7

the ozone. Even more now that oil refineries are doubling 8

down and intend to refine the dirtiest and the polluting of 9

crudes

-- Canadian Tar Sands. And they are refining as 10

much as they can before th e affordability of renewable 11

energy pulls the plug on fossil fuels. 12

Now, polluting emissions from all sources impact 13

not only humans, but animals and plants as well. Ground 14

level pollution reduces lung function in humans and animals 15

and increases the su sceptibility to disease. Ground level 16

pollution also impacts sensitive forest vegetation and 17

impacts the plants ability to fight off disease and to 18

produce and to store food. 19

You know, I'm reminded of something that Vaclav 20

Smil once wrote. Now, Smil is a Canadian interdisciplinary 21

professor of energy and environmental policies. And is 22

considered one of the top global policy thinkers. Smil 23

said, "No matter how complex or affluent, human societies 24

are but just subsystems of the biosphere, the Earth's th in 25150

veneer of life, which is ultimately run by bacteria, fungi 1

and green plants." 2

We are all connected. We at Crockett

- Rodeo 3

United to Defend the Environment fully support the EPA's 4

proposal that will ultimately help protect all precious 5

forms of life, b e it a forest, creatures who crawl or walk 6

on land, swim in water, or fly in the sky. 7

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you very much, both 8

of you, for coming. 9

Our next speakers are Eduardo Martinez and Sylvia 10

Gr ay
- White. 11

Take your time. Welcome both of you, thank you 12

for coming. Mr. Martinez, you're up first. 13

EDUARDO MARTINEZ 14

MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. Okay. My name's Eduardo 15

Martinez. I'm a resident of Richmond, newly elected to the 16

Richmond City Council and previously on the Planning 17

Commission. 18

I w as elected to the City Council despite a $3 19

million campaign by Chevron against me and my teammates, 20

but the fact that we won over $3 million shows the 21

community is concerned about the environment. That was one 22

of the major concerns. 23

So I'm here to speak on smog in California, more 24

specifically in the East Bay. Although the San Francisco 25151

area is not one of the five most

- polluted areas in 1

California, we still breathe polluted air. We have a 2

string of five oil refineries that continue to pollute the 3

surrounding communities. 4

I am a retired school teacher and in 2002 at 5

Do w ner Elementary downwind from the Chevron Refinery 6

teachers and parents had to form an asthma club to develop 7

adaptations to the physical education curriculum to 8

acc ommodate a larger percentage of the student body with 9

asthma. The majority of Downer students are children of 10

color and as maps of pollution concentration illustrate, it 11

is the communities of color who are most adversely 12

impacted. In Richmond, the map sh ows that the higher 13

levels of pollution are around the freeways, railways, and 14

the refinery. 15

A favorite tactic of refineries is to reject 16

responsibility for pollution

- related illnesses, because as 17

they say, "There are too many determinants to narrow th e 18

causes down to us." But with over 15,000 affected by the 19

Chevron fire in 2012 the major cause is hard to deny. 20

I say that pollution is pollution and what is in 21

the air today is in my lungs

-- I'm sorry, what was in the 22

air yesterday is in my lungs t oday. The baseline of the 23

pollution in our soil, water and air should have been set 24

decades ago. And the accumulative amounts of pollutants 25152

should be a factor in the current level of pollutants 1

allowed. 2

I was on the Planning Commission when Chevron's 3

m odernization project was approved. Their original plan 4

was to rebuild 20 percent of the plant, which would give 5

them the ability to pollute at a higher rate by processing 6

dirtier crude , b ut through cap and trade on paper, appeared 7

to pollute at zero net i ncrease. Chevron claimed to have 8

no intention of processing heavier crude, but refused to 9

put that down in writing. 10

State Attorney Kamala Harris, in a letter to the 11

City of Richmond, criticized the draft environmental impact 12

report for Chevron Moderni zation Project stressing that as 13

the environmental community knew, the purpose of Chevron's 14

project is to process higher sulfur crude oil. 15

In that letter, Ms. Harris touted an Alternative 16

11, which lowered the greenhouse gas emissions from the 17

refinery. Without the Attorney General's support the 18

Planning Commission might not have approved Alternative 11 19

along with ten other conditions recomm ended by the U.S. 20

Chemical Safety Board. This illustrates how important it 21

is for organizations that protect our environment to do 22

their work and to support the communities to make sure that 23

air is cleaner. 24

So that's why we're here letting you know that 's 25153

why we support you a nd providing the best possible laws and 1

regulations. So thank you very much. 2

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 3

MS. STONE: Excuse me, I have a question. Do you 4

have a specific recommendation about the level of the 5

standard? 6

MR. MARTINEZ: Actually, I don't have a specific 7

recommendation, but whatever is possible is what we should. 8

My specific recommendation is the lowest possible amount. 9

MR. PAGE: That's clear. 10

MS. STONE: Yes, it is. 11

(Applause) 12

MR. PAGE: Ms. White? 13

SYLVIA GRAY

- WHITE 14

MS. WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is Sylvia 15

Gr ay
- White, I'm a member of CBE and the Sierra Club. I 16

live in Richmond, California; a city beset for decades with 17

toxic heavy metal environmental issues. 18

I am in favor of any and all efforts to c lean our 19

air and stop this premeditated murder of citizens who get 20

sick and die just because they breathe the air. 21

If your intent for changing the regulations is to 22

create a more livable and clean environment , I would like 23

to suggest and emphasize the ne ed to fully evaluate and 24

stop the chemtrails that are lighting up our sky on a daily 25154

basis with dozens of toxic chemicals such as aluminum, 1

barium, strontium, arsenic, lead, mercury , benzene , 2

desiccated human red blood cells, desiccated human white 3

blood c ells. 4

Why? Why are they doing this knowing that these 5

chemicals are deadly? This is a very small sample of the 6

long list of what they are purposely spraying, not what is 7

coming out of their tailpipe as exhaust. The Bay Area Air 8

Quality Management Di strict has made some attempts to 9

resolve the air pollution issues in the Bay Area and are 10

focused on the oil refineries in our area. 11

Oil refineries should have a lot of focus and 12

they should have even more focus, but they aren't the only 13

ones killing u s in our planet. Our own government, using 14

our tax dollars is sending out Navy military planes and 15

some private planes full of toxic chemicals that are 16

spraying death and destruction on our planet. 17

Both Chevron and the chemtrails put arsenic in 18

the ai r, but the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 19

does not monitor for arsenic to see how much we are 20

breathing every day. My mother passed away this past May, 21

last year, arsenic was very high in her body. 22

Because I'm a participant and I take the ha ir 23

analysis tests in my own specific test it showed that the 24

level of lead has magnified, increased at least 20 times in 25155

just a year. And that's why I got this, because lead 1

displaces the calcium in your bones. And these chemtrails 2

cause pain and all tha t, body pain. But they're being 3

dropped on us every day even though we have never, ever, 4

given permission for this to happen. We have never, ever 5

been given the opportunity to vote for this violation of 6

our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happ iness. 7

These chemtrails also cause droughts, global 8

warming, all kinds of illnesses, earth destruction and 9

cause very bad environmental pollution. Even if you don't 10

live near a refinery you're still going to get this. 11

And right now there is a chem trail flu epidemic 12

everywhere. I could almost hardly talk, because of sore 13

throat and all this mucus causing hacking coughs. 14

A lot of people are having this happen to them 15

now, but the world is waking up. They're looking up and 16

waking up. In fact, April 25th this year there will be a 17

global protest all over the world against chemtrails. The 18

world is literally sick and tired o f this unauthorized 19

attack on our life and well

- being. 20

Now, you are in a position to develop evidence 21

that could banish this death from the air. I have read on 22

the Internet that you have started to study what's going on 23

with the chemtrails. I certain ly hope this is true and we 24

really appreciate that and sincerely hope and urge that you 25156

prioritize this environmental and health issue. And help 1

us to not only survive, but to thrive. Thank you. 2

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 3

Amy Anderson and Dan Johnson are our next 4

speakers. 5

Why don't we wait for a minute for the room to 6

settle a little bit? Thank you. 7

(Colloquy off mic as audience members depart) 8

All right. So Amy, you're up first. 9

AMY LEE ANDERSON 10

MS. ANDERSON: Yes. My name is A my Lee Anderson. 11

I'm a City of Richmond resident. And I'm a human rights 12

activist as well and I'm concerned about poor quality air. 13

And the problem is not enough people are joining 14

and participating and establishing a good quality air. And 15

some of th e major problems that I can see is not enough 16

people are willing to speak up about how important this 17

issue is and that it is good for us, important for us to 18

breathe healthy air, no matter what some people think and 19

dealing with the sanctions. 20

I'm findi ng out that as many people are speaking 21

out, but it's sad that many jobs are being threatened. And 22

some people want to speak out, but then they become 23

whistleblowers. And we've got to find a way to protect 24

people who really care about humanity, because I 'm finding 25157

out that people concerned about their own jobs

-- and some 1

people on the inside threaten these people. And when those 2

things happen you think about losing your homes, if you're 3

a homeowner, or lose your job or your lifetime savings, 4

things like that. 5

S o my concern is to look out for the people who 6

really mean well and really want to change society and 7

support these people, because a lot of people we know have 8

lost everything trying to do the right thing. So that's 9

some of the things I can s ee. 10

And regardless of who it is we need to get these 11

people out of office too, who just for the corporate greed 12

and money, and just don't care about humanity. We need to 13

not put these people in office, don't vote these people in. 14

In order for things to change we've got to see who's being 15

put in these positions to regulate these quality air 16

control. Who is responsible for doing these things right 17

along with are they qualified. Do they do some type of 18

self

- analysis or personality test of asking do

-- fi nd out 19

do they really care about the people or is it they just 20

want the job? Because that will determine what kind of 21

people we have in position. 22

And also, I don't know if you even heard about 23

the HAARP technology, but it's a lot of technology just 24

alte ring the weather. And people are starting to speak out 25158

about that. They have a Dr. Nick Begich that talks about 1

the HAARP and it's just different things that's happening 2

in the world, that we all are concerned about. And we need 3

to know what kind of tec hnology they have out there that 4

can kill the animals and deal with the mammals. 5

And what kind of frequencies, unregulated 6

frequencies, they are using to upset nature? And if these 7

frequencies and these different radiation of radio 8

transmission is jus t bombarding our planet then we're 9

killing the planet. So I just wanted to talk down to 10

earth. I didn't want to come with some eloquent speech, 11

because that's not important. My sincere heart is, thank 12

you. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson, 14

welcome. 15

DAN JOHNSON 16

MR. JOHNSON: Hi. My name 's Dan Johnson and I am 17

the e xecutive d irector of WESTAR, the Western States Air 18

Resources Council. WESTAR is an association of 15 western 19

air quality agencies. 20

I am pleased to be here today to speak on behalf 21

of the WESTAR states about EPA’s proposal to revise the 22

NAAQS, the Nation al Ambient Air Quality Standard s

. 23

We support revisions to the NAAQS based on the 24

best available science. While we recognize that the level 25159

and the form of the standard mu st be based on science 1

alone, we are pleased that EPA is seeking comment on some 2

of the implementation aspects of the ozone NAAQS. We urge 3

EPA to release the guidance a soon as possible. 4

In my comments today, I will touch on two related 5

key concerns: Fi rst, the impact of background and 6

transported ozone in western states; and second, the need 7

to expand our capability to characterize ozone in potential 8

new western nonattainment areas, thereby ensuring that the 9

best possible control strategy decisions can be made. 10

If EPA adopts a standard in the range of 65 to 70 11

parts per billion, it is inevitable that new nonattainment 12

areas will be designated in the west and that some of these 13

areas will be designated predominantly as the result of 14

ozone transported from outside the nonattainment area 15

boundaries. This transported background ozone or the 16

precursor pollutants that cause ozone may originate in 17

another state, in Mexico and Canada or even in Asia. It 18

may be transported down from the stratosphere. It may be 19

the produ ct of wildfires. 20

In short, there is great uncertainty about the 21

magnitude, the frequency, the duration , the geographic 22

distribution of some of these contributors to ozone in the 23

west ern states

. 24

Background levels of ozone in remote areas , 25160

including ma ny intermountain National Parks are 1

consistently above the standard proposed by EPA. In many 2

of these areas, very little of the ozone can be attributed 3

to emissions from the area actually violating the standard. 4

Ozone exceedances in areas like this orig inate from a mix 5

of anthropogenic and non

- anthropogenic sources. That 6

source mix, pollution transport over the complex terrain 7

common in western states, and the role of natural events 8

such as wildfires are just a few examples of scientific 9

issues that are not well understood. 10

Making good choices about how to i mprove air 11

quality in ozone non attainment areas will depend on how 12

well we understand the science, and our understanding of 13

the science needs to improve. 14

The implementation tools available to states to 15

account for non

- anthropogenic ozone treated as exceptional 16

events are administratively burdensome and fraught with 17

problems of second

- guessing, oftentimes due to a lack of 18

reliable supporting data. While we appreciate that EPA 19

recognizes this and does intend to make improvements to the 20

regulatory requirements to make it work better, a 21

fundamental lack of scientific understanding and the data 22

on emissions from these exceptional events will continue to 23

plague e fforts to account for them. Every hour spent 24

analyzing pollution that cannot be controlled simply to 25161

satisfy EPA’s administrative requirements is just that: 1

administrative overhead that does nothing to improve air 2

quality. 3

In 2007, WESTAR commented that EPA needed to 4

provide funding support to help states understand ozone 5

background and transport in the west. At that time, we 6

noted that EPA had provided substantial funding to support 7

eastern ozone analysis, and with that extraordinary 8

support, EPA was a ble to help eastern states develop the 9

capacity to understand the origin ozone precursors, ozone 10

formation and the fate of ozone with a level of confidence 11

to develop regulatory programs necessary to improve air 12

quality. 13

Once again, we urge EPA to make a similar 14

commitment to the west. 15

In conclusion, implementing a more stringent 16

ozone standard in the west will require a much better 17

understanding of the role of background and transported 18

ozone . We call on EPA to provide the resources needed to 19

advance our knowledge in these areas. 20

Further, we call on EPA to streamline the tools 21

states may use to address areas that violate the new 22

standard due to sources over which we have little or no 23

control. 24

We look forward to working with EPA to advance 25162

our kn owledge about the contributions of background and 1

transported ozone in the west , and helping EPA refine the 2

implementation tools that will help all of us make the best 3

possible decisions for public health protection. 4

Thank you. 5

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 6

Our next speakers are Molly Arthur and Jason 7

Holder

. 8

MOLLY FAY VALLEJO MCGETTIGAN ARTHUR 9

MS. ARTHUR: This is appropriate that I'm up here 10

with a father who is a child. My name is Molly Fay Vallejo 11

McGettigan Arthur a nd I'm a sixth

- generation Californian 12

here. Sure. 13

I hope you know how to spell Vallejo, but Molly 14

is M

- O

- L

- L

- Y, Fay F

- A

- Y, Vallejo, V

- A

- L

- L

- E

- J

- O and 15

McGettigan as it sounds, M

- C

- G

- E

- T

- T

- I

- G

- A

- N . And I did 16

take my husband's name of 41 years, Arthur. 17

So I'm a sixth

- generation Californian, 18

grandmother, and air pollution is very personal to me. In 19

fact, it's very intimate, because it's in my body and I'm 20

passing it on to my children, my grandchildren and all 21

future generations. And that turns me into a perpetrator 22

of harm inadvertently, unfairly, immorally as far as I'm 23

concerned. 24

So I'm not an expert and I depend on you all to 25163

be the experts. I am turning myself into an activist. 1

This is the first time I've come to a hearing and spoken 2

before, an d I have had a little training in environmental 3

health. I'm working with my own organization called 4

EcoBirth

- Women for Earth and Birth and working with birth 5

keepers. And birth keepers guard our most precious 6

birthright being born healthy and loved in a flourishing 7

and just world. 8

We honor women, promote social justice and 9

protect the living life

- giving relationships of mother, 10

baby, mother earth. So wherever there is a creation of 11

disconnection between these relationships that's where we 12

as women and elders want to speak up and say this is wrong, 13

we are the life

- givers, we are the environments. And we 14

contain the maternal lineage and then we are the inheritors 15

of our past maternal lineage. 16

Certainly the six generations here in California 17

from the gold rush on, from the conquistadors on, that is 18

what I'm made of. And that's what I pass on to my children 19

and my grandchildren. And I don't want inadvertent harm to 20

be passed on through my body. And I don't want the world 21

of pollution that is harmful to children and to human 22

beings. To be continued. 23

So thank you for your expertise in knowing what 24

should be good for us. I want to say that I support you 25164

and that putting a maternal focus on what is important 1

about what we're passing on to the future generations is 2

really where our movement will be as women and mothers and 3

grandmothers. And we want to become beloved ancestors for 4

our children and grandchildren. 5

Thank you for your good work. I appreciate it. 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Mr. Holder? 7

JA SON HOLDER 8

MR. HOLDER: Good afternoon, I'm Jason Holder. 9

My name is spelled is J

- A

- S

- O

- N H

- O

- L

- D

- E

- R. I'm an 10

environmental attorney. I practice law in Oakland, 11

California. I've been practicing for about ten years and 12

I'm here on behalf of myself and my children and my 13

community. 14

No clients asked me to come here today. I came 15

on the Sierra Club bus from Oakland. 16

I've had a long

- standing interest in 17

environmental issues growing up in the Central Valley. I 18

spent part of my childhood here in Sacramento and on a farm 19

outside of Manteca. And I saw pollution all around me when 20

I was a kid . A nd it heightened my awareness then and had 21

me start writing articles or papers in high school about 22

alternatives to fossil fuel s and selenium buildup in the 23

Central Valley caused by ag and other environmental issues 24

from an early age. 25165

I was a geography major in college and learned a 1

lot about natural resources. I focused on natural resource 2

management and learned a lot about water management and 3

water qu ality issues and water supply issues, which is all 4

the more important these days with increased demand. 5

And I studied administrative law in law school 6

and definitely have a deep appreciation through the process 7

that you're going through today and I rea lly appreciate 8

being part of this process. 9

And I wanted to bring my son here to kind of see 10

the process. He might not be an enamored by it as he will 11

be, but I hope that this is inspiring him to get involved. 12

And I want to say that I applaud the E PA's 13

efforts over the last 40 years and everything that you've 14

done in improving our environment. And I think that the 15

proposed rule to make ozone standards more stringent is a 16

step in the right direction. And I would encourage you to 17

adopt the most stri ngent protections that is scientifically 18

justified. 19

And I think, as you know, with the economic kind 20

of cost benefit analysis I'm sure you'll take into 21

consideration the costs of lost productivity with people 22

who have asthma or who miss work as well as t he health 23

costs and weigh those against the costs of regulation and 24

the costs that are imposed upon industries. 25166

And I appreciate your time today. 1

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much. 2

Thanks for bringing your son. 3

MS. STONE: Yeah, thank you very much. 4

MR. PAGE: So we're going to take a break until 5

2:00 o'clock. And then we'll have a whole afternoon and 6

evening billet of speakers right on up until 9:00 o'clock 7

tonight. 8

So you're welcome to come back. And thank you 9

all that have made com ments. We appreciate you coming here 10

and making the effort to be here. 11

( LUNCH RECESS ) 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25167

Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the 1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS) 2

February 2, 2015 3

Sacramento, California 4

Steve Page, Presiding Officer 5

* * * 6

AFTERNOON SESSION 7

MR. PAGE: ... of o ur public hearing for the 8

EPA's proposed ozone standard. 9

I'll g ive you all a second to get seated and get 10

comfortable. 11

W e had a very excellent morning of testimony. 12

We're looking forw ard to this afternoon and this evening. 13

I guess we're going to be here until 9:00 o'clock, so yes 14

we're looking forward to it. 15

Some of us came all the way from the East C oast, 16

so we're determined to get all the testimony we can in 17

California, before we go back. 18

I did want to read some statements ; I have to do 19

that. For those of you were here this morning, I've got 20

some formal statements that I have to read. And I'm g oing 21

to do that and I promise I'll go even faster than I did 22

this morning for those of you who were here and had to 23

listen to it. 24

Before that, I wanted to introduce the panel 25168

members. We are waiting for one more, but she'll come 1

down. We usually have at least three panel members. We've 2

go t that, so we'll start on. 3

My name is Steve Page . A nd I’m the D irector of 4

Air Quality Planning and Standards for the U. S. 5

Environmental Protection Agency in Washington or I'm 6

actually based in North Carolina

. 7

B ut we do the work , and among other things we 8

develop proposals for the NAAQS. We take the science from 9

the scientists , and the lawyers , and the economists and 10

everybody. And it ' s our job to put that into a proposal. 11

And we present that proposal to the A dministrator, which is 12

what the purpose of the commenting is today. 13

And I would like to have the other panelists 14

introduce themselves and t e ll you a little bit about what 15

they do, so you know who you're watching here as we're 16

taking testimony. 17

So Amy, why don't you go ahead ? 18

MS. ZIM P F ER: Welcome everyone. My name is Amy 19

Zim p f er. I’m an associate director for the Air Division at 20

the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office in San 21

Francisco. So we cover California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawa ii 22

and t he Pacific Islands. 23

And our job is implementation. So once the 24

national standards are established, it ' s our job to work 25169

with the state and local air district to develop the plans 1

that will lead towards attainment of the standards. 2

We of cou rse do permitting and enforcement as 3

well , but we're very pleased to have so many people here 4

today and w e're looking forward to your testimony. 5

MR. PAGE: Great, Patrick. 6

MR. D O LWICK: And I'm Pat D o lwick. I'm also , 7

like Steve , from EPA's office in North Carolina in the 8

office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 9

And on behalf of my colleague, Susan Stone, we 10

form some of the technical expertise that has established 11

the foundation for the ozone NAAQS proposals. Susan on t he 12

health side, myself more on the atmospheric, chemistry and 13

transport side of things. 14

MR. PAGE: Very good , so you have the real 15

experts listening to the testimony today. 16

You 've heard the term background ozone and 17

Patrick does a lot of work on th at, the scientific work on 18

that, with a variety of scientists. And Susan does the 19

risk estimates and things like that. So we've got the 20

right people and with the implementation, we've got a full 21

team in here to take this testimony. 22

So, if you'll indu lge me while I read these 23

required statements and then we'll get into taking the 24

testimony. 25170

The first thing I have to say, that I was asked 1

by the folks that graciously gave us this auditorium to 2

hold the hearing , is a safety announcement. And that is 3

for safety reasons, please note the emergency exit to the 4

rear of the room . I n the event of a fire alarm, we're 5

required to evacuate this room immediately and go down the 6

stairs and out of the building. When the all clear signal 7

is given, we'll return t o the hearing room and resume the 8

hearing. 9

All right, very good. So, let me read this 10

formal statement. This is the time to settle in while I'm 11

reading it, so you can get comfortable here. 12

We're here today to listen to your comments on 13

proposed re visions to the National Ambient Air Quality 14

Standards for Ozone. 15

The EPA announced th i s proposed rule on November 16

25, 2014, and published it in the Federal Register on 17

December 17, 2014. 18

We've had two other public hearings to date. 19

Last week, we h eld a hearing in Washington D.C. In fact , 20

there were two hearings in one day. There was so much 21

interest that we had two concurrent sessions going in D. C. 22

And then also last week, toward the end of the week, we had 23

a hearing in Dallas, Fort Worth, Texa s. And this is the 24

third and final. 25171

Our proposal is based on extensive scientific 1

evidence about ozone's effects on public health and 2

welfare. 3

The proposed updates will improve public health 4

protection, particularly for children, the elderly and 5

pe ople of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma, 6

as well as improved public welfare protection, particularly 7

related to ozone sensitive trees and other plants in 8

protected forested ecosystems, such as national wilderness 9

areas. 10

We've proposed to strengthen both the primary 11

ozone standard to protect public health and the secondary 12

standard to protect public welfare. 13

We are proposing to set the levels of the primary 14

and the secondary standards in a range from 65 to 70 parts 15

per billion. These s tandards would be met when the three

16

year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8

- 17

hour average ozone concentration is at or below the new 18

level. 19

The proposal would also extend the ozone 20

monitoring season for many states and update the Air 21

Quality Index to ensure people are informed about their air 22

quality. 23

These proposed standards do not establish 24

emission control requirements for any particular industry. 25172

Each state, as needed, will determine how to best meet the 1

standards in a way th at makes the most sense for their 2

area. 3

States will have time to develop and implement 4

plans to meet revised standards. Existing and proposed 5

federal rules will help the vast majority of areas meet the 6

proposed standards by 2025. 7

I want to thank yo u, on behalf of the panel, for 8

taking time out of your day to join is and share your 9

comments. We will accept comments on all aspects of the 10

proposal, including on retaining the existing standards. 11

Before we get started, I need to go through a few 12

mor e housekeeping items and ground rules that will make 13

today's hearing run smoothly. 14

First, be sure you've checked in at the 15

registration desk, even if you're not planning to speak. 16

And if you've signed up to speak onl ine or by phone, but 17

haven't told us that you're here, please step out to the 18

registration desk and let the EPA staff there know that 19

you've arrived. That way we can make sure you get in line 20

and in proper order for speaking. 21

All right, so t he way we're going to work is the 22

same way we d id this morning. We'll call the speakers up 23

in pairs. When your name is called, please come to the 24

tables here in front of the room and remain at the table 25173

until both speakers have completed their comments. 1

When I call on you to speak, please state yo ur 2

name and spell it for the court reporter, who's sitting 3

over there. 4

Your comments will be transcribed and included in 5

the official record of comments, or the docket, on the 6

proposed rule. 7

Each speaker will have five minutes to give 8

comments. We have a light to help you know how much time 9

you have left to speak. The light's right here in front. 10

When the light turns from green to yellow, that 11

means you have one minute remaining. When it turns red, 12

that's a signal to wrap up your testimony. The light will 13

flash red and beep when you've spoken for five minutes and 14

it ' s time to stop. If you go on much longer than that, I'm 15

not sure what's going to happen. It didn't happen this 16

morning, so don't press i t . I don't know if confetti goes 17

off or something. I don't know. 18

When you finish speaking, please remain at the 19

table a s I said

. 20

W e're going to be here to listen to you today, 21

but if a panel member asks you a question, that's not a bad 22

thing. It ' s just that we're just trying to get a 23

cl arification on what you've said, or just something for 24

our own benefit. Maybe a clarification there if we didn't 25174

hear something and we want to make sure we get your 1

comments. 2

If you have a written copy of your testimony, 3

please give it to the staff at the registration desk before 4

you leave. We'll put any written comments submitted today 5

in the official docket for the proposed rule. 6

Here's something very important. If you have 7

additional comments you woul d like to make, you can submit 8

them in writing until March 17, 2015. Instructions for 9

submitting additional written comments are available at the 10

materials table near the registration desk. 11

We've already talked about the timing for the 12

hearings today. If you have any questions during the day, 13

please talk to the staff at the registration desk and 14

someone will try to help you. 15

We are offering Spanish translation and I'm going 16

to let Carlos address that issue for me, since I don't 17

speak Spanish. Yes. 18

(Spanish announcement r e: translation services. ) 19

MR. PAGE: Gracias. 20

Finally, I want to ask each of you to please be 21

respectful of everyone who speaks today. We have people 22

with a wide variety of views in the audience and we want to 23

hear from all of you , so we can do that and to be fair to 24

everyone, we ask that everybody listen quietly. Even the 25175

little kids that came in this morning kept it down to where 1

the testimony could go on. It was great. So even applause 2

can slow things down and s o we wa nt to hear from everybody, 3

so we'll try to keep this moving as quickly as possible so 4

everybody has a chance to speak. 5

Once again, I would like to thank everybody for 6

coming today and participating in this very important 7

process. 8

Lastly I will say that I know I can speak for 9

people at EPA that we consider this to be one of the most 10

important aspects of our jobs is to listen to the public, 11

to what they say about the science that we've pulled 12

together, the proposal that's at hand. And so it ' s our 13

ple asure to be here as well. We really appreciate your 14

effort to be here, but we feel like this is one of the most 15

important aspects of our job that we do is listening to 16

people directly on what they have to say about the work 17

that we do. 18

Susan, you've al ready been introduced to the 19

group, so no apologies necessary. We just got right into 20

it. 21

MS. STONE: Good. Thank you very much. 22

MR. PAGE: Okay, very good. Well, so why don't 23

we call up our first speakers for the afternoon. 24

Evan Shipp and Nat han Landers , g entlemen. Mr. 25176

Shipp, you're first. 1

EVAN SHIPP 2

MR. SHIPP: Thank you. I think you for the 3

opportunity to comment here. 4

My name is Evan Shipp, S

- H

- I

- P

- P. And I was 5

going to say, I'm Evan Shipp and I'm fresh from Fresno. 6

Well, the air quality is not exactly fresh in Fresno. 7

And I'm an air pollution meteorologist and a 8

modeler. I've worked for three districts in California a nd 9

also as a consultant for some more districts. I've also 10

worked for with environmental groups. And on a p ersonal 11

note, in 1998, I was diagnosed with asthma after living in 12

the San Joaquin Valley for a year. 13

My mother

- in

- law is a lung cancer survivor. And 14

she also lives in Fresno and she's sensitive to ozone. 15

And also I'm a San Joaquin bicycle commute r and 16

our joke, in the San Joaquin Valley is, "We filter the air 17

for you." So it ' s not exactly a wonder place if you 18

exercise. 19

We also have another joke about the San Joaquin 20

Valley, and that is that we're a four season valley. 21

You've got a course
- pa rticulate season, a fine

- particulate 22

season, an ozone season and a pollen season. It ' s bad if 23

you're a breather. And that points out that individuals in 24

the San Joaquin Valley ar e exposed four seasons a year. 25177

For instance, very recently in October and 1

November, we had a major PM 2.5. episode. We go all winter 2

with a PM 2.5. We go into the spring, into the pollen 3

season and then boom , t he breathers are hit with an ozone 4

season t hat's very high. 5

So basically what I'd like to day today is I 6

recommend that you go with the 60 ppb. And I consider that 7

to be a conservative level. I think if you look at the 8

health data and you probably all have, you see that there's 9

lung function changes at 60 ppb. Now whether or not those 10

cause health effects, I know t hat there's quite a bit of 11

question as whether that's a concern. 12

I just want to talk, I'm kind of unique in terms 13

of I've had a very long career. I started doing this in 14

the 1980's. 15

So when I started in 1979, the 1

- hour health 16

standard was 124 ppb. Then it went down and through some 17

politics, it ended up at 84 ppb. And now, I think we're 18

making up for lost time and lost ground after having a 19

standard that was somewhat health related. So I think that 20

we kind of nee d to recover some of those more political 21

kinds of designations of the health standard. 22

The other major point that I'd like to make is 23

I'm still interested in a 1

- hour standard. And that is 24

because when there's monitoring out there, for instance 25178

what y ou guys see on air now, that a person can make a 1

decision as to whether to be exposed or not. With an 8

- 2

hour standard, you don't know what's going to happen in the 3

next eight hours and you don't know what's happened before. 4

But with a 1

- hour standard you' d know in real time how to 5

take precautions for your personal exposure. 6

I think that's about all I have to say today , s o 7

I really thank you for your time . A nd I'm glad to be here 8

and that I can be a citizen today and take and take this 9

time to make the se comments. Thank you. 10

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. 11

NATHAN LANDERS 12

MR. LANDERS: Hi , yes. I'm Nathan Landers , L

- A

13

N

- D

- E

- R

- S , a nd I work for the Sierra Club, based out of San 14

Francisco. Thank you very much for giving me the 15

opportunity to testi fy today. 16

So far today, most of the people have been in 17

favor of a stronger air quality standard on smog, but there 18

has been a lot from

-- mostly from industry, a lot has been 19

said about cost a nd the cost and practical implications of 20

enforcing a strong er standard. 21

However, there is a price that i s already paid by 22

the status quo, for the current levels of smog in 23
California. Some sample statistics are $193 million per 24

year in medical bills and health problems due to lung 25179

cancer, asthma, cardio vascul ar disease related to smog. 1

In the L.A. region alone, there are 400,000 2

missed days of work per year , a n estimated cost of $22 3

billion in economic losses from missed days of work. 4

Thirty

- five thousand asthma attacks per year are 5

attributed to smog. And asthma is the top cause of missed 6

school da ys in California for children. 7

And most importantly it ' s been estimated that 8

smog contributes to 25,000 premature deaths a year. 9

So this is an extremely heavy and sizable cost 10

that is already been born by people across California from 11

the status quo. 12

Furthermore, the way that this pain is 13

distributed is unequal. Black and Latino youth are two

- to

14

six times more likely to die of asthma in Southern 15

California. And nationally, people of color breath e 38 16

percent nitrogen oxide then the rest of the population. 17

So the status quo is failing thousands of people 18

in our state. And those are some grim numbers. And those 19

are what we know. 20

And I think that it

- s also worth mentioning that 21

there are a wide range of available solutions that could 22

help to ameliorate this problem. 23

You know, the w orld as we know it, is really 24

changing. In California, clean energy has grown rapidly. 25180

Electric vehicles are growing very rapidly in their 1

adoption as well. 2

Governor Brown started his inauguration by saying 3

that he wanted to set a goal for the state of 50 percent 4

clean energy by 2030. And we're already ahead of the 5

current goal of 33 percent by 2020. We're going to get 6

there before the end of the decade. 7

So there's already a lot of changes that are 8

happening. A roof

- top solar installation goes up every 9

four minutes now. That was not the case just a few years 10

ago. California installed as much solar energy last year 11

as it did in the previous 30 years, I believe combined, so 12

it doubled last year. 13

So I would say that not only is there a high 14

price to pay for the status quo, but there is a way 15

forward. And I think that there's an implication in a lot 16

of the testimony about cost that its impractical or 17

i mpossible, and I would push back on that. The world is 18

changing very quickly a nd there are solutions that are 19

available, especially with the proper support. And I think 20

given the human cost, it ' s worth supporting them. 21

I also just wanted to say, at 1 :00 o'clock in the 22

park across the street, we had a rally with a lot of the 23

folks who came from all across the state ; m ostly young 24

people, ranging in age from about 25 down to 8 years old. 25181

So and coming from the Coachella Valley, Inland Empire, 1

Oakland, R ichmond, Fresno, all across the state. 2

And it was really exciting to see these kids out 3

there, hopeful, chanting, playing soccer afterwards. And I 4

think that we should be thinking about their future and 5

their hope and their attitude and their enthusia sm. And we 6

should be confident we can do this, we should do this and 7

we should push for a stronger standard. Thank you. 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 9

Our next two speakers are Brendan White and Mat t 10

Elliott. 11

MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. 12

MR. PAGE: Welcome. Mr. White. 13

BRENDON WHITE 14

MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is Brendon 15

White

. I’m the regulatory specialist for the California 16

Nurses Association and National Nurses United. 17

CNA / NNU is here today to urge the EPA to embrace 18

the science, protect the public , and adopt a 60 ppb surface 19

ozone standard. 20

As a nurse's regulatory specialist, I would like 21

to spend a few minutes reflecting on the administrative 22

process. Of all the people in this room, I think all of 23

you are perhaps the most pa infully aware of how difficult 24

the administrative process can be. In the context of these 25182

rules I imagine many of you would say this process has been 1

somewhat torturous, actually. 2

In part, the administrative process is difficult 3

because it is supposed to be scientific. And science 4

itself is a long and difficult process. But here, 5

thankfully, the science is clear a nd every day it is 6

becoming clearer ; 60 parts per billion should become the 7

nation's ceiling for surface ozone levels. This is because 8

hig her concentrations are known to cause negative health 9

effects. In other words, the difficult and meticulous 10

scientific process tells us that 60 ppb marks the boundary 11

between public health and disease. 12

Since the most difficult part of this process, 13

the scientific part, has yielded relatively certain results 14

there really shouldn't be any debate about these standards. 15

But there is , of course , another reason is difficult and 16

that's politics. I know there are some out there who would 17

doubt the science and will continue to do so , because it is 18

in their financial interest to leave the sick and the 19

vulnerable to their fates. 20

A few of our elected officials have been 21

politically captured by these financial interests , and they 22

are determined to hijack this ad ministrative process for 23

their own political gain. And having just come from Texas, 24

I'm sure you saw a lot of that. 25183

I know this is going to sound naïve or absurd, 1

but I'm here today to ask you to ignore those financial 2

interests. I know that's going to be difficult. I'd ask 3

you to instead focus on the children that you saw here 4

today, that you saw outside at the rally , as well as the 5

dozen scores of nurses who were at that rally as well. 6

The purpose of the administrative process and the 7

purpose of the Clean Air Act is to protect those people and 8

the millions they represent. We understand that it is 9

difficult to achieve those purposes, but as you consider 10

the lives at stake and you listen to the speakers, we trust 11

you will agree it is worth the tro uble to adopt a safe, 12

proven scientific standard of 60 parts per billion. Thank 13

you. 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

MATTHEW ELLIOTT 16

MR. ELLIOTT: Hello. My name is Matthew Elliott. 17

I am an ICU nurse and a member of the California Nurses 18

Association and Nati onal Nurses United. 19

I'm here today representing over 180,000 direct 20

care registered nurses throughout the nation t o urge the 21

EPA to adopt a 60 parts per billion surface ozone standard. 22

The science proves that ozone begins to cause 23

inflammation and ot her harmful health impacts at any 24

concentration above the 60 parts per billion. In other 25184

words, the science tells us that 60 is an outcome 1

determinative number for many millions of people. 2

The lungs serve as many functions in the human 3

body and one bei ng a filtration system. I find it a neat 4

statistic or not a statistic, but actual body function that 5

the average person breath e s two gallons of air per minute, 6

which is a little more than 3,000 gallons per day. 7

As a registered nurse and with the curre nt 8

standards, I see the effects of air pollution and what that 9

causes up close and personal. Many of these people are my 10

patients and daily I care for these patients suffering from 11

life threatening results and chronic pulmonary disease. 12

These diseases ar e both caused and aggravated by ozone 13

levels above the 60 parts per billion. Nurses applaud EPA 14

and the other agencies for your efforts to protect our 15

patients, families, communities and the future that it 16

holds. 17

While the proposed standards of 65 to 70 parts 18

per billion are a great way , and a necessary step in the 19

right direction, we must take bolder and more 20

transformative action in order to protect the next 21

generation. 22

There is no question the problem we have in front 23

of us is not small. It wil l take full revamping on how we 24

fuel our lives, how we build our world , and keep the lights 25185

one. This might seem like a daunting task, but if we do 1

this right, we can save billions of dollars in economic 2

activity and thousands people from life

- altering di seases 3

or premature death. 4

You don't need a medical professional to tell you 5

that the air is a fundamental part of life. We need it not 6

just to survive, but to enjoy a long

- lasting fulfilling 7

life. Nurses are proud to stand with the community today 8

in urging you to adopt the 60 parts per billion standard. 9

That standard is a right for patients and it is a right for 10

public health. Thank you. 11

MR. PAGE: Thank you . Thank you both coming 12

today. 13

Our next speakers are Wendy Ring and Larissa 14

Kohler. Welcome. Thank you. 15

Wendy, do you want to go first? 16

MS. RING: Sure. 17

MR. PAGE: Okay. 18

WENDY RING 19

MS. RING: My name is Wendy Ring , W

- E

- N

- D

- Y R

- I

20

N

- G. I'm a family physician. I've been working taking 21

care of low

- income folks for 30 years now. 22

And I really appreciate this chance to share with 23

you what an inadequate ozone standard means to me and my 24

patients. I really think that we can do better. 25186

Have you ever seen a child have an asthma attack? 1

When they come in the clinic t hey don't act like regular 2

kids. They don't move around. They hardly say anything 3

because they're using all their energy just to breath e

. 4

They breath e fast. Their lungs are full of trapped air 5

that's already given up its oxygen, but they can't breath e 6

it out to get more. The muscles in their neck stand out 7

with the effort of trying to inhale. And the little ones 8

use their belly muscles too and you can see their stomachs 9

suck in under their ribs with each breath. 10

You'd think that the wors e the asthma , the louder 11

the wheeze, but when it ' s really bad the chest is quiet, 12

because there's hardly any air moving. When things are 13

that bad, there's only so much you can do. The key to 14

asthma treatment is prevention. 15

One

- in

- ten kids and one

- in

- twelve adul ts have 16

asthma. And some would have never have gotten it and many 17

wouldn't be as sick as they are if we had an adequate ozone 18

standard. Researchers calculate that 27,000 kids in Los 19

Angeles County alone got asthma from living near traffic, 20

which exposes them to ozone and its precursors

-- 27,000 21

kids who go through what I just described , because we 22

didn't make sure they had clean air to breath. 23

What's even worse to me, as a physician, is that 24

kids whose families follow our advice about obesity 25187

prevent ion and involve their kids in sports , triple their 1

risk of asthma if they live in communities where average 8

- 2

hour ozone levels are what

-- a re you familiar with that 3

study in Southern California

-- 60 parts per billion. Why? 4

Because when kids run, they breath e faster. And every 5

breath pulls in another lung

- damaging dose of ozone. We 6

need a standard , which protects kids playing outside, not 7

just sitting in a research chamber. 8

Since 2008, when the Clean Air Scientific 9

Advisory Committee recommended a standard between 60 and 70 10

we've learned a few things. And being an extremely curious 11

person I did a literature search and I read the studies. 12

And when you get down to the fine print 60 parts per 13

billion doesn't look so good. 14

We know now that acute exposure at 60 parts per 15

billion decreases lung function an d causes inflammation in 16

the lungs of healthy young adults doing moderate exercise. 17

We know that deaths in people over 65 go up with 18

levels over 45 parts per billion. 19

We know that emergency room visits and 20

hospitalizations for pediatric asthma increase when ozone 21

levels rise above 30 parts per billion. 22

And we know that babies in the womb have 23

increased risk if inter

- uterine growth retardation if their 24

moms breath over 30 parts per billio n in the third 25188

trimester. 1

So the standard must be lower than 60 parts per 2

billion to protect healthy children and lower than 50 to 3

protect the elderly and people with chronic disease. 4

That's why the World Health Organization, India and New 5

Zealand have an 8

- hour ozone standard of 46 parts per 6

billion and why the EU and the UK have a standard of 56 7

parts per billion. 8

So as a physician who has to sit in the exam room 9

with the patients and try to come up with some sensible 10

advice, I think my plea here is to follow the science and 11

we'd also really like it if our government agencies would 12

act consistently. The CDC recommends that American 13

children go outside and play for 60 minutes a day. And I 14

would just like the EPA to set a standard that would make 15

i t safe for them to do so. 16

MR. PAGE: Very good , t hank you. 17

LARISSA KOEHLER 18

MS. KOEHLER: Good afternoon. My name is Larissa 19

Koehler , K

- O

- E

- H

- L

- E

- R. I'm an attorney with Environmental 20

Defend Fund, a non

- partisan, non

- profit environmental 21

organiza tion with more than one million members nationwide. 22

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. 23

Ozone, the main component of smog, is a harmful 24

air pollutant that is associated with adverse health 25189

effects like asthma and other respiratory diseases and is 1

even linked to early death. 2

The EPA's proposal to strengthen the current 3

national health

- based standard for ozone to a range that is 4

consistent with the recommendations of our nation's leading 5

scientists and public health and medical pro fessionals is 6

critical to protect the health of our children, families 7

and communities . A nd to ensure that all Americans know 8

whether the air they are breathing is safe. 9

In finalizing th ese important public health 10

standards EDF respectfully urges the E PA to set the 11

standard for o zone at 60 parts per billion a s the 12

scientific record demonstrates that this level would 13

provide the strongest public health for Americans. 14

In 1970, Congress established an effective 15

process in the fight against air pollution. A bipartisan 16

majority in Congress determined that the nation's health

17

based air quality standards should be based on public 18

health considerations alone. Then, in determining how to 19

achieve these health standards, states and municipalities 20

thoroughly con sider economics in developing the strategies 21

best suited to their own circumstances. 22

This dual system has been time tested, 23

congressionally mandated , and reaffirmed by the Supreme 24

Court of the United States. 2519 0

The EPA's independent Clean Air Scientific 1

Advisory Committee has indicated the current standard is 2

inadequate to protect public health and recommended a 3

standard in the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. The 4

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's recommendation 5

and EPA's analysis reflected in the proposal are based on 6

an extensive and compelling body of scientific evidence. 7

Since the last proposal there have been more than 1,000 new 8

studies that demonstrate the health and environmental harms 9

of ozone. 10

The EPA's analysis highlights the clear profound 11

health benefits of strengthening the ozone standard to 60 12

parts per billion. Under the standard, for example, the 13

EPA projects as many as 7,900 fewer deaths , 1.8 million 14

fewer asthma attacks in children , and 9.2 million fewer 15

minor restricted activities days or lost school days. 16

Indeed the EPA estimates at this level of protection , the 17

monetized benefits in 20 25 will be $37 to $75 billion. 18

Naysayers that use hyperbolic language when 19

describing the economic impacts of streng thening clean air 20

standards have not produced any credible evidence to 21

support their claims of economic harm stemming from 22

reducing ozone pollution. The U.S. has four

- and

- half 23

decades of implementing the Clean Air Act while maintaining 24

strong economic gro wth. 25191

In 1997, during another debate over strengthening 1

national ozone standards, Senator Spen c er Abraham was among 2

those who claimed that the new standards would have serious 3

economic impacts stating that dry cleaning establishments, 4

hair salons and ot her small businesses will not be able to 5

absorb the increased costs imposed by these regulations. 6

In fact, an EPA analysis instead found that the net 7

societal benefit of the Clean Air Act in its first 20 years 8

were valued at over $21 trillion. 9

In additi on, the EPA predicts a net overall improvement in 10

economic growth going forward, due to the benefits of 11

cleaner air. 12

As in the past, our nation has common sense and 13

cost

- effective solutions already moving forward that will 14

help to achieve a more protect ive ozone standard and 15

restore health y air. These solutions include clean air 16

measures , supported by the United States' auto industry 17

that will dramatically reduce the smog forming emissions 18

from new cars beginning in model year 2017 . A nd the 19

landmark Cl ean Power Plan that will reduce a suite of 20

health

- harming emissions from power plants. 21

As in the rest of the country communities in 22

California face high levels of ozone , with the Sacramento 23

area's ozone problem currently designated as severe by the 24

EPA. The most recent American Lung Association stated the 25192

air report gave Sacramento an F grade on zone. And the 1

Sacramento metro area ranked fifth out of 277 metropolitan 2

areas the ALA examined for high ozone days. 3

We also know that rising temperatures from our 4

changing climate will worsen ozone challenges in some 5

places. And that communities will need help reducing ozone 6

pollution now and in the future. 7

Setting the ozone standard to 60 parts per 8

billion will help those of us in California and across the 9

country to breath e easier. Thank you for the opportunity 10

to testify. We will be submitting further technical 11

comments. 12

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for coming 13

this afternoon. 14

All right. Our next speakers are Tom Fulks and 15

Lonni e Cor tez Russell. All right, Mr. Fulks , if you'll go 16

first that would be great. 17

TOM FULKS 18

MR. FULKS: Now that we're sitting this close I 19

can take my glasses, because I can actually see you. 20

My name is Tom Fulks, I'm the West Coast 21

representative of the D iesel Technology Forum . The 22

spelling , F

- U

- L

- K

- S, is the last name , f irst name Tom. 23

The Diesel Technology Forum is a trade 24

association that represents the diesel industry, engine 25193

makers, truck makers, car makers, after

- treatment systems, 1

component suppliers. We're the education outreach and 2

research component of the diesel industry. 3

The DTF gave testimony in Washington D.C., last 4

week, with some very spe cific technical informa tion. I a m 5

here to talk primarily about information that's germane to 6

California and the West C oast. I have a statement that I'm 7

going to read to you a nd it should not take me five minutes 8

and I've already edited a whole lot of stuff out of it. So 9

hopef ully we'll be able to make this work. 10

And Amy, nice to see you again. 11

Diesel vehicles and equipment play a key role in 12

15 sectors of the U.S. in California economy, from 13

agriculture to goods movement and warehousing , to more 14

recently in the light d uty vehicle fleet. We would like to 15

outline a prospective about NOx and the important real

16

world ozone benefits achieved by clean diesel engines, 17

vehicles and equipment in their many applications here in 18

California. 19

The impressive NO x emission reductio ns from 20

diesel technology have accrued from more than a decade of 21

collaboration between manufacturers, fuel suppliers, engine 22

makers and the California Air Resources Board and U.S. EPA. 23

Combined, we all should be able to claim some credit for 24

some signifi cant emissions reductions over the past several 25194

years. 1

To achieve today's very low levels of NO x 2

emissions, DTF member companies, manufacturers and 3

emissions control technology manufacturers have invested 4

literally billions of dollars for strategies to better 5

control NO x emissions through improved engine efficiency 6

and after

- treatment systems. This includes of course the 7

removal of most of the sulfur from fuel back in 2006, which 8

we now have ultra low

- sulfur diesel fuel. That was the key 9

to making all of this technology happen and we have had 10

good progress since that time. 11

Recently, the Advanced Collaborative Emissions 12

Study or the ACES study research co

- sponsored by EPA, the 13

Air Resources Board , and released last week by the Health 14

Effects Institut e confirmed new technology diesel engines 15

-- their near zero emissions performance as finding of no 16

significant health effects in laboratory animals over a 17

lifetime exposure. The most significant reductions in 18

emissions have come from, as I mentioned ULS D and heavy 19

duty on

- road fleet, beginning in the model year 2007 . A nd 20

further tightened for model year 2010 resulting in near 21

zero emissions for NO x and PM. And they're gaining ground 22

in the light

- duty vehicle population as well. 23

According to Californ ia vehicle registration 24

data, of the roughly 822 million class 3 through 8 heavy

- 25195

duty vehicles on the road, at the end of 2013, about 2 4 1

percent are of the 2007 and newer emissions profile while 2

another almost 10 percent of the vehicles on the road meet 3

th e stricter 2010 emissions near zero profile. 4

I think I need to correct this. This doesn't 5

come from California Vehicle Registration data, it comes 6

from PULP registration data , s o there's a typo in the 7

information that I'm reading from. 8

Here in California, it ' s reflected in CARB 9

emissions inventory data, where NO x emissions attributable 10

to the heavy duty on

- road fleet has fallen 42 percent from 11

2005 to 2012. As more of the fleet turns over to new or 12

newer vehicles, the Air Resources Board estima tes that NO x 13

emissions from heavy

- duty vehicles will fall 47 percent 14

between 2012 and 2020. These are impressions emissions 15

reductions from technology readily available today. 16

At the Port of L.A. , Port of Long Beach, they 17

came up with a Cleaner Action Plan back in 2006 that 18

required vehicles moving in and out of the ports had to 19

have technology that was 2007 emissions compliant or 20

better. Today, there are roughly 16,000 trucks moving in 21

and out of the ports every day , of those two ports alone , 22

and all of them have to be 2007 engine compliant or newer. 23

The P ort estimates that 90 percent of port trucks today are 24

powered with a diesel engine. 25196

Beginning in 2010 both ports estimate that NO x 1

emissions attributable to port trucks have fallen 2

substantially by 92 percent since 2005 , as a share of all 3

NOX emissions in the region. NO x emissions from port 4

trucks has fallen from a peak of about 42 percent in 2006 5

to about 17 percent in 2012 when th e emissions inventory 6

was completed. 7

These are significant real world emissions 8

reductions that will benefit communities surrounding the 9

port. 10

I have a red light, so if you don't mind, since 11

we represent the entire industry, just one more paragraph 12

and then I'll let it go. 13

2014 was a milestone year for introducing clean 14

diesel technology in off

- road applications

-- I really 15

wanted to get that in

-- t hat are now required to meet the 16

tier 4 requirements that are comparable to standard issue 17

for hea vy duty vehicles. These new tier 4 machine achieve 18

near zero emissions for NO x and PM at job sites and on 19

farms throughout California. 20

Thanks to the introduction of these newer 21

technology clean diesel engines, CARBS emissions inventory 22

predicts a 29

- p ercent reduction in NOX emissions 23

attributable to off

- road equipment between 2012 and 2020 24

a nd roughly 60 percent between 2005 and 2020. 25197

So with that, I thank you for your time and your 1

indulgence in the extra paragraph that I got in there, so 2

thank yo u for coming to California. 3

MR. PAGE: Thank you. And w ill you have copies 4

of your testimony for folks out there? 5

MR. FULKS: Yes , and we also plan to email them 6

in , so I'll be happy to do that. 7

MR. PAGE: Okay. 8

Ms. Russell, I understand you have a video that 9

has at least three people that are offering some testimony , 10

s o would you want to do the introduction for that ? 11

LONNIE CORTEZ RUSSELL 12

MS. RUSSELL: Correct. I was actu ally going to 13

testify as well. 14

MR. PAGE: That's great. 15

MS. RUS SEL: A nd then I will introduce the next 16

three testimonies after that. Thank you. 17

LONNIE CORTEZ RUSSELL 18

I'm Lonnie Cortez Russell , R

- U

- S

- S

- E

- L

- L. I'm 19

here today as a concerned citizen and daugh ter and aunt. 20

And I'm with Mom s Clean Air Force, a communi ty of over 21

400,000 members fighting for clean air, 50,000 of which 22

reside right here in California. 23

On behalf of our members I want to thank you for 24

the opportunity to testify today about the National Ambient 25198

Air Quality Standards for ozone. I respect fully urge you 1

to set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion, instead 2

of the suggest ed 65 to 70 parts per billion per proposed in 3

November. The scientific record demonstrates that this 4

level would provide the strongest public health protections 5

for Ame ricans and most importantly for our children. 6

I currently reside in San Francisco, but I'm no 7

stranger poor air quality growing up in the San Fernan d o 8

valley where my large Pilipino family still resides. A 9

majority of my aunts, my uncles, my cousins a nd their 10

children and my niece suffer from asthma. 11

As we know, smog pollution triggers hundreds of 12

thousands of episodes of asthma and respiratory illness 13

each year. It sends thousands of children to emergency 14

rooms and cost Californians billions in he alth care costs, 15

lost productivity and premature deaths. 16

Nearly one in every ten school children in the 17

U.S. has asthma ; a sthma being the number one health issue 18

that causes kids to miss school. One of those little ones 19

is my two

- and

- a
- half year

- old niece, Bryce

. I have a photo 20

of her here today ; t hat's me with her. 21

She lives in San Fernando, in the San Fernando 22

Valley. She's surrounded by the 5 , the 210 and the 118 23

freeways. And in an area with some of the smoggiest air in 24

California. I want to be able to tell her that we're doing 25199

our best to keep the air as clean as possible , so she and 1

all California children do not have to suffer through 2

an other painful attack. It ' s heartbreaking to see those 3

little brown eyes looking at me and her mother in pain. 4

We have the right to know that the air is safe to 5

breath e

. The Air Quality Index is an important tool that 6

helps parents make decisions abou t whether to let their 7

children play outside. The problem is that the AQI is a 8

function of the NAAQS. It represents the health 9

determination implicit in the EPA standard. If the EPA 10

standard is too lax, the Air Quality Index doesn't help 11

parents. Paren ts need an NAAQS standard that tells us the 12

truth. T h rough the AQI, parents rely on this measure to 13

make determinations about how to care for their children, 14

their parents , and themselves. 15

Right now EPA has the opportunity to protect 16

millions of Americ ans from dirty air and unnecessary 17

illness. According to EPA's analysis, strengthening the 18

smog standard to 60 ppb would confer profound health 19

benefits to Americans. At this level of protection, EPA 20

estimates 7,900 fewer deaths , 1.8 million fewer asthma 21

attacks in children , and 9.2 million fewer restricted 22

activity days or lost school days each year. The monetized 23

benefits of this level of protection in 2025 would be 24
upwards of $37 billion. 25200

Today, the public bears the burden of smog 1

pollution produc ed by fossil fuel industries. A tighter 2

standard would hold these industries accountable for their 3

pollution. Let's keep children safe with new stronger 4

standards that help millions of children with asthma and 5

other respiratory ailments breath e easier. 6

I'd also like to hand you some of the information 7

that we're sharing with our members to enter into the 8

Federal Registry. And then s o thank you for the 9

opportunity to testify today. 10

The next three testimonies that you're goin g to 11

hear are actually f rom Mom s Clean Air Force members who 12

couldn't be here today. And we have them up on the video. 13

The first is from Vanessa Warheit followed by 14

Em ily Reyna and then Carolyn Norr. Thank you. 15

VIDEO TESTIMONY: VANESSA WARHEIT 16

MS. WARHEIT: And I'm the mo ther of a nine

- year
17

old boy. This is V a nessa Warheit and I'm the mother of a 18

nine

- year
- old boy named El l iot. I'm asking the EPA to 19

implement more stringent standards for smog regulations. 20

My son , El l iot , had the benefit of living his 21

first five years i n Vancouver, British Columbia where our 22

family lived for several years. 23

When we returned to the Bay Area I was really 24

glad to be home, but I was shocked at how bad the air 25201

quality was. There was nothing like living with clean air 1

to make you aware of what bad air really looks like and 2

feels like. 3

Many of my friends here in California who se 4

children were born here now suffer from asthma a nd I am so 5

thankful that El l iot got his start in a place with clean 6

air. It breaks my heart to see my friends' c hildren 7

breathing from machines in the evening s with fear in their 8

eyes, worried that they won't be able to take their next 9

breath. 10

It breaks my heart to see their parents with 11

worry in their eyes, looking at their children, wondering 12

how they are goin g to get along with a lifetime of asthma. 13

I don't believe it ever makes sense to sacrifice 14

our children for the sake of progress. Today, this really 15

makes no sense at all. Today, progress comes from 16

harnessing the clean energy technology we have at our 17

disposal and leaving behind fossil fuel technology. 18

My family drives an electric car. We take 19

transit and we regularly ride our bikes. We sold our gas 20

car and that's progress. Progress comes from cleaning up 21

our air and saving billions of dollars in health care costs 22

and missed school days. 23

There's no l onger any valid argument that I can 24

see for living with poisoned air. The science is 25202

unequivocal. And if the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 1

Committee has concluded that adverse health effects of smog 2

are apparent at levels as low as 60 parts per billion I 'm 3

not even sure why the public needs to comment on this. 4

EPA's job is to protect the health of our environment and 5

to ensure that all Americans have clean air to breath e

. 6

I'm urging the EPA to follow the advi c e of their 7

scientists, of the American Lung Association and of 8

numerous health organizations by setting the allowable 9

level of smog at 60 parts per billion. Thank you. 10

VIDEO TESTIMONY: EMILY REYNA 11

MS. R E YNA: Hi, my name is Emily R e yna and I'm a 12

member of Mom s Clean Air Force, a community of ove r 400,000 13

moms and dads that are fighting for clean air for our 14

families. 15

I'm a first

- time mother and this is my four

- and

16

a
- half year

- old (sic) daughter, Rosalie. And I wanted to 17

deliver my comments in person, but I'm still trying to 18

figure out the lo gistics of being a working mom, so I 19

appreciate the opportunity to deliver my testimony via 20

video. 21

My family lives in Alameda, California ; a small 22

island located right below Oakland. We are surrounded by 23

several freeways, the Port of Oakland and the O akland 24

Airport. We're basically at the nexus of where heavy

- duty 25203

diesel trucks, large container ships, factories and 1

airplanes contribute to the formation of smog pollution in 2

the air we breath e every day. 3

I grew up in Los Angeles, so I am no stranger to 4

smog. But after becoming a mom to this little one, I'm 5

motivated more than ever to fight for clean air for her to 6

breath e

. 7

My mom, my husband , and my nephew all suffer from 8

a asthma. I vividly remember seeing my nephew struggle to 9

breath e when he was Rosie's age, only four

- months old. My 10

sister had to rush him to the hospital and watch in fear as 11

the doctor pumped him with steroids to open up his lungs. 12

For the first years of his life, they had to give him two 13

different medications twice a day t hat he could breath e 14

easier. 15

The science shows that smog is bad for us. It is 16

bad for me. It ' s bad for you. And it ' s especially bad for 17

Rosie and other children who se bodies and lungs are still 18

developing. Smog pollution triggers hundreds of thousa nds 19

of episodes of asthma and other respiratory ailments each 20

year. It sends thousands of children, like my nephew, to 21

the emergency rooms and costs billions in health care 22

costs, lost productivity and premature death. 23

To give a more visual description, inhaling smog 24

pollution is like getting a sunburn on your lungs. As a 25204

runner my lungs ach e just thinking about that. 1

I testif y today , as a mom, respectfully urging 2

stronger smog standards. Specifically, I urge you t o set 3

the smog standards to 60 parts per billion, which is more 4

stringent than the 65 to 75 standard proposing the number. 5

My parents always taught me to never settle for 6

average and to always aim for the best. I no doubt will 7

urge Rosie to do the same. And I think the EPA should not 8

settle for less either. 9

The scientific record demonstrates that the 60 10

parts per billion level will provide the strongest public 11

health protection for us, especially for the newest members 12

of our society like Rosalie. Thank you for this 13

opportunity to testify. 14

VIDEO TESTIMONY: CAROLYN NORR 15

MS. NORR: Thank you for this opportunity to 16

testify. 17

I won't use this time to convince you that smog 18

is bad. We all know that. And I'm sure you're in this 19

line of work , because you want to help address issues like 20

smog. But along the way, I guess, sometimes we have to 21

compromise , s omething has to get sacrificed. 22

Where I live in East Oakland, more and more days 23

are Spare the Air D ays, designated unsafe for special 24

gr oups. For most of us, no big deal, maybe just some haze 25205

in our view. But some groups are more vulnerable like 1

people with asthma or infants. Being a mom has made me 2

think again about who is more vulnerable, about what or who 3

get s sacrificed. 4

I have six

- month old baby. To get to the grocery 5

store or park I have to cross over the freeway. On these 6

eerily dry and warm days, I can see the brown haze against 7

the hills as I cross. When a truck goes by, blowing a 8

cloud of black stink ing smoke at us I hol d my breath, but 9

my baby doesn't , he j ust breaths his normal trusting 10

breath. So I wonder if he's in a special group, how my 11

trip to the store effects his chances for a fully health 12

life. I think about the statistics he faces, if he will be 13

one of the on es with asthma or cancer. 14

As a mom it makes me reconsider what we 15

compromise. It makes me feel in a new way for the kids I 16

work with in Oakland Public Schools, who being economically 17

poor people of color are facing even bleaker statistics 18

than my son is. I remember how often kids were absent for 19

a while only to come back and report they had been 20

suffering from asthma. I remember a middle schooler who se 21

twin sister died of asthma. I wonder how their mom felt. 22

Being a mom myself has shifted my underst anding of what 23

sacrifice looks like, of what is okay to compromise. 24

And then I think about the burning fossil fuels 25206

that get the smog into the air in the first place and I'm 1

reminded that all our kids are in another special and 2

vulnerable group. As I watch my older son and our neighbor 3

play in the hot January sunshine I remember that these 4

children will be the ones that deal with an increasingly 5

erratic and chaotic climate for their entire lives. This 6

is another special group smog is unsafe for ; t hose that 7

will be left to deal tomorrow with whatever we burn today. 8

So in testifying I imagine that you intend to do 9

the right thing to protect the public. But I imagine that 10

you are under tremendous pressure to compromise, to make 11

some sacrifices , so as t o not disturb the status quo too 12

much , t o make sure that industry doesn't get too 13

uncomfortable , t o make your suggestions reasonable and not 14

too bold. 15

As a mom caring for two young children who are 16

facing unprecedented risks to the safety and health of 17

their environment , and as a mom who feels a sense of 18

connection with moms of even more d irect ly threatened 19

children, I say this is not the time to compromise. It’s 20

the time to be bold. 21

We have already sacrificed too much of our kids 22

future. We are g ambling too dangerously with the planet. 23

As I cross the freeway now with my baby, I hold 24

my breath against the nauseous smell and watch him breath e 25207

steadily. And I promise him that I'll do everything that I 1

can to protect his vulnerability. I tell him that I'll be 2

bolder than I thought I knew to be, that I won't look away 3

while the vulnerable are sacrificed first. I hope that as 4

you consider these new rules y ou do the same. Thank you. 5

MS. RUSSELL: Thank you. 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. Di d you give the 7

spelling of the names to the court reporter? 8

MS. RUSSELL: I will 9

MR. PAGE: Great , t hank you very much. 10

Our next speakers are Janet Johnson and Aliya 11

Wisher. (phonetic) 12

Ms. Johnson, you're up first? 13

JANET JOHNSON 14

MS. JOHNSON: Yes , g ood afternoon. My name is 15

Janet Johnson and I'm am an adult education teacher in 16

Richmond. And those are some incredibly tough acts to 17

follow. 18

Thank you for visiting Northern California today 19

to take testimony on the EPA's proposed regulation s to 20

reduce smog pollution. (Overcome with emotion) I'm sorry, 21

that was like very heavy. 22

As is the case with many other challenges our 23

country faces, it

- s our low

- income and working class 24

communities of color that bear the brunt of the worst 25208

effects of dirty air. A health study conducted in Richmond 1

by research scientists for C ommunities for a B etter 2

E nvironment reported that among respondents who had lived 3

in Richmond for 15 years or more, 45 percent suffered from 4

asthma. I've lived there 3 3 years and I'm crossing my 5

fingers. 6

The prevalence of childhood asthma in Richmond is 7

17 percent, far higher than the national average. A 8

colleague who taught at Lincoln Elementary School told me 9

that one

- in

- three students in her class room had asthm a. 10

Lincoln Elementary lies in the heart of a low

11

income fence line community, in sight of and downwind , from 12

the Chevron refinery. A lower smog standard would go far 13

to improve the daily lives of these young people. 14

Thanks in large part to the effor ts of the EPA, 15

overall air quality in California has improved. When I 16

moved to the Bay Area in 1970 I was stunned by the amount 17

of smog. Now , it ' s not as visible, but there is so much 18

work to be done. 19

The proposal to lower current standards from 75 20

p pb to 65 to 70 is not adequate to protect our community's 21

health. The EPA should follow the recommendation of its 22

own science advisors and adopt the lower standard of 60 23

ppb. 24

You folks all have children and grandchildren and 25209

nieces and nephews like I do. Please consider what their 1

lives would be like if they couldn't run or play outside or 2

even breath e . If we can reduce our smog pollution to a 3

healthy level all members of our community will benefit. 4

Thank you. 5

ALIYA WISHNER 6

MS. WISHNER: Hello. M y name is Aliya Wishner , 7

A

- L

- I

- Y

- A W

- I

- S

- H

- N

- E

- R. And I will be testifying on 8

behalf of myself and my mom , because my mom cannot be here 9

today , s o I'll begin with an excerpt from her testimony. 10

" Good afternoon, and thank you opportunity to 11

address t he agency about the health effects of smog and 12

poor air quality on young children. I apologize for not 13

being able to be here in person. 14

" In 2000, I lived in the Bixby Knolls area of 15

Long Beach, with my two children, ages nine and four. This 16

area of L ong Beach is n orth of the 405 F reeway and West of 17

the Wilmington

- Carson oil and gas refineries. One day the 18

sky became very dark and shortly thereafter, we received an 19

automatic voice call stating that due to a refinery fire, 20

all residents were advised to stay indoors and to close all 21

windows until further notice. 22

" I brought my children inside and we followed the 23

directions of the call. One month later, after what seemed 24

to be colds that would not go away, both of my children 25210

were diagnosed with asthma . Were it not for the fact that 1

they were both diagnosed simultaneously, I would not have 2

made the causal connection of the soot and oil

- filled air 3

as the cause of their asthma. 4

" During this same time period, I w as a school 5

nurse at two elementary sch ools for the Long Beach Unified 6

School District . B oth of these schools are closer to the 7

ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and one was less than a 8

block n orth of the 405 F reeway. It was a daily occurrence 9

that I would find fine black soot

- like matter o n the window 10

sills and inside the class rooms and offices. 11

" One of the schoolteachers asked me to do a 12

medical survey of the second year, pre

- K kindergarten 13

classroom of their children's health conditions. My survey 14

discovered that 72 percent of the a utistic little children 15

in her class r oom had either asthma or some other major 16

respiratory ailment requiring regular use of medication. 17

Given the time intervals and incidents of disease, it was 18

clear to me that there was a connection between port and 19

refi nery air pollution and the respiratory issues of the 20

children of these schools and of my own two children. 21

" I urge the EPA to set a strict ground

- level 22

ozone standard for the sake of our vulnerable populations. 23

Don't cave to business interests who wis h for the agency to 24

ease the clean air requirements. No child deserves to be 25211

sentenced to a lifetime of respiratory ailments and 1

treatments. " 2

Now as you probably have guessed I'm one of those 3

children who was diagnosed with asthma. The form of asthma 4

that I have had to cope with is called reactive airway 5

disease. And it ' s triggered by reactions to certain 6

conditions, mainly the environment. 7

Unfortunately, one of the other triggers of this 8

condition is exercise. As a student athlete through my 9

ch ildhood and into college I have felt the effects of this 10

disease nearly every day. Throughout my athletic career, 11

it has taken me twice the effort to gain half the 12

endurance. I am not a stranger of the pain of not being 13

able to catch my breath or to the feeling that I will never 14

take a full breath again. 15

I recently relocated to Indianapolis from the 16

Southern California area where my mom still resides. 17

Leaving one of the city's most infamous for smog pollution 18

to move to the M id w est I was expecting to find nothing but 19

clear skies and fresh air. Instead what I found is that 20

thick emissions from smoke stacks are a normal sight, and 21

the air pollution is so thick that the sunsets are nearly 22

as colorful as they are in Southern Califor nia. 23

However, unlike in California, the majority of 24

Indiana's elected officials are not working to create 25212

policies that clean up the air and protect our citizens. 1

Rather they are trying to pass legislation would prohibit 2

any state agency from setting a more stringent rule than a 3

f ederal agency does. 4

One of my current roommates is a teacher and 5

basketball coach at an inner city high school in 6

Indianapolis. And he has told me that about 40 percent of 7

the students on his teams have respiratory condit ions 8

similar to what I have suffered. 9

If Indiana's government officials will not stand 10

up for these children, who will? I traveled here from 11

Indianapolis to strongly urge you to set the ground

- level 12

ozone standard at 60 parts per billion , so the child ren of 13

today and tomorrow in every city do not have to overcome 14

what I have in order to achieve their athletic dreams. 15

Please let them catch their breath. Thank you. 16

MR. PAGE: Thank you , very much

. 17

MS. WISHNER: I also have copies of my mom's full 18

testimony. Thank you. 19

MR. PAGE: All right, o ur next two speakers are 20

Jessica Eckdish and Amy Lee Anderson. 21

You're

-- 22

MS. ECKDISH: Jessica. 23

MR. PAGE: Okay, sorry. Yeah, I could have 24

guessed and been about 50 percent right, so I decided not 25213

to. 1

Okay. Amy Lee Anderson is not in the room 2

anymore? 3

(Off mic speaker comments on Amy Lee Anderson) 4

She already did ? Okay, she got moved up then. 5

Okay , v ery good. Why don't you go ahead than. 6

JESSICA ECKDISH 7

MS. ECKDISH: Good afternoon. My name is Jessica 8

Eckdish , t hat's E

- C

- K

- D

- I

- S

- H. And I'm speaking today as a 9

representative of the Sierra Club and also as a private 10

citizen. 11

And I appreciate the opportunity to express 12

support today for the EPA's critical efforts to update the 13

current ozone standard. 14

As you've heard in previous testimony, according 15

to the American Lung Association, inhaling ozone or smog 16

pollution is like getting a sunburn on your lungs and often 17

results in immediate breathing trouble. Long

- term exposure 18

to smog p ollution is linked to chronic asthma and other 19

respiratory and lung diseases, reproductive and 20

developmental harm and even premature death. Smog 21

pollution robs hundreds of thousands of Americans with 22

asthma and other respiratory ailments of quality of lif e. 23

It sends thousands of children to emergency rooms each year 24

and costs Americans billions in health care costs, lost 25214

productivity and premature death s

. 1

Today, the public largely shoulders the expense 2

of the smog pollution produced by the fossil fuel i ndustry. 3

The current standard, last updated in 2008, under the Bush 4

A dministration was set at 75 parts per billion, against the 5

advi ce of scientists and experts. At the time, this level 6

was widely recognized by the medical community to be 7

insufficient to protect public health. Since then, 8

scientists have continued to publish evidence that in order 9

to adequately protect people's health, the smog standard 10

should be set no higher than 60 parts per billion. 11

In November, EPA's proposed lowering the ozone 12

standard to somewhere in the range of 65 to 70 parts per 13

billion while also seeking comments on setting it as low as 14

60. While this may sound like a narrow range when it comes 15

to the health effects of smog pollution, especially on 16

children, who's lungs ar e still developing. In the gap 17

between 60 and 70, many lives are still at stake. 18

Modeling of smog pollution health effects, 19

looking at 12 cities across the country showed that 20

lowering the acceptable level of smog to 60 parts per 21

billion would save fou r to five times as many lives as 70 22

parts per billion. According to the EPA's own estimates a 23

60 parts per billion standard would prevent roughly 1.8 24

million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school days , and 25215

6,400 premature deaths. 1

The EPA has the o pportunity and the duty to 2

protect millions of Americans from dirty air and 3

unnecessary illness. New, stronger standards for smog 4

pollution will clean up or air and reduce pollution

- related 5

illness. And millions of Americans with asthma and other 6

respira tory ailments will breath e easier. 7

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for 8

taking this critical step forward to protect public health. 9

I urge the EPA to swiftly finalize a strong standard of 60 10

parts per billion. Thank you. 11

MR. PAGE: Tha nk you. 12

Our next two speakers are Rupa Basu and Carter 13

Lavin. Welcome. Thank you for coming. 14

RUPA BASU 15

MS. BASU: Thank you. I'm Rupa Basu , t hat's R

- U

16

P

- A B

- A

- S

- U. And I'm from the California Office of 17

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 18

Thank you so much for this opportunity to provide 19

comments on the US EPA's proposed rule for the National 20

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone published last 21

December. 22

Although OEH H A appreciates US EPA's decision to 23

lower the current f ederal standard to a level of the newly 24

proposed range of 65 to 70 ppb, we still encourage the U.S. 25216

EPA to consider our recommendation of 60 ppb as wa s made in 1

our March 24, 2014 letter to EPA. 2

Our recommendation to lower the Federal standard 3

to 60 ppb is based large ly on the clinical and 4

epidemiologic studies that were published after 5

California's reduction of the standard to 70 ppb in 2005. 6

First, a new chamber study observed lung function 7

decrements and inflammation in a subset of young, health, 8

non
- smoking adu lts at 60 ppb, after six

- and

- a
- half hours of 9

exposure to ozone. Note that the study was not evaluating 10

responses of susceptible individuals. 11

Second, there have been a number of new multi

12

city epidemiologic studies that find effects at mean ozone 13

level s below 70 parts per billion. The findings are for 14

mortality, hospitalization, as well as emergency room 15

visits for asthma, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary 16

disease and other respiratory outcomes. 17

The studies are reliable and controlled for 18

in dividual risk factors such as smoking, exercise, diet and 19

family history of disease by study design. Many of these 20

newer studies, finding associations between ozone exposure 21

and health effects , were conducted in North America. 22

With a range of 65 to 70 ppb established as a 23

national standard for ozone we are concerned about the 24

number of days where ozone levels will approach 70 ppb, a 25217

level at which a large number of healthy individuals show a 1

lung function decrements in several studies. 2

Even more concerning would be the exposures close 3

to 70 ppb to children, elderly individuals or asthmatics, 4

all recognized as vulnerable sub groups. These groups are 5

expected to show even greater adverse effects from 6

prolonged exposure to ozone. 7

Altho ugh the results from epidemiologic studies 8

show small relative risks, these estimates translate into 9

thousands of excess deaths, hospitalizations and emergency 10

room visits each year , because millions of people face 11

excess exposure to ozone. 12

As highlight ed in your announcement accompanying 13

the proposed rule, there are approximately 250,000 14

respiratory

- related deaths and a combined 12 million 15

respiratory

- related hospital discharges and emergency room 16

visits in the U.S. each year. Thus the public health 17

im pact of o zone
- related respiratory disease can be immense. 18

There is also the potential for the very large 19

public health impact of ozone on cardiovascular, central 20

nervous system , and reproductive outcomes. Effects likely 21

are suggestively linked to ozon e. 22

Finally, vulnerable individuals 23

disproportionately bear the disease burden including 24

children, the elderly, individuals as genetic 25218

vulnerability, asthmatics and those with deficient diets. 1

These vulnerable groups risk more severe 2

reactions or co mplications from exposure to ozone level s 3

considered acceptable to healthy populations. Just 4

considering the elderly and the young, who comprise about a 5

third of the U.S. population, nearly 100 million people 6

would be considered part of the at

- risk popula tion. 7

Thus the proposed standard fails to provide an 8

adequate margin of safety for vulnerable populations as 9

healthy members themselves are experiencing effects in the 10

range proposed. 11

Given the reasons above, we strongly that 60 ppb 12

become the new f e deral standard. Thank you. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Carter? 14

CARTER LAVIN 15

MR. LAVIN: Hi Steve, Amy, Susan, Pat. My name 16

is Carter Lavin. I'm a concerned citizen. I happen to 17

work in the solar industry. I'm a resident of Oakland, 18

California. 19

The re's been a couple of things today that really 20

struck me and really chok ed me up. And one of the big 21

things I was thinking about, in terms of f ederal standards. 22

It ' s great to be in California. I'm in California four 23

years and it ' s nice to be in a state that is forward 24

looking as actively trying to fight this. 25219

I have family in Illinois and Ohio and Georgia 1

and Louisiana. Most of the people in my family are not in 2

areas where their state is going to take any sort of 3

leadership on doing this. And so i t's very important

-- 4

you know, so there's all these stories that we've been 5

hearing today, of all these heartbreaking stories in 6

California, in L.A., and in these regions that are trying

. 7

A nd they're trying , because it’s the right thing to do. 8

It ' s beca use it ' s going to save us a lot of money , because 9

it ' s legally required. And there are so many places that 10

aren't trying. 11

And there's a great part about what you can do as 12

EPA and part of f ederal regulations , is really helping out 13

people like my nephew in Illinois and people like my 14

brother in New Orleans, who suffer from this , because this 15

is part of their lives and always will be a part of their 16

lives. And so just kind of keeping that in mind, like 17

every st ory you're hearing here , is going to be a lot 18

better than most of the stories that you'll be hearing from 19

other states, as you know, because you were recently in 20

Texas. 21

The other big thing is that this is all very 22

easy ; 60 parts per billion is easy to d o. We have diesel 23

t ech lobbyists saying , "Hey, look. Our technology i s so 24

great we could do this doing handstands in part , because 25220

collectively we all work together to get to this point. 1

Getting another couple of parts per billion down should be 2

easy." 3

I work in the solar industry. This is w e're 4

growing astronomically ; 43,000 of us work in California. 5

We've got electricity covered between solar, wind and new 6

things like that. 7

Transportation , you know, where the state and 8

around the country peop le are moving more towards non

9

motorized transit, which comes into the effect of

-- our 10

friends in the medical community have talked about saying 11

we're encouraging people to get out of cars , because it ' s 12

better for the air and to go walking . B ut if you go and 13

you're the first

- time bicyclist for the long time and you 14

say , " You know, this time I’m going to try to go to the 15

grocery store on my bike ," and it triggers an asthma 16

attack , because you haven't biked in a long time

-- because 17

you lived in an area tha t doesn't have it

-- y ou're not 18

going to get on a bike again for a very long time. 19

And it ' s very important to make it as easy as 20

possible for all th e se people who are making these moves 21

and having cleaner air is part of that. 22

But the solutions are here. The solutions are 23

very easy to do. And I think in terms of the speaker 24

earlier today from the Western Region Environmental Air 25221

Quality Board, he was saying a lot of these particulates 1

occur in natural environments

-- w ild fires

-- this is part 2

of l ife to have terrible air in some parts of the country. 3

And while that is scientifically true that also does mean 4

it is on us to reduce emissions wherever we can. 5

If we say , "Look, you can't regulate wild fires 6

in California ," o bviously you could help regulate carbon, 7

which will help regulate that , but saying , "L ook, we can't 8

necessarily stop every wild fire and every dust storm, but 9

we can stop idling vehicles. We can stop really terrible 10

dumb wasteful agricultural practices. " So take control 11

over th e parts that you can. And I'm really shocked at 12

having five minutes. 13

So basically this is easy. Anyone who tells you 14

it's not is wrong. Frankly meeting every EPA regulation 15

has been met with every single industry who se ever not 16

like d it saying the sam e thing. And they've been proven 17

wrong over and over and over again. It creates lots of new 18

industries and not having people having very visceral 19

stories of their children and their family and themselves 20

having these terrible attacks is worth it , so 60 p arts per 21

billion please. Thanks. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all for being 23

here today. 24

All right. Our next speakers are Ivett Carnes 25222

and Deborah Drechsler. And please correct me if I haven't 1

pronounced your names correctly. 2

All right, Ms. Carnes is first. 3

IVETT CARNES 4

MS. CARNES: Well, I really don't have a great 5

deal to say. It ' s mostly coming from an emotional 6

viewpoint. 7

I grew up in Anchorage, Alaska at the age of 9 to 8

14 and I was able to see the polar bears floating by on the 9

glaciers, the penguins in their natural habitat, bears 10

walking through our front yard. My fear is that we're 11

going to lose all of that. 12

Sorry, I'm like kind of nervous and I just need 13

to calm down. Take a deep breath, yes. Breathe. 14

COURT REPORTER: Sorry, could you spell your name 15

for me? 16

MS. CARNES: Okay, that's easy. I

- V

- E

- T

- T , 17

Carnes, C

- A

- R

- N

- E

- S. 18

So while living there we were able to ski. We 19

were able to travel to the farm s that produced the hybrid 20

vegetables and fruit. You know, w atching a lettuce leaf 21

feed a family of five, that's amazing as a child. So I 22

feel and fear that we're going to lose all of that. I 23

won't be able to show my grandchildren. I won't be able to 24

s how my children. The polar bears are dying and it makes 25223

me want to cry, every time I say it. They're such 1

magnificent beautiful creatures and we're just letting it 2

happen. We're letting it happen everywhere. 3

I have asthma. I grew up in a household that 4

everyone smoked. I'm sure the car pollution doesn't help. 5

Every time I go outside I'm sick , sorry . I just don't want 6

to see all of our children suffer , a ll of our people, the 7

other people that are my age suffer. It ' s unnecessary. 8

We can change it overnight. We just have to not 9

be greedy and love one another . A nd remember that we're 10

all family, no matter where we come from, what we look 11

like, we're family. That's all I have to say. 12

MR. PAGE: Okay. Thank you. 13

Deborah? 14

DEBORAH DRECHSLER 15

MS. DRECHSLER: I'm Deborah Drechsler , t hat's 16

spelled D

- E

- B

- O

- R

- A

- H D

- R

- E

- C

- H

- S

- L

- E

- R. And I'm speaking 17

today on behalf of the California Air Resources Board or 18

CARB. 19

CARB reviewed the proposed revisions to the 20

health

- based standard , and agrees with the U.S. EPA's 21

conclusion that the current 8

- hour ozone standard of 75 22

parts per billion , does not adequately protect public 23

health. Review of the associated, integrated science 24

assessment clearly demonstrates that the scientific 25224

literature re lated to ozone health effects and exposure has 1

become stronger and even more compelling since the previous 2

review completed in 2008. 3

In addition, the analysis presented and the risk 4

and exposure assessment confirmed that even with attainment 5

of the curr ent ozone standard, a significant number of 6

Californians are at increased risk of experiencing adverse 7

health impact. 8

CARB strongly supports your conclusion that the 9

ozone standard needs to be strengthened. 10

We note that the proposed range for the s tandard 11

of 65 t0 70 parts per billion does not include the lower 12

bound of 60 parts per billion as advised by CASAC. 13

Although a level of 70 parts per billion is more health 14

protective than the current standard, it does not likely 15

include an adequate margin of safety. 16

In addition, we recognize that selecting a level 17

below 65 parts per billion would require placing 18

considerable weight on the uncertainties and the available 19

data as was discussed in the proposed rule. However, 20

setting the standard at the l ower bound of 60 parts per 21

billion would provide more public health protection than 22

levels of 65 or 70 parts per billion. 23

We note that a new study demonstrates that some 24

healthy adults engaged in moderate exercise would be 25225

expected to experience reduct ions in lung function and an 1

increase in respiratory symptoms with 6.6

- hour exposure to 2

an ozone concentration of 72 parts per billion. Two 3

additional studies show that a small number of healthy 4

individuals would likely experience reduced lung function 5

wi th similar exposures at 60 parts per billion. It is 6

widely believed that people with chronic lung diseases such 7

as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are 8

likely to be more vulnerable than healthy people. 9

New epidemiologic studies suggest that ozone

10

related hospital ad missions or emergency department visits 11

for asthma or other respiratory causes and mortality can 12

occur in communities that meet the current ozone standard. 13

New toxicological literature provides increased 14

evidence for biolo gical mechanisms and modes of action that 15

substantiate the results of the controlled human exposure 16

and epidemiologic studies. 17

A more stringent standard will provide health 18

benefits nationwide. Strengthening the ozone standard 19

would provide important health benefits for California, 20

particularly in the South Coast Air Basin and the San 21

Joaquin Valley, including reduction in premature mortality, 22

hospitalizations, emergency department visits for asthma 23

and lost work and school days. 24

Nearly two

- thirds of Californians reside in these 25226

two extreme non

- attainment areas, including large numbers 1

with well

- established health risk factors, including 2

children and the elderly, as well as people with asthma and 3

other chronic heart or lung diseases and nearly a ha lf

4

million asthmatic children. 5

There is also a substantial population of outdoor 6

workers, who are at increased risk, due to their high 7

levels of exposure. 8

California has made significant air quality 9

progress due to our comprehensive emission contro l 10

programs, while the population and economy continue to 11

grow. Due to the effectiveness of these efforts, today 12

two

- thirds of Californians live in communities that meet 13

the 75 parts per billion standard. And over 80 percent 14

live in communities meeting th e previous 80 part s per 15

billion standard. 16

Meeting the standards in the nation's only two 17

extreme non

- attainment areas, the South Coast Air Basin and 18

the San Joaquin Valley , will require large emission 19

reductions across all source sectors and the use of zero 20

and near

- zero technologies along with the cleanest fuels. 21

CARB will need to partner with U.S. EPA to promote the 22

advanced technologies that are essential to meet the 23

current and revised standards. 24

These efforts to meet more health

- protective 25227

stan dards will also support a broad range of public health 1

goals including meeting Governor Brown's initiatives to 2

reduce petroleum usage by 50 percent by 2030, and achieving 3

steep reductions in carbon pollutants to address the on

4

going threat posed by climate change. 5

Although it will be a challenge to attain more

6

stringent standards, it is clear that strengthening the 7

ozone standard is necessary to protect public health in 8

California and nation. Thank you. 9

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you for being here 10

today. 11

MS. STONE: Do you have a specific recommendation 12

about the level of the standard? Did the ARB have a 13

specific recommendation? 14

MS. DRECHSLER: We support the range that was 15

proposed in the rule . However, we would su ggest that you 16

take another look at 60 parts per billion, before making a 17

final decision. 18

MS. STONE: Thank you. 19

MR. PAGE: The n ext two speakers are Katelyn 20

Roedner Sutter and Karen Wells. 21

Welcome. Okay , s o Katelyn, do you want to go 22

first? 23

KA T E LYN ROEDNER SUTTER 24

MS. SUTTER: Certainly , g ood afternoon. Thank 25228

you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. 1

My name is Kat e lyn Roe d ner Sutter. And that is R

- O

- E

- D

- N

2

E

- R S

- U

- T

- T

- E

- R. I am the Environmental Justice P rogram 3

D irector for Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Stockton. 4

Our diocese includes the Northern San Joaquin Valley and 5

Sierra Foothills across to Mono Lake. 6

And n ot to give you a long resume, but today I 7

also represent the steering committees of Californ ia 8

Interfaith Power and Light and the Central Valley Air 9

Quality Coalition. 10

Both of these group and Catholic Charities are 11

deeply concerned about the health impacts of poor air 12

quality. We strongly encourage the EPA to adopt a strict 13

60 parts per bill ion ozone standard. This is the standard 14

recommended four years ago by the Clean Air Scien tific 15

Advisory Committee. And now four years later, we need to 16

b ring the standard in line with those scientific 17

recommendations. At the same time, we will do more to 18

protect public health, especially for those who are most 19

vulnerable. 20

In the San Joaquin Valley, where I live and work, 21

we see astounding rates of asthma, especially among our 22

children. For example, Merced County has seen serious 23

increases in their rate of pediatric asthma. Now almost 24

one
- in

- three children have been diagnosed with asthma. 25229

Across the V alley, close to 20 percent of our children have 1

a diagnosed case of asthma. However, as I work at Catholic 2

Charities, I know there a great deal of n eeds that go unmet 3

all of the time. And it ' s clear that there are thousands 4

more children who have asthma, who do not have a diagnosis. 5

These rates are the floor. The reality is even more 6

serious. 7

Ozone is one of the contributing factors of 8

asthma. And valley

- wide all of the count ies receiv e 9

failing grades for their levels of ozone. You can change 10

this by lowering the ozone standard. 11

Our children are some of the most vulnerable 12

people in our communities and we're allowing them to get 13

sick, be h ospitalized, miss school and sometimes even die 14

as infants because of our air pollution. We have a moral 15

obligation to protect the most vulnerable members of our 16

society. Catholic social teaching is very clear on this. 17

We are charged to protect the poor and the vulnerable and 18

to defend the sanctity of life. 19

Bishop Steven Blair of Stockton tells us that as 20

we respect life, we have to respect the envelope of life, 21

that are all of the resources including air, on which life 22

depends. In this case, we're asking you to look out for 23

the vulnerable among us and to protect health and lives by 24

adopting a strict ozone standard. 25230

As Catholics, we have a clear calling to care for 1

God's creation. Pope Francis brought this to the 2

forefront, but Pope Benedict , befo re him also reminded us 3

that creation is a gift from God , and we have a 4

responsibility to this creation. Many people of faith 5

learn about the breath of life. That is the breath of God , 6

which gives life. Our children especially, but also our 7

senior citiz ens, those with respiratory illnesses and those 8

that live and work in unsafe environmental conditions, like 9

farm workers are gasping and choking, rather than breathing 10

the breath of life. 11

I share these reflections not because I want to 12

preach to you, bu t because people of faith and all people 13

of good will , to borrow Pope Francis's terms , have a moral 14

obligation to care for creation and care for each other. 15

We ask you to adopt a stricter ozone standard. 16

We would recommend 60 parts per billion to protec t life and 17

to protect creation. Pope Francis is even more blunt in 18

his call to protect creation. He told the President of 19

Ecuador , in 2013, that people occasionally forgive, but 20

nature never does. Thank you. 21

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 22

KAREN WELLS 23

MS. WELLS: Thank you. My name is Karen Wells, 24

K

- A

- R

- E

- N W

- E

- L

- L

- S. 25231

I just have a very short point to make. Some of 1

the speakers have referenced data and statistics and 2

science that I think you need to look at some more. The 3

information about European countries and the standards that 4

they have set, I think you need to look at that. 5

The study that the nurse who testified, I think 6

you need to look at that, because I have a feeling that if 7

the scientific evidence that you looked at wasn't that 8

persuasive that 60 would be a level that you needed to go 9

down to, that maybe if you look harder you might find that 10

there is enough evidence for that. 11

And I would like to add to that the fact your 12

review process is mandated at five

- year intervals and by 13

the time you collect information and decide on what change 14

should be appropriate it will be seven years from now 15

before you're doing this again, so think about the future 16

and the fact that you need to set a level that is 17

appropriate for that period of time. 18

And it sounds a lot to me like 60 ought to be 19

where you go and at the very least, forget about 70 if you 20

have to make it 60 to 65, but 55 to 60 might be even 21

better. So it just seems to me you need to look closely at 22

that scientific evidence and think about the health. 23

And don't believe for a minute that our very 24

resourceful industries can't manage to come up with 25232

excellent ways to try to meet these standards. I think 1

they're selling themselves short when they say that it's 2

impossible. I was here this mor ning and the first industry 3

person that spoke said, "It's impossible." I don't think 4

it's impossible. We have lots of great scientists and 5

inventors and I think we can do better. And I hope you 6

inspire them to do better and get them what help and 7

resour ces you can and go for 60 or less. Thank you. 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both. 9

All right. Our next speakers are Samuel Sukaton 10

-- Sukaton? 11

MR. SUKATON: No, you had it right. 12

MR. PAGE: Sukaton, I should have stuck with the 13

first one, yeah. And then Daryl Gale, please. 14

MR. SUKATON: Sorry, do you mind if I put this 15

up? My mama told me never to speak to the government 16

without paper, so it that all right? 17

MR. PAGE: Put what up? 18

MR. SUKATON: I have comments here, if that's 19

okay? 20

MR. PAGE: Oh, fine. Yeah, that's fine. 21

MR. SUKATON: And before I

-- 22

MR. PAGE: Hold on just a second. We'll wait for 23

our other speaker to join and then you'll have the floor. 24

Welcome, both of you. Go ahead, Mr. Sukaton. 25233

SAMUEL SUKATON 1

MR. SUKATON : Glad to have you here. Before I 2

start how many

-- are any of you from California? 3

MS. JORDAN: You mean do we live here? 4

MR. SUKATON: Yes. 5

MS. JORDAN: Yes. 6

MR. SUKATON: Okay. I just wanted to make sure, 7

thanks. 8

My name for the record is Samuel Sukaton. That's 9

S

- U

- K

- A

- T

- O

- N. 10

Good afternoon. Like I said my name is Sam 11

Sukaton, I'm a resident of the City of Los Angeles and I 12

grew up in the City of San Bernardo. 13

Ms. Zimpfer knows the air relatively well. For 14

those of you that don' t know in the audience that are in 15

front of me, that means I've had the pleasure of curating 16

some of the filthiest air in the United States for the 17

last two decades. 18

When I think dirty air, I think of playing JV 19

tennis and getting a ball in the face, because the air was 20

so bad I started tearing up. I think of playing saxophone 21

in Dodger Stadium, practicing for the Rose Parade and not 22

being able to breathe or get a note out, because again bad 23

smog day right up by the 110. 24

I remember missing days of s chool and not 25234

learning to ride a bike at the age when I was supposed to, 1

because my mom was too terrified, because it was a smog 2

day. And I know that my childhood exposure has probably 3

taken a decade off my life, if not more. I've made my 4

peace with that , still I'm only 25. And I catch myself 5

wondering when it's going to catch up with me, particularly 6

since my mother just recently started treatment for thyroid 7

cancer. 8

Confronting my own mortality aside, I know I'm 9

one of the luckier children of the Sou thland. I've never 10

had an asthma attack. I've never had to rush to an 11

emergency room, because I or someone I loved couldn't 12

breathe. I've never had to bury somebody that I lost, 13

because of lung cancer. I'm here then where they aren't, 14

to use the breath that good fortune has left me . T o tell 15

you why my friends, my neighbors, my classmates, my 16

girlfriend, my community , are gasping for federal 17

leadership on clean air standards. To paraphrase the man 18

from Nazareth, I'm here so that we may have life and li ve 19

more abundantly. 20

First, a lot of industry folks are always 21

concerned about environmental regulations and jobs. I get 22

that. 23

My hometown struggled for jobs for as long as 24

I've been alive. We lost the steel mill in '83 when my 25235

sister was born. We lost

-- Norton Air Force base was on 1

the closure list in '89 when I was born and finally shut 2

down in '95 when I moved to California, so I get that. 3

When I was going through the housing market crash my first 4

year of college my brother

- in

- law was out of a job. 5

But the way up from up filthy air is also the way 6

up for economic prosperity for my community. Solar out

7

employs coal 2

- to

- 1 according to a recent poll from the 8

Solar Foundation. And it's catching up, it's nipping at 9

Oil's heels right now as we speak. 10

A strong smog rule, 60 parts per billion, low er 11

if you can do it, but I'm only going to talk about 60, 12

would help us close dirty fossil fuel power plants. It'll 13

encourage recruitment, retraining, investment, construction 14

in solar and wind. The se are good jobs for a trained and 15

ready workforce. 16

I live in L.A. We have an entry

- level program 17

for young people of color who are looking to be linemen for 18

DWP. You know, Chevy's leading on EVs. We have union 19

factories in Michigan that are buildin g the Chevy Volt, 20

that are building the Ford Fusion. 21

My brother's a plumber, Local 364 United 22

Association out in Banning, California and he'll be able to 23

provide for my sister, Ruth, by being able to build solar 24

plants out in Mecca . Retrofitting houses with solar and 25236

making large buildings like the apartment building I live, 1

more certifiable. 2

We just passed Prop 39 in California, we have 3

millions of dollars from closing a corporate tax loophole 4

to fund green building especially with public institutio ns. 5

Libraries, schools, I mean lord knows we need more schools. 6

But we've built one UC in the last, what 40 years? That's 7

Merced if I'm not mistaken. 8

Excuse me, and so this is important to me in that 9

green, green tech is going to

-- green tech and a s trong 10

leadership from the federal government will help my own 11

family and empire where we're choking with unemployment as 12

much as smog. 13

It'll save money on health care. My mom's a 14

nurse. My aunt's a nurse. My grandma's a nurse. I 15

learned

-- like the first words out of my mouth were, "an 16

ounce of prevention is a pound of cure." 17
And we're spending $25 billion in Southern 18

California alone on respiratory diseases. That means if we 19

can fix that according to recent statistics published by 20

the Sierra C lub and some of their partners, we can save 21

anywhere from $ 2.1 to $ 4.4 billion

-- excuse me 2.4 to 4.1 22

sorry about that

-- on health care benefits. And every 23

single dime we save there is a dollar that can be

-- is a 24

dime

-- dime, dollar

-- a dime that can spent on the other 25237

necessities of life. I mean, California's recovering, 1

we're balancing our budget, but if we're spe nding less on 2

health care we're spending more on other things and that 3

goes back into the state that I love. 4

Finally, a stronger smog rule will save the lives 5

of youth of color. They catch disproportionately high 6

effects of air pollution. You're going to see

-- you saw 7

some of the kids from Fruitvale

-- sorry, does that mean my 8

time is up? 9

MR. PAGE: Yeah. The red light does, yeah. 10

MR. SUKATON: All right. In that case, you know, 11

like I said , California is gasping for clean air and I 12

would really appreciate leadership for 60 parts per 13

billion. Thank you. 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

DARYL GALE 16

MS. GALE: Hello. I have a bad cold. Hello. 17

I'm Daryl Gale, D

- A

- R

- Y

- L G

- A

- L

- E. 18

I live in Los Angeles and I live in a solar 19

apartment and I drive an electric scooter. And I only 20

charge the scooter during the day, so I can get the free 21

electricity from the solar panels on the roof of my 22

apartment. 23

I just wanted to give you a different 24

perspective. Some of the testimo ny here has been very, 25238

very heavy and I'm already congested. I started crying a 1

few times in the last hour. 2

There is a big difference between air pollution 3

and other types of pollution. Like the other common 4

types of pollution we talk about is food or soil or water. 5

And air pollution is just so much heavier. 6

We can usually see or smell or avoid or sometimes 7

move away from these other forms of pollution. Like, for 8

instance, if your soil is tainted well you can move. You 9

can make sure your children don't play in the soil. You 10

keep your pets out of the soil an d if you have money you 11

can sue somebody for it. The air pollution is toxic, it's 12

deadly, and it's immediate. Think about World War I and 13

mustard gas. 14

If I find that my food is spoiled I can just 15

throw it out. 16

And if our water is damaged, I mean it's not the 17

best solution, but there is plastic water bottles 18

everywhere so we can at least have some water. I hate 19

using it, but it's there for us. 20

L ots of times I'm sure in the Bay Area as well as 21

in Los Angeles we talk about earthquake preparednes s . And 22

I've often thought about what will we do if our water 23

supply became compromised. Well, I would do , since I live 24

in the city, probably what a lot of other people would do. 25239

And we would just, you know, like loot Rite Aid, because we 1

won't die of st arvation or have a problem with water. You 2

know, we live here in California, we're not going to have 3

that problem. 4

But what do we do if the air is really bad? We 5

can't get away. It's just a few seconds and you can be 6

gasping. 7

The EPA has quite a b it of experience in 8

supporting people in communities with water problems. And 9

I know that I have faith with you, that 60 parts per 10

billion is a really good way to go for the 40 million 11

people here in California. We're all counting on you. we 12

need you to keep us safe, alive and healthy. We can all do 13

our part. Thank you. 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

All right, our next two speakers are Joe 16

McLaughlin and is it Dario Herrera? 17

All right, Mr. McLaughlin, you're up. 18

JOE MCLAUGHLIN 19

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Good af ternoon. My name is Joe 20

McLaughlin. I'm a retired high school teacher and 21

assistant principal from Huntington Park High School. 22

Huntington Park is an area in Central East Los Angeles, 23

part of the old industrial corridor that was in Los 24

Angeles. It had very poor air quality. 25240

At the school we were very sensitive to this, 1

because in addition to the industrial pollution that was 2

around we had the Farmer John pig processing plant about a 3

mile north of us on Soto. There were mornings known as 4

Farmer John mornings where the air was nauseous as well as 5

quite acrid. 6

We were also one of the first high schools, to go 7

year round. So we were in session during the summer when 8

it was hot, air quality is usually worse in the summer

. 9

We'd have reduced activity on the athletic fields, because 10

of the pollution at the time. I had one student who had an 11

asthma attack in my classroom. We had to evacuate that 12

student to the nurse and call paramedics and have them come 13

and take them to t he hospital. It was quite a frightening 14

experience for me. 15

Closer to home, my wife has asthma. She has two 16

inhalers. One that she must take twice a day, the other is 17

for emergencies. We live in Echo Park, which is a small 18

community surrounded on all four sides by freeways. It 19

feels like it's at the center of the world, but it also is 20

quite a concentration of all that ozone coming from those 21

cars. So I have a concern about public health. 22

The EPA is charged with protecting the 23

environment. And we'v e learned a great deal about the 24

environments since the EPA was created by the Clean Air 25241

Act. And we can forgive some of the unwise choices of long 1

ago at the Industrial Revolution. Cities at that time had 2

horrible air with the soot and smoke and coal, g as and coal 3

particles that were around, they were horrendous but they 4

didn't know the full extent of that danger they were 5

facing. 6

And it wasn't until really they had that killer 7

smog in London in, I think it was 1958 that killed over 8

8,000 people that they began to take air poll ution quite 9

seriously. And so from that warning we began to understand 10

the real danger and the impact that air pollution has of 11

dumping all these pollutants, ozone as well as the 12

greenhouse gases, into our atmosphere. 13

And as we understood those things we began to 14

make mitigations. When we understood that the sulfur that 15

was in fuel, when we burned the coal and we got sulfuric 16

acid that fell as acid rain, which killed fish and trees 17

and dissolved the very faces of some of our buildings, we 18

put regulations in and stopped that. 19

T he same thing happened with the chlorofl u ora 20

carbons that were destroying the ozone, the upper level 21

ozone layers. And those have been banned and have been 22

phased out, so we can take actions that he lp. But as we 23

understand more about the environment we have to really 24

question our whole energy economy based on fossil fuels and 25242

burning things. 1

Humankind has been burning things for thousands 2

of years. It's built our whole civilization. Industrie s 3

are based on it and it's done marvelous things, but now we 4

understand that it is not sustainable. The science about 5

that is just unequivocal. So we know that it's not 6

sustainable and that in itself is a frightening prediction 7

except that we also know t hat there are alternatives. 8

And there are things that we can do that are 9

solutions to the problem. And the Environmental Protection 10

Agency is one of those solutions . By protecting the 11

environment you're protecting human health, human life and 12

human fu ture. We've got to clean up the air and we have 13

got to stop polluting. 14

A couple of weeks ago in the newspaper I noticed 15

a member of Congress who said that his duty was to 16

represent his constituents. And he said this in terms of 17

not doing something th at would seem to be needed to do. I 18

think people in positions of responsibility and authority 19

have an obligation to show leadership , to look the future, 20

to look to the greater good, because that's what we will 21

need to survive. 22

Now, I'm not an expert and I can't give expert 23

testimony. And you have plenty of scientific studies that 24

really are unequivocal in their recommendations for lower 25243

and lower standards for the ozone emission. I think 60 is, 1

I think, good. Lower than that would be even better for 2

t he future. 3

But one thing I can ask here is for political 4

will. I mean, as a citizen, as a father representing my 5

family, what's often lacking in these situations when we 6

see the scientific evidence that shows that we have to do 7

something, it almost always involves some cost. And so 8

it's the political will that's necessary to move ahead with 9

that. 10

I'm currently taking a class at UCLA Extension 11

and it's taught by Anupo m Ga n gul y who was an official with 12

the South Coast Air Quality Management District . And we 13

were talking just this last Saturday , regulations that he 14

had had some work that he did with, and when they were 15

posed that the industries involved would always scream that 16

they couldn't do it. It would be too costly. And he said 17

in every case they were able to comply with those, with 18

much less cost than they had said they would have been able 19

to. 20

MR. PAGE: Sir, I'm sorry, your time is up. 21

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Time is up? Oh, I'm sorry. 22

Well, thank you very much for your

-- 23

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much. 24

Mr. Herrera? 25244

DARIO HERRERA 1

MR. HERRERA: Hello. My name is Dario, and I'm a 2

victim of smog living between two freeways and a railroad. 3

MR. PAGE: Spell your name. 4

MR. HERRERA: D

- A

- R

- I

- O H

- E

- R

- R

- E

- R

- A. Living 5

between two freeways and a railroad I have always been 6

exposed to various forms of pollution. 7

I want the people in the audience to raise your 8

hand, if you too are a victim of smog. I want the people 9

sitting in front of me to raise their hands i f they are 10

victims of smog. And I want the oil addicts who may not be 11

here, to also raise their hands. 12

In L.A., aka Smog City every year thousands of 13

people die prematurely, because of pollution from smog. 14

And many, many more suffer from lung diseases, respiratory 15

illnesses and asthma. 16

But despite all this bad news there are 17

solutions, which you probably heard about a gazillion 18

times. The price of wind and solar energy is now cheaper 19

than ever. In California more and more people are turning 20

to gre en energy except for obviously oil addicts. 21

It's pretty ironic that in Denmark where they 22

receive most of their energy from solar and wind, which is 23

near the Arctic Circle, which means it's really cold

-- if 24

they do it there why can't we do this here in California 25245

where it's basically summer every day? 1

And so, EPA, I challenge you to be as ambitious 2

as I was to not go to school today and sit on a bus for six 3

hours to speak to you. I dare you to do your job and 4

protect the environment. And lastly, I ch allenge you to 5

set a goal of 60 parts per billion or even 55 parts per 6

billion, because I can't wait, everyone in the room can't 7

wait and California can't wait for better air quality. 8

Thank you. 9

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for coming 10

here. 11

V ery good. Our next speakers are Kent Minnow and 12

James Ralston

. 13

KENT MINAULT 14

MR. MINNOW: Good afternoon. Thanks for the 15

opportunity to speak with you here. I'm Kent Minault, K

- E

16

N

- T M

- I

- N

- A

- U

- L

- T. And I'm a teacher and actor from Los 17

Angeles

. 18

A nd I'm speaking today to urge you to implement 19

the 60 parts per billion standard that'll cut ground

- level 20

ozone pollution in some areas by as much as 90 percent. 21

Now, I'm urging this for my own health, because I'm a 22

senior citizen and so I'm more susceptibl e to increased 23

health risks from smog. And also as a resident of L.A. I 24

live in the smoggiest city in the country. 25246

But I'm also urging this for the sake of my 1

neighbors and students in seriously affected communities 2

like Pacoima where I've been an English teacher for over 3

ten years and South L.A. where I work as a volunteer 4

organizer. 5

Now, these areas are characteristic of low

- income 6

communities around the country, whi ch suffered 7

disproportionate ozone pollution and consequently 8

disproportionately high incidences of asthma, respiratory 9

infections and pulmonary inflammation. 10

Now this ozone pollution can exacerbate heart 11

disease, bronchitis, and emphysema . B ut even w orse large 12

studies conducted in cities across the U.S., in Europe, and 13

in Asia confirmed that ozone actually kills people as the 14

young man who just spoke pointed out. Researchers 15

repeatedly found that the risk of premature death increased 16

with higher leve ls of ozone. 17

And even low levels of ozone may be deadly. A 18

large study of 48 U.S. cities found that ozone 19

concentrations in some cities during the summer range from 20

16 percent to 80 percent lower than the EPA currently 21

considers safe. And researchers found that ozone in those 22

lower levels was associated with deaths from cardiovascular 23

disease, strokes and respiratory causes. 24

Now, we're shifting our economy more and more to 25247

green energy and zero emission vehicles. Let's follow the 1

advice of fellow c itizens from low

- income communities , and 2

also from the young people from all over the state who've 3

come and spoken with you today and implement strong smog 4

regulations, which will further stimulate energy 5

efficiency, rooftop solar and wind. And these thin gs offer 6

the prospective of far more good

- paying jobs and career 7

path jobs to boot, than the flagging dirty

- energy system, 8

which we need to leave behind. So let's make history today 9

and give us the 60 parts per billion. Thanks. 10

MR. PAGE: Thank you. T hank you, very much. 11

Mr. Ralston? 12

JIM RALSTON 13

MR. RALSTON: My name is Jim Ralston, spelled 14

like a bunch of people I'm not related to, R

- A

- L

- S

- T

- O

- N. 15

And I too am from Los Angeles. There's a bunch of us, we 16

came up on a bus. 17

I can report that the air is not as bad as it 18

used to be. In 1971 when I arrived, you could arrive in 19

Pasadena in the fall and not realize that there was a mile

20

high mountain range in your backyard until the smog finally 21

lifted in January. 22

We've made some progress since then , but of 23

course not enough. As many people have pointed out, we 24

still have the worst smog in the country. That is why I 25248

urge you to adopt the 60 parts per billion ozone standard. 1

The health benefits are incontestable. Ozone 2

damages lungs, particularly young ones. The EPA's own 3

Draft Policy Assessment estimates that lowering the 4

standard from 75 to 60 parts per billion will protect half 5

a million more children from significant damage to their 6

lungs. I think that by itself makes the new standard 7

worthw hile. 8

No one likes to be regulated, particularly when 9

the regulation hits your business. "This will drive me out 10

of business and I will wreck the economy." No, "It will 11

wreck the economy." It is almost a reflex reaction, but 12

time and again it hasn't w orked that way. When you're 13

forced to think about to comply people get innovative. The 14

60 parts per billion standard and it will benefit us all. 15

Thank you. 16

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, both. 17

Our next speakers are Michael Acosta Ramos and 18

Bianca Padilla. Thank you. 19

MICHAEL RAMOS ACOSTA 20

MR. ACOSTA : Greetings, EPA representatives. 21

MR. PAGE: Greetings. Michael, do you want to 22

spell your name for the court reporter? Thank you. 23

MR. ACOSTA : First last name is Ramos, R

- A

- M

- O

- S, 24

second last name, A

- C

- O

- S

- T

- A. 25249

I just want to start out by saying my significant 1

other suffers from an asthma condition, so I'm here 2

representing her, myself and our community. I am currently 3

studying sustainable architecture and environmental design 4

at Los Angeles Trade Tech College in Los Angeles. And I am 5

here today to ask that you all implement an initiative to 6

reduce the smog in California for the sake of the state's 7

overall health. 8

I would also like to some type of action taken on 9

localizing necessities for people. I don't think massive 10

and extensive transportation is something viable. I feel 11

like we can educate and inform people on how to rely on 12

their environments for their day

- to

- day needs. If we 13

educate people about this I think people will feel more 14

connected to their environment/nature and a newfound 15

respect for the earth can emerge from this. It can be 16

something as basic as teaching people to grow food or the 17

importance of growing food or utilizing solar and wind in 18

designing. 19

Or you all can set a strong ozone standard at 60 20

parts per billion or less to reduce smog. 21

I would also like to see initiatives implemented 22

in development. Studies show that conventional buildings 23

make up at least 49 percent of the world's pollution. Any 24

type of initiative to reduce the smog in California would 25250

be of great assistance in achieving health for our 1

communities. Thank you, very much. 2

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 3

Bianca? 4

BIANCA PADILLA 5

MS. PADILLA: Hello. My name's Bianca Padilla , 6

B

- I

- A

- N

- C

- A , Padilla with a double l. Hi. I'm a student 7

at Eagle Rock High School, it's in Los Angeles, yes. 8

It is evident that smog and other forms of air 9

pollution are harmful. Inhaling air pollution takes away 10

at least one to two years of a typical human life. 11

The great smog of London killed 8,000 people. 12

People who live near freeways and other 13

industrial factories face greater risk of cancer, heart 14

disease, asthma and bronchitis. 15

It is evident that industry is profitable. This 16

is just our desire outweighing our need. There are no laws 17

in the atmosphere (indiscernible). 18

Air is very extensive. It reaches everyone and 19

it affects everybody. It's not something that only affects 20

a certain race or gender or economic, social level. And 21

just to li ke take in consideration that it's only affecting 22

-- it's mostly not only affecting. It's mostly affecting 23

people of race and gender. It also goes to the extent to 24

say that it's based on human desire. It's not something 25251

of nature, because nature has no racism or sexism or 1

classism. 2

So I would like to ask you why not lower the 3

ozone level to 60 parts per billion. I would like you to 4

answer. 5

MR. PAGE: We're supposed to collect your 6

information today. We've given you our proposal. 7

MS. PADILLA: I would like your opinion. 8

MR. PAGE: we've given you our proposal and we're 9

putting that out for comment, so we're most interested in 10

your opinion. 11

MS. PADILLA: Well, I think you should definitely 12

lower it. 13

MR. PAGE: Okay. I was getting that, yeah

. 14

MS. PADILLA: I mean, I would like to end with a 15

quote . "In tough times, some of us see protecting the 16

climate as a luxury, but that's an outdated 20th

- century 17

worldview from a time when we thought industrialization was 18

the end goal, waste was growth, and wealth meant a thick 19

haze of air pollution." Alex Steffen. Thank you. 20

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both very much 21

for coming. 22

All right, our next speakers are Eve, you're 23

going to have to help me here. 24

MS. PANUSH: Panush. 25252

MR. PAGE: Panush, thank you. I appreciate that 1

quick rescue. And Ronni Soloman, very good. All right. 2

Don't run, don't run, oh my goodness. Yeah, Eve 3

would you go first please? 4

EVE PANUSH 5

MS. PANUSH: Yes. Hi. My name is Eve Panush , E

6

V

- E P

- A

- N

- U

- S

- H

. And I grew up in Los Angeles during the 7

'50s and '60s. 8

My father who moved to Los Angeles in 1950, and 9

at 92 years of age still lives there, is a retired chemist. 10

He was always aware of the dangers of unhealthy air having 11

worked in the laborat ory of Dr. Arie Haagen

- Smit , the first 12

chair of the State Air Resources Board. And my father also 13

worked for the old Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control 14

District, the first of its kind in the nation. 15

He has never smoked and was an early activist in 16

the movement against second

- hand smoke. However, my 17

father's pulmonologist recently told him that as a result 18

of living in the Los Angeles air basin over these past 65 19

years, he has the lungs of heavy smoke r. 20

Even though California still has some of the 21

worst air in the country it isn't as bad as it used to be. 22

Ozone levels in Los Angeles are just 40 percent of what 23

they were in the mid

- '70s and that's with more than twice 24

the number of cars. 25253

Howeve r, fighting air pollution is an ongoing 1

battle and as the science gets better the more is learned 2

about the impact of ozone levels on human health. Lowering 3

the current standard of ozone from 75 parts per billion to 4

60 is just part of this continuing batt le. Like all other 5

actions we have taken in the past to improve air quality it 6

has a cost. But we need to balance those costs against the 7

risk to health of those who are most at risk including 8

children, the elderly, and folks suffering from lung 9

diseases . And the net result will be health ier people and 10

a healthier economy. 11

We have a choice with regard to decreasing ozone 12

levels between science and health on one side and unfounded 13

fears on the other. Please choose what is right for our 14

future. 15

MR . PAGE: Thank you. 16

RONNI SOLOMAN 17

MS . SOLOMAN: Hi. My name is Ronni Soloman , R

- O

18

N

- N

- I S

- O

- L

- O

- M

- A

- N . Good afternoon. Thank you for having 19

us. I also got on a bus from Los Angeles to come here. 20

As the Environmental Protection Agency, your name 21

alo ne says what an awe

- inspiring responsibility you have to 22

protect our environment. And by extension it's our planet, 23

because not only are we a global economy, but we're 24

globally connected very much so, because of the hole in the 2525 4

ozone layer, global polluti on in almost all countries, 1

nations, cities. You only have to worry about the United 2

States, but what you do here affects the whole world. 3

The heads of chemical plants and fossil fuel 4

industry, CEOs, argue that a rule of 60 parts per billion 5

would hur t the economy and destroy jobs. But how much do 6

increased number of asthma cases among children hurt the 7

economy. And how much does lung

- damaging smog in L.A. 8

affect employment and job loss? 9

Your huge responsibility as our nation, and as I 10

point out by extension our planet's environmental 11

protector, forces you to be as bold and aggressive as 12

possible. 13

So given what everybody has said here previously 14

that supports the new rule of 60 parts per billion I 15

applaud that and I urge you to go for 60 parts per billion. 16

Our environment's future depends on it and we all depend on 17

you, so please do the right thing. Thank you. 18

MR. PAGE: Thank you , very much

. 19

Before I go to the next speaker, how many people 20

came up on the bus from Los Angeles? (Show of hands) Wow, 21

that's impressive! Thank you all very much. 22

Walker Foley and Jameka Hodnett. Mr. Foley, if 23

you'll spell your name for the court reporter when you're 24

ready. 25255

WALKER FOLEY 1

MR. FOLEY: Sure. That's Walker Foley , W

- A

- L

- K

2

E

- R F

- O

- L

- E

- Y . And I'm both a volunteer with the Los 3

Angeles Beyond Coal campaign and an organizer for Food and 4

Water Watch. 5

So first I'd like to say I live less than a mile 6

from an oil field, less than a mile from a freeway, less 7

than a mile from a CEMEX excavat ion site. And my apartment 8

is on a major road in Los Angeles. So the pollution is 9

endless. 10

And every single day L.A. is in violation of the 11

Clean Air Act. Every day L.A. is in violation of the 12

current smog rulings. And every day I'm married to this 13

inhaler, which is actually a privilege that I can afford 14

that a lot of other people in Los Angeles can't. 15

I try to do my part. I don't a car, which is 16

both good and bad, because as a cyclist my commute both 17

reduces smog and combines urban air pollution with 18

cardiovascular exercise. And professionally, I organize 19

with communities to shut down oil

- drilling projects in 20

their neighborhoods. 21

And so today I stepped out of L.A. smog, drove up 22

through the Central Valley smog where it's so thick I 23

couldn't se e the Sierra Nevadas on the other side. And now 24

I'm here to just make three points. 25256

Public accountability and access, I think, is 1

critical in governments. 2

And as you just saw a lot of us came up from Los 3

Angeles to be here today. And I think we s hare the 4

sentiment that bearing, along with the Central Valley a lot 5

of the state's pollution, you all need to come to us , not 6

the other way around , for public comments to be made to 7

this process

. That this hearing is held in Sacramento 8

isolated from the majority of people that it should be 9

seeking to help is kind of unacceptable. 10

So the EPA's mandate is to let science lead to 11

safeguard public health and knowing that air pollution 12

kills 25,000 Californians every year, knowing that 80 13

percent of lung di seases are caused by smog, I'm asking you 14

all to have the courage to show strong leadership. And I 15

echo the sentiments of the people who have been sitting up 16

here before me, that said nothing short of 60 parts per 17

billion is good enough to safeguard our h ealth. 18

I know the road to reduced emissions is costly. 19

I've looked over the number, but Californians currently 20

bear all the externality of oil production and other 21

pollutive industries, both in our taxes and in our health 22

bills. So I think we need to g et back to an attitude of 23

making the polluters pay. If a byproduct of their toxic 24

products is our poor health then they are directly and 25257

morally responsible and should be held accountable for 1

their actions. 2

And my concluding thought, earlier today I rea d 3

the EPA is looking to give California an extension for 4

meeting these new smog guidelines. Someone gave me the 5

explanation that because California is so large in size and 6

population and industry it's harder for it to come into 7

compliance within the current timeline. However, I would 8

say that 40 million people is not a reason to say we'll do 9

it tomorrow. 40 million people is a mandate to do it now. 10

And to paraphrase Dr. King whose birthday a lot 11

of us just celebrated, "The only time and the best t ime for 12

justice are now." So I implore you show strong leadership 13

on this. Set a goal of 60 parts per billion and don't 14

delay action in California's communities. Thank you. 15

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 16

Jameka? 17

JAMEKA HODNETT 18

MS. HODNETT : Hello? I thin k you can hear me. 19

My name is Jameka Hodnett , J

- A

- M

- E

- K

- A H

- O

- D

- N

- E

- T

- T

. 20

Again, my name is Jameka . A nd I flew all the way here to 21

Sacramento from Pittsburgh, to Arlington Texas first, and 22

now here today to speak to you in favor of clean air and a 23

strong er ozone standard. 24

I've traveled thousands of miles, because I'm 25258

serious about smog pollution and how it affects low

- income 1

communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by 2

smog. Smog pollution is extremely harmful to our health 3

and it's sick ening that in California, Black and Latino 4

kids are two

- to

- six times more likely to die from asthma. 5

My nephew suffers from asthma and every time he 6

has an asthma attack my heart stops. Industry should not 7

have that type of control over me and my family 's life. My 8

nephew should be able to go outside and breathe clean are 9

every day. 10

This disgusting smog is not normal and it 11

certainly is not okay. It will be a gross injustice if EPA 12

does not lower the current ozone standards to 60 parts per 13

billion. Not doing so would leave the door open for 14

continued degradation of our health and catastrophic 15

climate change. Implementing a new stricter standard will 16

protect our planet and its communities two

- fold. We get 17

cleaner air and we'd finally be on a path t o addressing 18

climate change. 19

EPA you were established to protect us. O ur 20

communities and our planet is counting on you. Please 21

lower the standard to 60 parts per billion. That's it. 22

MR. PAGE: Thank you both for your comments

. 23

All right, our next two speakers are Felicia 24

Bander and Susan Wilke or Wilke s ? 25259

Ms. Bander, you're up when you're ready. 1

FELICIA BANDER 2

MS. BANDER: Okay. Thank you. 3

My name is Felicia Bander F

- E

- L

- I

- C

- I

- A B

- A

- N

- D

4

E

- R

. I live in Los Angeles. 5

What a wonderful country we have , that I can 6

speak before you today. Our fossil fuel use is the cause 7

of the extreme and dangerous climate changes coming our 8

way. O ur world is going to become a much more difficult 9

place in which to live. 10

Fossil fuel reserves ar e past their peak levels; 11

supplie s are dwindling. This is the age of renewable 12

energy. Renewable energy can power our lives. The 13

transition to renewable energy is inevitable. The sooner 14

we make the transition the better for everyone. 15

Fossil fuel companies stand in the way of the 16

transition. They scare the public into thinking that there 17

will be energy shortages or soaring prices. The fossil 18

fuel companies are scared of losing their profits. The 19

fossil fuel companies stand in the way of responsible 20

polic y - making. 21

Adaptation in a key to survival. T h e fossil fuel 22

companies need to adapt and start investing in renewable 23

energy. There is enough sun, wind, and energy efficiency 24

for all of us , e nough for investors to profit from, for 25260

workers to be employe d by, for economies to grow on. 1

Our environment needs your protection. Our 2

country need these ozone regulations. Setting the limit at 3

60 parts per billion will push all of us towards renewable s 4

and away from fossil fuels. 5

The world needs our lead ership on this. Thank you 6

very much. 7

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 8

SUSAN WILKE 9

MS. WILKE: Thank you. My name is Susan Wilke , 10

Wilke, W

- I

- L

- K

- E

. I cam e here and I wasn't thinking of 11

actually making any statemen ts, but I realized as I was 12

coming here that I di d have some thoughts on the subject. 13

I live in Sacr a mento. I do have a chronic 14

condition . It's not related to asthma, but I know that I 15

would feel better if the air was clean, if the sky was 16

clear, if I didn't pass people that I see masks on their 17

faces as they walk around. At my condo unit where I see 18

the workers blowing the leaves with the gas t hings on their 19

backs without any kind of protection, and I know that its 20

making the air worse. I know someone who is leaving 21

Sacr a mento because the air is so bad that its impacting 22

their health and well

- being and that they won ' t survive , 23

b ecause their hea lth is impacted so much by our air quality 24

and they have to seek a place to go. 25261

I also read something recently that Aldus Huxley 1

said

-- something that facts do not change simply because 2

we ignore them

. 3

I think the S enate said we are not anything to 4

impact the environment , but I think there's enough 5

scientists and people telling us that that's not the case. 6

And when we look at our weather and the fact that what we 7

do , do does make a difference . A nd even a small change in 8

a group, a small group of pe ople , can make a gigantic 9

change if they give leadership to other people. 10

And the fact is you also have children or you may 11

have children . It may be ironic , but how do you know that 12

your children might be ill with asthma ? That they might

-- 13

y ou might have someone in your family that's impacted by it 14

already or maybe even your own health. 15

I just think as a species that if we ignore

-- 16

like, facts do not change just because we ignore them. If 17

we ignore what we do, we will still have to face the 18

impact s that are happening right now. W e know we kind of 19

live in a gil ded age with the 1 percent . W e can see that 20

our way that we're consuming is actually, we are consuming 21

our planet. And o ur planet is starting to spit out against 22

us. It's punishing us . It 's telling us like a child 23

crying in bed that we are doing something wrong and if we 24

don't listen and change our behavior, and make the changes 25262

that need to be done, there will be consequences. 1

Maybe it won ' t be on us . we can fly off to what 2

Boutique (p honetic) or maybe go to the mountains and get a 3

nice place in one of the few places that are smog free

. 4

But that leaves, what about the other people? There's 1 5

percent that has a lot of power and money , but what about 6

the rest of us ? We're paying for them to live this high

7

style life but we are paying the price. They're making us 8

pay the price . A nd I think it's a darn shame , excuse me 9

for swearing, that we are the ones that have to pay the 10

price for some wealthy person to live an exalted life. 11

And i t shouldn't have to be that way. T hat's all 12

I have to say. It ' s disgusting. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you both very much

. 14

Our next two speakers are Felicia Bander and Alex 15

Nagy. 16

MS. BANDER: (Off mic) No, I'm Felicia Bander. 17

MR. PAGE: Oh, sorry, sorry. Okay. You made it 18

on the list twice. Alex Nagy. 19

ALEX ANDRA NAGY 20

MR. NAGY: Nagy for the record, N

- A

- G

- Y . All 21

right, my name is Alexandra Nagy and I'm an organizer for 22

Food and Water Watch in Los Angeles. 23

I was born and raised in L.A. and I kn ow what it 24

feels like to struggle running laps on the school 25263

playground during gym class and the panic that ensues when 1

your little sister comes to you during the day and she left 2

her inhaler at home . A nd you have to figure out how to get 3

her to breath e a gain. 4

And today I'm a community organizer and I work to 5

e mpower communities to fight back against Big Oil , the 6

largest polluters of sources of air toxics in Los Angeles. 7

And I work with them to resist against extreme influence 8

Big Oil ha s over our gover nment and our agencies. We work 9

to combat the erosion of our democracy and we strive to 10

make the government accountable to the people and not Big 11

Oil

. 12

Food and Water Watch and the affected communities 13

are working for a ban on fracking

-- an extreme 14

unc onventional oil and gas dril ling in Los Angeles and 15

California

-- because we know it is necessary to fight for 16

healthy climate and communities. 17

We know , based on numerous scientific studies and 18

even data gathering by the South Coast AQMD , that fracking 19

and other unconventional drilling has a significant impact 20

on air pollution and smog. We know from the Colorado study 21

published in the Journal of Geophysical Research that 22

methane emissions from fracked wellheads are significantly 23

higher an d contribute to three times higher levels of smog. 24

In Los Angeles, after the South Coast AQMD 25264

required reporting of chemicals used in fracking, 1

acidizing, and gravel packing which are extreme 2

unconventional methods, after a year of reporting , this 3

review showed that at least 44 different chemicals were 4

defined as air toxics . A nd these chemicals were used at 5

least 5,068 and more than 45 million pounds or 22,500 tons 6

of these air toxics were used. And more than half of these 7

air toxics were used within 15 00 of a home , school or 8

medical facility. 9

In S outh L.A., we lls at the Allenco site were 10

allowed to poison the nearby residents and school children 11

for three years with deadly air toxins making life 12

miserable for this community , because agencies under th e 13

thumb of Big Oil , the South Coast AQMD , allowed it to 14

happen. After years of organizing, the community finally 15

got these wells shut down only after the EPA stepped in, 16

investigated the issue , and the officers themselves got 17

sick just being there for one day. And that was three 18

years gone un noticed by the South Coast AQMD . It was 19

absolutely horrifying. After Allenco was forced to halt 20

operations, the L.A. times revealed that the reports of 21

illnesses by the community disappeared. 22

Whether or not well stimulation is used, we know 23

that oil and gas operations are responsible for emitting 24

air toxics throughout the process. What we need in Los 25265

Angeles and California, to combat air pollution and dirty, 1

dangerous smog, is 100 percent clean energy and a move away 2

from fossil fuels completely. 3

We need to ban fracking now , but right now the 4

EPA needs to require 60 parts per billion a s the standard 5

of ozone pollut a nts as a first step to dismantling the 6

stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry and what it has 7

over our lives, our climate, and our future. 8

We need a clean energy feature that provides 9

clean air for all. After all clean air is a human right 10

and Los An geles is so far behind this violation of that 11

right. The EPA needs to stand up to Big Oil and enforce 60 12

parts per billion. Thank you. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. 14

Tony Bautista and Daniel Kwong

. 15

Mr. Bautista, if you could spell your name, and 16

s tart when you're ready. 17

TONY BAUTISTA 18

MR. BAUTISTA: Hello. It's Tony T

- O

- N

- Y B

- A

- U

- T

19

I

- S

- T

- A

. 20

So on MLK Day my s ister, my nephew and myself, 21

decided we would enjoy a morning hike at Elysian Park just 22

north of D owntown L.A. W e expected a landscape view of 23

D owntown L.A. and the ocean. As we drove there the morning 24

was hazy and we expected it to clear up. W hen we arrived 25266

on top of the hill, there was no ocean view , and D owntown 1

L.A. was surrounded in smog. These days are becoming more 2

common. We r ealized that hike was a bad idea, actually it 3

was a terrible idea. 4

My six

- year
- old nephew, Isaiah Lemeez, (phonetic) 5

suffers from asthma. He has had three emergency room 6

visits, two of which were overnight. This should never 7

happen to anyone. 8

And l et me tell you a little bit about the 9

community Isaiah and myself are from. East Los Angeles is 10

surrounded by freeways or as they're known in L.A., parking 11

lots : the 60 , the 5 , the 710, the 10, the 101. Every 12

morning, afternoon, and evening, these freeways become 13

smog
- making machines b lowing deadly chemicals to the 14

surrounding communities. And t his problem is only getting 15

worse. As we are speaking today, they are expanding the 16

710

. 17

I don't only witness the difficult times my 18

nephew has breathin g , but those are my youth that I work 19

with. I work in Boyle Heights, the second most air

20

polluted community in Los Angeles

. And I don't need to 21

tell you that L.A. has the worst air pollution in the 22

nation or maybe I do. 23

I live in Cypress Park now, ad jacent to a rail 24

freight yard, also a source of smog. Heights Park 25267

(phonetic) is four miles from Boyle Heights, I b ike to work 1

every day and I am a witness to the car congestion on the 2

L.A. streets. My morning commute is filled with the biter 3

smell of th e tailpipe smoke. I often wonder if I'm putting 4

my health in danger. I worry about developing cancer. 5

Often times that thought is put to rest when I worry about 6

getting hit by cars or hitting a pothole. 7

I'm here today to ask you to clean our air, to 8

protect my house, to protect the health of my community, to 9

protect the health of every American. To set an example to 10

all the nations on this earth. To set a 60 part s per 11

billion ozone standard. 12

I'm not only representing myself, but my 13

community, many of which could not attend , because of the 14

m any injustices that they already face and would gladly be 15

here to tell you the injustices they face with air 16

pollution. 17

Remember, 60 parts per billion. I already 18

Instagrammed you on F ace b ook , so again 60 parts per 19

billion. Thank you. 20

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 21

Mr. Kwong? 22

DANIEL KWONG 23

MR. KWONG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen 24

and all professionals and friends from the communities in 25268

the audience. February 2nd is a shiny day for a living 1

concept, clean air. 2

We have just delivered some good messages in the 3

parks and (inaudible) very exciting. 4

I'm from Los Angeles and have just earned the 5

certification of mental health first aid from the Pacific 6

Clinic Training Institute (phonetic) in Pasadena a nd have 7

learned a lot, picked up a lot of things. And it's changed 8

my life and thoughts of lifestyle and the mentality on some 9

basic issues. 10

So far I know, and we all may know that, all 11

(indiscernible) are relevant. And so the implementation of 12

a publi c policy is affecting all of us. The Environmental 13

Protection Agency has done a good job. Since the formation 14

in the early 1970s its momentum is still impact s and has 15

touched on almost every aspect of our daily lives. Thank 16

you for the hard work and yea rs. 17

What I have learned from the mental health 18

classes, we do need to eat well and sleep well and to 19

maintain ourselves in good care and have a good style of 20

exercises. And that we need clean air to do, for children, 21

for women to bear healthy children, and the (indiscernible) 22

and the citizens to move on. 23

All living things need clean air, why not? 24

California is not dreaming, it is living. Again, we need 25269

clean air. Have a good evening and healthy new year to 1

all. 2

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 3

MR. KWONG: Thank you. 4

MR. PAGE: Mr. Kwong, would you spell your name 5

for the court reporter, please? 6

MR. KWONG: Daniel Kwong, my last name is K

- W

- O

7

N

- G. I'm from Los Angeles. 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. Thank you for 9

being here. 10

MR. KWONG: I greet you all again. 11

MR. PAGE: Yeah, thank you. 12

MS. STONE: Nice to meet you. 13

MR. PAGE: All right. Our next two speakers are 14

Philip Royk? (phonetic) 15

MR. ROJC: Royce. (phonetic) 16

MR. PAGE: Royce? Okay, you'll have to spell 17

that for me, and Clayton Heard. Rojc, you're up first, so 18

if you'd spell your name for the court reporter and me? 19

PHILIP ROJC 20

MR. ROJC: Sure. My name is Philip with one "l" 21

and the last name is Rojc, R

- O

- J

- C

. Hi, I'm Philip. I am 22

from Los Angeles

. 23

Last year I went to USC to hear a talk by the 24

social scientist , Jared Diamond , about his new book. He 25270

told a well

- read, well

- informed audience that he wasn't 1

sure whether civilization , as we know it, would persist by 2

the time I reach retirement age . That's around 2050 or 3

2060. 4

And h ere is what I found interesting about that

. 5

In that room full of well

- read , well

- informed people very 6

few of them seemed to find that statement strange. They 7

bought into the notion that that statement could be 8

plausible. And I do hope Jared Diamond is right

. I hope 9

that our civilization does change drastically by the time I 10

reach retirement age. I hope our global economy advances

. 11

I'm not going to say grows, I'm not going to use the term 12

grows, I'm going to use the term advances i n the coming 13

decades as we face down challenges that are clearly 14

partially of our own making. 15

And t hat's why it ' s hard sometimes to pull up 16

G oogle N ews on my phone and read about how even if your 17

organization were to totally eliminate, to outlaw emiss ions 18

in the U.S. i t wouldn't really do much , because every body 19

overseas is still industrializing . T hey are still growing 20

their economies, their dirty energy economies often , at a 21

break

- neck pace. And sometimes it seems like real tangible 22

improvements lik e reducing ozone are only mere delaying 23

tactics into face inevitable planet

- wide decline. You 24

know, b ut that's not the full story. 25271

Bold cutting

- edge action on the local level 1

doesn't just mitigate local problems. It proves to the 2

rising generation wh o is really looking out for our 3

futures, our livel ih oods. I want the United States to stay 4

at the forefront , because sometimes it feels like that's 5

not the case anymore . B ecause people , they remember 6

leadership. California and the United States as a whol e is 7

known world

- wide for being at the cutting edge , in both 8

positive and negative ways. 9

In 2060 when I reach that retirement age I want 10

to have proven Jared Diamond right

-- n ot because of 11

economic collapse

-- but because my state, my nation, my 12

country, lead the world away from pollution. Today, 60 13

parts per billion is what that leadership means. Thank you 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 15

CLAYTON HEARD 16

MR. HEARD: All right. My name is Clayton Heard , 17

H

- E

- A

- R

- D . I' m an environmental science and policy major 18

at Chapman University down in O range C ounty. 19

So I thought today I would just talk about a few 20

important people in my life. First up is my mom . S he grew 21

up in A rcadia , which is at the foothills of the beautif ul 22

San Bernardino mountains

. However, she did not know there 23

were mountains there until she was in junior high. The 24

smog was so bad that in elementary school she would be 25272

called off the playgrounds , k ids would have burning and 1

itchy lungs. In the summer it can get ov er 100 degrees , 2

but they weren't able to go swimming , because they couldn't 3

go outside. She also remembers it as like having a ten

4

pound bowling ball on her chest all the time

. 5

And s o that was obviously quite a while ago and 6

conditions h ave improved. However, next I want to talk 7

about my friend Brett. Brett is also an environmental 8

science major with me at Chapm a n. We have lots of classes 9

together and we do res earch together , but he is from 10

Bellevue , Washington and I myself am from Ora nge County

. 11

So one day we were coming back from a research 12

project in a local wilderness area like 20 minutes from 13

school. And so we're driving back through the mountains , 14

and we're kind of going around these twists and turns, then 15

finally you can kind of see out and you see O range and 16

Anaheim and it's very flat . Y ou can see for quite a while. 17

And he just kind of looks at me and he says, " M an 18

I can't wait to get out of California

. I feel like I can ' t 19

breath e ." 20

And n ormally I 'm very quick to defend the great 21

state of California , because I love it here, but at this 22

point I kind of just looked at the horizon and I saw that 23

gr a y layer of haze and smog. And I really thought, "Like 24

wow that must hard coming from Washington and to have to 25273

deal with this ." A nd I had never really thought abo ut 1

that . It was just something that I had grown accustom to. 2

I had grown accustom to this constant smog to where it 3

doesn't even faze me anymore a nd that's kind of frightening 4

to me , you know? T hat I am not even aware of this 5

dangerous smog that is constantly surrounding me. 6

And Brett is a very passionate student. He loves 7

wa ste management , which is very strange I think , for a 20 8

year old in college. But he is going to be some human 9

capital that we are going to lose in the S tate of 10

California , because he doesn’t plan on staying here . A nd I 11

don't even know if he plans on staying in the United States 12

after college because he might find that environmental 13

policies are more progressive in outsid e countries. 14

Now to get really sappy, I'm going to talk about 15

my future son or daughter. Hopefully they will grow up in 16

orange C ounty as well

. However , I don't want them to grow 17

up accustom ed to this grey streak across the horizon. I 18

don't want them to feel like they can't breath e

. Part of 19

the reason I'm an environmental scien ce and policy major is 20

because I want them to be able to enjoy the outdoors

. I 21

want them to be able to swim in the ocean and hike in our 22

beautiful mountains. 23

The EPA has made some amazing progress from my 24

parent's generations to mine and I'm hoping that now it ' s 25274

time for this generation to do the same. That's why I 1

really suggest that we push for a 60 parts per billion 2

standard for ozone. Thank you 3

MR. PAGE : Great. Thanks to both of you for your 4

statements today. 5

All right, our next two speakers are Claudia 6

Grayson and Mr. Harry Wang. 7

CLAUDIA GRAYSON 8

MS. GRAYSON: Hi. I wasn't going to speak 9

earlier, but one of my friends spoke and I thought

-- 10

MR. PAGE: Excuse me for interrupting, could you 11

spell your

-- 12

MS. GRAYSON: Oh, Claudia , C

- L

- A

- U

- D

- I

- A , last 13

name Grayson, G

- R

- A

- Y

- S

- O

- N

. 14

MR. PAGE: Thank you, so much. 15

MS. GRAYSON: Yeah. I came because I live here 16

in Sacramento and usually before I leave the house I have 17

to check the air alerts

. I have asthma. And like th e 18

other young man, I have a red and white inhaler as well , 19

but I also have a whole medicine cabinet full of pills. 20

I had a heart attack in 2007 . A nd I recovered 21

from that well , but in 2011 I got a submassive pulmonary 22

e mbolism that almost killed me. That was in the middle of 23

September. The following year at the end of September , I 24

had bilateral small pulmonary e mboli in both lungs. The 25275

following summer I had intractable asthm a and new 1

medications to add to my regiment. And this past summer I 2

had vertigo

. And that's why I check the air alert every 3

day before I leave. 4

Now , today it was only 35 parts per billion , but 5

even in leaving the bus stop at 7th and I , to walk down 6

here I had to use my inhaler. So I know that I'm older and 7

I have watched the air go from

-- I grew in the Bay A rea, I 8

was so spoiled , because I had the Pacific breezes

-- and 9

I'm S usan's friend that is leaving the V alley , because I 10

need to g et out of a place that is in a constant inversion. 11

I understand that a part of our problem here is 12

physical , and probably also in Los Angeles , so I think that 13

because we live in these bowls we have to protect what does 14

go into the bowls. I'm trying to get away to the rim of 15

the bowl . I'm trying to move to Sonoma County, so I can be 16

on the upper edge of the bowl. 17

Meanwhile back at the literal ranches in the 18

V alley I would hope that you would do as much as you can to 19

relieve the people who are not lik e, " Okay. I'm ready to 20

go

. " I asked my doctor if he thought that I would live an 21

extra five years if I left the V alley and moved to a place 22

with cleaner air . And he said, "No, ten." 23

So I implore you, give us a break. 24

MR. PAGE: All right. Thank y ou , very much

. 25276

HARRY WANG 1

MR. WANG: My name is Dr. Harry Wang . That's 2

spelled W

- A

- N

- G . I am vice president of the Sacramento 3

Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility

. 4

And I want to thank you for the opportunity to 5

speak today. And I'm going to urge the EPA to set a 6

standard that will mandate the lowest ozone levels possible 7

to best protect human health. 8

PSR believes that there are two important issues 9

that EPA should consider. First, that clean air is a human 10

right for all Americans. And second, that there's clear 11

scientific evidence that ozone is deadly and harmful to our 12

health and at levels lower than EPA is considering. 13

As we all know the Clean Air Act passed by a 14

bipartisan congress in 1970 has been one of the most 15

successful, what I'll call public health law, ever enacted. 16

Through the work of EPA the quality of our air has 17

dramatically improved resulting in significant benefits for 18

the health and wellbeing of millions of people. 19

The mandated reduction of emissions from ma ny of 20

the worst sources of air pollution has literally saved the 21

lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. 22

An important role of government is to protect us 23

and to keep us safe and this is especially true in the area 24

of public health. It is much bet ter, as well as cost 25277

effective, to prevent disease and deaths than to try to 1

treat them. And that is why it is essential that all 2

Americans be able to breathe clean air. 3

But despite the improvements in air quality that 4

have occurred, more than four of every ten Americans across 5

the country still live in areas with unhealthy ozone 6

levels. And in recent years the levels of ozone have risen 7

in the most polluted metropolitan areas. 8

If clean air is to be a right for all Americans 9

we must remind EPA to fu lfill their mission and to set an 10

ozone standard that would truly protect human health with 11

an adequate margin of safety. Children, elders, 12

individuals with heart or lung diseases and those who play 13

or work outdoors are especially vulnerable to the effect s 14

of breathing ozone. We shouldn't force our children to 15

stay inside, because the air is unsafe for them to breathe. 16

As a board

- certified pediatrician and child 17

psychiatrist I've treated many children with asthma. My 18

own daughter was hospitalized in in tensive care right here 19

in Sacramento when she was nine

- years old. I recall many 20

nights staying awake with her when she was having a hard 21

time breathing. She would prop herself up on pillows in 22

the bed and I would be there and we would give her 23

breathing treatments every four hours throughout the night. 24

And there are very few conditions as scary for children or 25278

their parents, as a child waking up in the middle of the 1

night unable to breathe. 2

So you can see for me ozone pollution is both a 3

professional and a personal matter. And that's why I 4

returned to testify five years after the last EPA hearing 5

here in Sacramento on the ozone standard. And at that time 6

PSR urge EPA to lower the 8

- hour primary standard to 60 7

parts per billion. 8

It's taken much too long to set a more health 9

protective standard, a decision that should not have to 10

depend on politics. And although I imagine you've heard 11

testimony from industry stating that jobs are at stake, we 12

remind EPA that corporate profits or economic costs are no t 13

to be considered when setting the ozone standard. 14

My first point tonight was that clean air is a 15

right for all Americans. My second point is that the 16

science is very, very clear. As you've been hearing all 17

day ozone pollution is harmful to your health. And as Dr. 18

Pinkerton will state, "Science has shown that ozone 19

exposures as low as down to 60 parts per billion cause 20

adverse physiologic effects, even in healthy people. 21

And that is why Physicians for Social 22

Responsibility urges the EPA to ge t it right this time and 23

set a more health

- protective standard, 60 parts per 24

billion, which would be safer for all Americans including 25279

sensitive groups. 1

And we urge that the new standard for ozone be 2

implemented in the shortest timeframe possible to bein g 3

saving more lives in improving the health and well

- being of 4

all of us. Thank you. 5

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you both for your 6

statements today. 7

(Off mic colloquy between Panel members) 8

MR. PAGE: So we're going to take about a five

9

minute break. We have apparently a large crowd of young 10

people out in the lobby that are going to be making their 11

way in. And it was thought that it might be best to get 12

them in, in an orderly way and settled. And they want to 13

testify, so we're going to give them an opportunity to do 14

that as well as the other speakers that are signed up. 15

S o we'll re
- adjourn here in about five minutes 16

and I'm sure the energy level in the room will pick up 17

considerably as a result. All right, so thank you very 18

much. 19

(Off the recor d 4:48 p.m.) 20

(On the record 5:11 p.m.) 21

22

23

24

25280

Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the 1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS) 2

February 2, 2015 3

Sacramento, California 4

Steve Page, Presiding Officer 5

* * * 6

EVENING SESSION 7

COURT REPORTER: And we are on the record. 8

MR. PAGE: All right, we are on the record. So 9

our next two speakers to start our, I guess , early evening 10

session off, are Kent P inkerton and Michelle Schnack. 11

Please correct my pronunciations if they're 12

wrong. That's an a dvice to everybody. 13

Kent, you're up first. It's good to see you. 14

MR. PINKERTON: It's good to see you. 15

KENT PINKERTON 16

MR. PINKERTON: Well, good evening. Kent 17

Pinkerton, P

- I

- N

- K

- E

- R

- T

- O

- N. I'm a Professor of 18

Pediatrics in the School of Medicine here at UC Davis as 19

well as a Professor of Anatomy in the School of Veterinary 20

Medicine, also at UC Davis. And I have a passion for the 21

protection of both humans and animals from adverse health 22

c onditions including conditions found in the environment. 23

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has this 24

opportunity to this opportunity to lower the 8

- hour ozone 25281

National Ambient Air Quality Standard s from 75 parts per 1

billion to 60 ppb to adequatel y protect public health. 2

As a member of a team of scientists from 3

universities around the country including UC Davis we 4

published research findings in October of 2012 in the 5

Journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which estimated 6

the annual numbers of ozone

- related premature deaths that 7

could be avoided just with compliance with the current 8

standard. These numbers ranged from 1,400 to 2,400 9

individuals with compliance at 75 parts per billion. 10

We further found even greater benefits of 2 ,450 11

to 4, 100 avoided deaths at an ozone reduction level to 70 12

parts per billion. And 5,200 to almost 8,000 at 60 parts 13

per billion. These findings were based on air monitoring 14

data for ozone and a nationwide survey of mortality and 15

morbidity health impacts. 16

L owering of ozone levels could also reduce cases 17

of acute respiratory symptoms by 3 million and school loss 18

days by 1 million, annually. And even if this is

-- we 19

keep with the current 75 parts per billion standard, so 20

substantially greater health effects and benefits would 21

have resulted had the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 22

Committee or CASAC recommendation to establish an ozone 23

standard within the range of 70 to 60 parts per billion had 24

been met back in 2007. 25282

On November 25, 201 4 the EPA proposed a stan dard 1

in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, which is lower 2

than the current standard of 75 parts per billion. While 3

the EPA should be commended for proposing a stricture 4

standard scientific evidence clearly calls for a standard 5

of 60 parts per billio n to further protect human health. 6

Since 2006 evidence has demonstrated ozone 7

exposures in the range of 60 to 75 parts per billion have 8

adverse physiological effects even in healthy people of all 9

ages, from infants to the elderly. While there is some 10

ev idence to suggest health effects to ozone exposure below 11

60 parts per billion the strongest evidence supports the 12

conclusion that serious adverse health effects occur across 13

all ages at levels above 60 parts per billion. 14

Of those cities in the United S tates experiencing 15

the highest levels of ozone in 2014 six of the top seven 16

are in the State of California with the Sacramento

17

Roseville area ranked as number five in most polluted for 18

the entire United States. The California Central Valley 19

has the dubiou s distinction of serving of the home of the 20

five top seven cities suffering from the greatest ozone 21

levels in the country. 22

Now is the time for the U.S. Environmental 23

Protection Agency to do their job to enforce the ozone 24

standard of 60 parts per billion to more fully protect all 25283

ages, human and animal, in the California Central Valley 1

and the nation. We all will breathe easier. Thank you. 2

MICHELLE SCH NA CK 3

MS. SCHNACK: Greetings, everyone. My name is 4

Michelle Schnack, S

- C

- H

- N

- A

- C

- K, and I am one of 7 00 5

members of the Sacramento Chapter of Physicians for Social 6

Responsibility. 7

I'm here today to make an appeal for a safe ozone 8

standard to protect public health. 9

You have heard testimony and startling statistics 10

regarding the evidence of adverse h ealth risk of ozone. 11

Those of low socioeconomic status are found to be more 12

likely to live in areas with higher exposures to particle 13

pollution. 14

As a licensed clinical social worker who provides 15

community and mental health services to children and their 16

families living in poverty I've heard a number of stories 17

of how poor air quality affects families. Poor air leads 18

to health problems in children and their caregivers. Poor 19

physical health subsequently affects mental health and 20

well

- being and exace rbates stress on caregivers, which in 21

turn taxes their parenting and financial and emotional 22

resources. 23

Asthma is a leading cause of school absenteeism. 24

A story that illustrates this issue is of a family that I'm 25284

currently working with, a single mom who has adopted five 1

children inc luding three and four

- year
- old kids whom I am 2

treating. After several missed sessions, poor preschool 3

attendance and observations of the children wheezing in 4

sessions I referred them to their pediatrician. 5

Unsurprisingly, th e kids were diagnosed with asthma and 6

require breathing treatments regularly. According to m om, 7

she has to monitor the air quality and their activity. And 8

she has taught them to come to her to tell her if they 9

can't breathe. 10

Ozone pollution dispropor tionately affects 11

children. We live in a society that needs to protect our 12

air quality to give kids freedom to explore their world and 13

play without worrying about the air they breathe. 14

Another family that I provide services to lives 15

by the freeway and c onsists of grandparents raising their 16

eight

- year
- old grandson. 17

Grandma has health problems including lung 18

disease and is in and out of the hospital. This increases 19

the s tress in the household, which affects of the child who 20

has trouble sleeping, conce ntrating or being calmed. He 21

used to get suspended frequently from school, because he 22

discovered that it was a way for him to stay home to watch 23

over his grandma. As a matriarch in the family, poor 24

health had led to inconsistent parenting, which contributes 25285

to the child's dis

- regulation. With mental health 1

treatment the family has found a way to cope the best way 2

they can, but the future remains uncertain. 3

Air quality, physical health and emotional well

4

being are inexplicably linked and it is crucial to protect 5

our environment for the public good. 6

Personally, I'm an outdoor enthusiast and seek 7

refuge in nature to tackle outs ide my comfort zone 8

challenges and experience remedy. As a rock climber 9

working hard to reach the top of a climb my body requires 10

pure clean air to remain focused and to do its job. 11

As we all do, Sacramento is known as the City of 12

Trees and during my t ravels around the city I see how poor 13

air visibly damages the leaves and trees and other plants. 14

On bad ozone days we are recommended to stay indoors 15

instead of engaging in outdoor recreational activities such 16

as running, biking or kayaking. 17

According t o the most recent data there were 88 18

days the air was unhealthy for sensitive groups and an 19

additional 12 days ozone levels were bad for everyone in 20

Sacramento County. That's a total of 100 days in a year 21

when sensitive groups including children, people w ith lung 22

and heart disease, and older adults had to stay indoors. 23

Research has shown that the current ozone standards are 24

causing adverse physical effects on us all. So it may not 25286

be too far into the future in which our own breathing would 1

also be compro mised if it hasn't already. 2

Ozone is one of the most widespread threats to 3

air quality and as such, it is of critical importance to 4

create a safer standard; 60 parts per billion in order to 5

protect our environment. Research suggests a stringent 6

standard would prevent substantial numbers of adverse 7

health outcomes, which is deeply connected to well

- being. 8

Please take the preventative measure to adopt the most 9

protective standard, so that every generation can breathe 10

easy and enjoy the world in which we l ive. Thank you. 11

MR. PAGE: Thank you both for statements today, 12

appreciate it. 13

And our next two speakers are Bill Durston and 14

Aura Vasquez. And I know you're going to have to help me 15

with that last name. 16

MS. VASQUEZ: The Vasquez is not so hard, th e 17

Aura maybe. 18

MR. PAGE: Yeah, right. Mr. Durston, you're up 19

when you're ready. And would you please spell your last 20

name for the reporter? 21

BILL DURSTON 22

MR. DURSTON: I'm Dr. Bill Durston and it's 23

spelled D

- U

- R

- S

- T

- O

- N. I'm an emergency physician an d I've 24

practiced in the Sacramento area for over 30 years . A nd 25287

I'm the President of the Sacramento Chapter of Physicians 1

for Social Responsibility and a father and grandfather. 2

And over the time that I've lived and practiced 3

in Sacramento I've seen a de terioration in the air quality 4

and treated innumerable patients with respiratory 5

diseases. 6

For the benefit of the members I thought I would 7

just mention we have a scholarship essay contest every year 8

for high school seniors. And a couple of years ago the 9

quote was a native American saying, "We don't inherit the 10

earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children," 11

which I think is relevant to the discussion. And I 12

apologize to the young members of the audience for the poor 13

shape in which we're returning the earth that we've 14

borrowed. 15

I want to thank the members of the Panel though 16

first for your patience in listening to all of us. A nd 17

also for the work that you do, your ability to set 18

regulations has the ability to save far more lives than my 19

colleagues and I in the emergency department. 20

On the subject of the 60 parts per billion 21

standard I want to make a couple of points. One issue 22

regarding ozone, we all know it causes

-- ozone
- associated 23

gases cause respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. 24

There are some studies that show it also increases the risk 25288

of cancer. And actually there's been a EPA document 1

discussing the use of ozone for treating waste water. 2

One of the ironies of ozone is that although it's 3

harmful in many ways at ground level, in the stratosphere 4

it absorbs UV radiation, which is harmful to human life and 5

it's also a great disinfectant. But part of the way that 6

it kills bacteria is by disrupting the DNA and things that 7

disrupt DNA cause mutations and mutations, i f you get just 8

the wrong mutation, can cause cancer. 9

So how this relates to the 60 parts per billion 10

standard

-- we know that for example for radiation, which 11

we use in medicine and diagnostically and sometimes 12

therapeutically, but it also of course causes terrible 13

human death and destruction

-- the risk of cancer is linear 14

with no lowered threshold. If you get one hit from a 15

molecule that causes mutation most of the time it may not 16

cause any damage or it may ca use cell death, but it may 17

cause the cell to reproduce uncontrollably leading to 18

cancer. 19

So there are extensive studies in radiation 20

showing that radiation exposure increases risk of cancer in 21

a manner that's linear with no lowered threshold. 22

And with out evidence to the contrary I think we could 23

assume the same would be true of ozone and anything else 24

that disrupts DNA. 25289

With regard to the EPA's statement or scientific 1

controversy regarding this 60 parts per billion level, how 2

much additional good it would do to reduce it below 70, 65 3

down to 60, we feel that much of the research suggests that 4

that would not be beneficial is tainted by ties to industry 5

who profit from having looser standards. 6

And finally, I'd just like to point out other 7

things that EPA has done such as lead level standards. I 8

think the first time the EPA set standards for lead levels 9

in drinking water was in 1991 and I believe it was for 10

something like 50 parts per billion. And at that time 11

there was medical evidence that high leve ls, particularly 12

in children, led to cognitive deficit. Well, the more 13

research that was done showed that the higher the level, 14

the worse the deficit. But there was no safe lead level 15

and I believe currently EPA levels for lead are at zero in 16

drinking wa ter. 17

Now, of course, we can't lower ozone to zero, 18

because there is some naturally occurring ozone. But I 19

think applying the same principle, history shows that if 20

you take the strongest stand possible in terms of the EPA I 21

don't think the EPA I don't th ink the EPA is ever going to 22

make the mistake of setting the standards too stringent

. 23

So we would argue that a lack of absolute conclusive 24

evidence of 60 parts per billion is the best standard is 25290

not the same as any evidence that it's not the best. And 1

w e encourage you to err on the side of safer standards. 2

Thank you, very much. 3

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 4

AURA VASQUEZ 5

MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you. So good afternoon. My 6

name is Aura Vasquez and that's A

- U

- R

- A and the last name 7

is V

- A

- S

- Q

- U

- E

- Z. 8

I'm here today to urge the EPA to adopt a tougher 9

standard of 60 parts per m illion (sic) that can protect our 10

health and help the clean energy economy flourish. 11

I'm not here to speak on my behalf, but also to 12

speak on behalf of all of the Sierra Club members an d also 13

the concerned citizens that are affected in Los Angeles 14

today and in Southern California. As you see many of us 15

came by bus, by plane, to be here to voice our concerns. 16

And it was not long ago, when I personally moved 17

from New York City looking for a much more sustainable and 18

environmentally friendly place to live. And I found Los 19

Angeles, my new home. But I was confronted the reality 20

that the air quality there is so poor that it was actually 21

making me more sick. So when I had back in New Yea r's Eve 22

is a small asthma related to allergies, and now it's a 23

recurrent asthma that I have every time I go hiking. 24

But today I want to also mention that you have 25291

had many organizations come to speak before you and urge 1

you to do the same, to please put more standards on the new 2

smog rule. And I personally get to work her e with people 3

like the Physicians for Social Responsibility, 4

Earth j ustice, NRBC, (phonetic) Communities for a Better 5

Environment , No Coal, Inc. (phonetic) which is a community

6

based orga nization in Los Angeles, and many others that 7

came to testify and that perhaps are not here, because they 8

couldn't come here to be before you and urge you to do the 9

same. 10

And one of the reasons why all of these groups, 11

and the many more that have come here today, we have come 12

together to figure out how we're going to tackle this issue 13

and how are we going to collaborate with you and put an end 14

to air pollution in California. We need to bring attention 15

to these issues from all levels. We have different boards 16

that can help us too that are here. The California Air 17

Resource s Board, we also have the AQM, the Air Quality 18

Management District Board in Los Angeles, but that is not 19

enough and this issue cannot wait. 20

And we're looking for your leadership to set the 21

standards , the high bar, the 60 parts per million, so that 22

all of these agencies can follow up and can do their wo rk. 23

And this work also will benefit all of us, not 24

just our health, it will bring enormous economic revenue

-- 25292

and somebody who wor ks with me at the Sierra Club mentioned 1
$2 billion in revenue. And so the reality is that it will 2

help people like me and like the many other parties that I 3

work with that can enjoy the outdoors, that can get back to 4

work, that don't have to spend many da ys or nights in the 5

emergency room, because they're sick with asthma or any 6

other respiratory disease. So I really hope that you have 7

this in the calculation. 8

So many of the districts that have come out here 9

to support for a strong health standard and t o protect our 10

health, we know that there are many more that couldn't come 11

here like in San Joaquin Valley, they couldn't be here. 12

And again, we're looking at you, the EPA, to act with the 13

urgency that this problem really requires. And EPA, we 14

need defini tely your leadership to set up the bar, so that 15

we can all do our part. Thank you. 16

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 17

All right, so Marina Barragan and Selene 18

Hernandez. Just as reminder, if you would spell your name 19

for the court reporter and please c orrect my 20

mispronunciation if I didn't pronounce your name correctly. 21

All right? 22

MARINA BARRAGAN 23

MS. BARRAGAN: So my name is Marina Barragan, M

24

A

- R

- I

- N

- A B

- A

- R

- R

- A

- G

- A

- N. So my name is Marina Barragan, 25293

born and raised in the Eastern Coachella Valley. 1

Growing up I remember we would always go play 2

outside and my sister, for some reason, always had to stay 3

inside. And I never really understood why she couldn't 4

play with us. I remember every time she did go outside she 5

would start breathing very heavy and I never understood 6

why. And at night she had to put on this funny mask and 7

that sounded really weird and made funny sounds and I never 8

understood why. And I just thought this was normal. This 9

became a daily routine and I just thought it was normal. 10

Then I realized, as I got older it wasn't normal. 11

I realized the reason why she couldn't go outside is 12

because every time she would start breathing heavy she was 13

near an asthma attack. Every time she had to put on that 14

funny mask it was to help her co ntrol her breathing and to 15

help her breathe. It was a breathing treatment she had to 16

take regularly. 17

And I realized that this was not normal after the 18

hospital visits started increasing. I figured hey, every 19

month that's normal. And then all of a sudden, in one week 20

she was in the ER three times. Not only is this affecting 21

her health dramatically, that 's my sister's life and I 22

realized that. It's my sister's life. I remember we 23

wouldn't even drive to the hospital in Indio; we would 24

drive to the one in Rancho Mirage, which was about an hour

- 25294

and

- a
- half away, because she would get better treatment 1

there. It's not like we could afford it, but she's my 2

sister and it's her life. 3

At least once a month, and this past summer, she 4

went three times in one week. For most people the American 5

dream is white picket fences and a nice house and luxury. 6

For me it i s clean air and a healthy environment. I don't 7

want a 60 ppb standard, I need it. I need it for my 8

sister, for my uncle who already died with respiratory 9

illnesses, for all those who lost someone and for my nephew 10

who is three and two

- to

- six times more l ikely to have 11

asthma just because of where he was born. 12

I don't want excuses. Leaders don’t make excuses 13

- — they make improvements. I want a 60 ppb standard 14

instated and enforced. Thank you. 15

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 16

SELENE HERNANDEZ 17

MS. HERNANDEZ: M y name is Selene Hernandez. 18

It's S

- E

- L

- E

- N

- E H

- E

- R

- N

- A

- N

- D

- E

- Z. I'm from the Eastern 19

Coachella Valley from a city called Thermal. I attend 20

Desert Mirage High School. 21

I made this trip with my peers to ask that the 22

EPA listen to the science advisers and medical 23

professionals to make 60 pbb the standard. 24

My grandmother, who never smoked a day in her 25295

life, died from lung cancer. During her last days we could 1

hardly have her at home, because the air quality 2

deteriorated her condition. I began losing her before she 3

passed away. That is why I'm here today. I'm asking for a 4

60 p p b standard, because I don't want the families of up to 5

4 30 people in my community, to go through that. 6

No justification is enough for someone to lose a 7

family member. That's al l. Thank you. 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you, very much. 9

MS. ZIMPFER: We're sorry about your grandmother. 10

MR. PAGE: Okay . O ur next group of speakers: 11

Gilbert Gonzalez, C ristian Garza, Erik Sauceta and Jose 12

Aoba. 13

ERIK SAUCETA 14

GILBERT GONZALEZ 15

CR ISTIAN GARZA 16

JOSE AOBA 17

MR. SAUCETA: (Inaudible) 18

MR. PAGE: Okay. So should we identify all four? 19

COORDINATOR: Yeah. Remember, each one of you 20

say your name in the microphone and spell your name. And 21

then if you want to be in the reading then that one in the 22

group goes up, okay? 23

MR. PAGE: So if you'll tell the court reporter 24

your name and then the proper spelling? 25296

MR. SAUCETA: My name is Erik Sauceta, with an 1

E

- R

- I

- K S

- A

- U

- C

- E

- T

- A. 2

Mr. GARZA: My name is Christian Garza, 3

C

- R

- I

- S

- T

- I

- A

- N , and Garza, G

- A

- R

- Z

- A. 4

MR. AOBA: My name is Jose Aoba. It's J

- O

- S

- E A

5

O

-- A. 6

Mr. GONZALEZ: And my name is Gilbert Gonzalez, 7

G

- I

- L

- B

- E

- RT G

- O

- N

- Z

- A

- L

- E

- Z. 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you all. 9

MR. SAUCETA: Well, we are running out of time. 10

W e can and we must make a change for the better, because 11

like I was born with a birth defect that's asthma. I know 12

what it is to have to struggle with that. Like my 13

colleague, she said that her sister would wear a funny 14

mask. I would wear the same thing as a kid. 15

And in the winter when people think it was 16

joyful, I would fear winter because I would become very 17

sick and be afraid of using my machine. And sometimes I 18

would have to go to the emergency room, because I couldn't 19

breathe and my lungs weren' t producing the oxygen. I would 20

actually be scared if I would live or die. 21

Now it is not so bad, but I personally don't want 22

anyone to go through that anymore, because it's a horrible 23

feeling. I would pass out, because of the lack of oxygen 24

the mask wo uld give me. My brother would have to carry me 25297

to bed most of the time and I just hated that feeling, 1

feeling helpless, feeling like you couldn't do anything. 2

And you feel the difference. 3

And I have nieces and nephews and I wish that

-- 4

they are in L aguna Hills, but I wish they don't have 5

asthma, because it's horrible to have it. It makes me sad. 6

Over 25,000 people die a year and if the ppb doesn't get 7

lowered more people will die. It could write 50,000 or 8

100,000 if possible, it's a tragedy. 9

It' s your job as leaders to make a path for our 10

future generations of a path that they can lead and they 11

can follow a path not driven by smog, but by health. It's 12

your duty to help people that are in need. People with 13

asthma, people with bronch itis

-- the E PA can help out. 14

Thank you. 15

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all. 16

Our next speakers are Maria Huerta, Marlene 17

Torres, Rebecca Ayale. Welcome and thank you for coming. 18

MARLENE TORRES 19

REBECCA AYALE 20

MARIA HUERTA 21

MS. TORRES: Hello. My name is Marlene Torres, 22

M

- A

- R

- L

- E

- N

- E T

- O

- R

- R

- E

- S. 23

MS. AYAL E : Hello. My name is Rebecca Ayale, R

24

E

- B

- E

- C

- C

- A A

- Y

- A

- L

- E 25298

MS. HUERTA: Hello. My name is Maria Huerta, M

1

A

- R

- I

- A H

- U

- E

- R

- T

- A

. 2

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 3

MS. TORRES: Good afternoon. As I said my name 4

is Marlene Torres. We have traveled a long way to come to 5

the Environmental Protection Agency and stress the 6

importance of having clean air. 7

I grew up seeing my parents working in the fields 8

that were contaminated with pesticides, pesticides that to 9

this d ay continue to cause them health problems. I want to 10

change that, not for my parents, but for future 11

generations. I want to be able to breathe fresh air that 12

has not been polluted. Everyone deserves to be able to 13

breathe clean air, so let's make a chang e for the better 14

and clean up our air now. Thank you. 15

MS. AYALE: As someone who has been raised in 16

Northern Cal i fornia, I have been able to witness the pain 17

that our family and friends have had to endure due to the 18

many pesticides that are spread throu ghout the fields and 19

orchards that our parents and family must have had to work 20

through as far as even ten years. 21

I also speak from personal experience when I say 22

that our loved ones must work through these harsh 23

conditions. And I myself live in front o f the fields where 24

it is a daily routine to inhale all the pesticides and 25299

personally witness others work through the horrid 1

conditions. For this reason is it important that we create 2

barriers that keeps these diseases and conditions that are 3

brought about due to the air quality that we must live 4

with. Thank you. 5

MS. HUERTA: Okay. My name is Maria Huerta. My 6

group and I have come from an over nine

- hour ride from a 7

place called Thermal, which is an agricultural 8

unincorporated community in the Eastern C oachella Valley. 9

In that area we have a history and currently live under 10

some of the poorest living conditions alongside 11

contaminated water and air. So to have quality air is a 12

luxury we don't count on already. 13

As an agricultural community, my family a nd I 14

have worked in the fields where they are contaminated with 15

pesticides creating huge health issues for anyone who lives 16

there. I speak for my community that everyone has the 17

right to clean air. And we are here to prove that we are 18

not just the subjec t of profit for mass production. If we 19

don't think of protecting our natural resources now then 20

what kind of world will we leave our future generations? 21

If we want to see change, then we have to be the 22

change. We need to acknowledge the fact that we need clean 23

air and can only reach it by having a standard of 60 ppb, 24

because we currently don't meet that adequate standard. We 25300

need all the support we can get for this important 1

environmental movement to take action now, because everyone 2

has the right to clean air. Thank you. 3

MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much for coming. 4

The next two speakers, Anz el Vega and Cynthia 5

Portillo. 6

Hold on just a second while we switch a panel 7

member. 8

(Deborah Jordan arrives to replace Amy Zimpfer) 9

MS. JORDAN: Hi, everyone. My name is Debbie 10

Jordan and I'm Director of the Air Division at the EPA 11

Regional Office in San Francisco. And I was here all 12

morning and then I had to go away for the afternoon, so I'm 13

happy that I'm back. 14

MR. PAGE: And we thank you very m uch. 15

MS. JORDAN: And I thank you all for being here. 16

MR. PAGE: All right, Anzel? 17

ANZEL VEGA 18

MR. VEGA: Good afternoon. My name is Anzel 19

Vega, A

- N

- Z

- E

- L V

- E

- G

- A. 20

On a very large scale the gas and oil companies 21

(indiscernible) and gases for their complicated politics 22

and lucrative poisons, slowly and softly killing us. 23

I have already been diagnosed with asthma and 24

lost my grandfather to lung cancer. He prayed every day 25301

and told me that only the devil could make alcohol and 1

cigarettes. 2

We hold these truths to be sovereign, that all 3

men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator 4

with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, 5

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are words 6

that are designed to protect every p erson's rights, not 7

matter who are seen as numbers and dollar signs. 8

I am here representing my sister. She is ten

9

months old and my world revolves around her. And I think 10

it's sad that she might live in a world, which doesn't have 11

clean air. But you w ouldn't want clean air for your nieces 12

and nephews, your brothers and sisters? Wouldn't you want 13

clean air for your kids and grandkids? I would. 14

If you look behind me, you'll see about 180 15

people who (inaudible) And for each of their immediate and 16

ext ended family, they've all gathered for the many people 17

who have their lives on the line. This is only a small 18

amount (inaudible) come before you. So that begs the 19

question, will you help us get a limit of 60 ppb and save 20

our lives? Thank you. 21

CYNTHIA PO RTILLO 22

MS. PORTILLO: My name is Cynthia Portillo, C

- Y

23

N

- T

- H

- I

- A P

- O

- R

- T

- I

- L

- L

- O. 24

I am here because I want clean air. Clean air is 25302

not something I should be asking, that is something that 1

everyone should be born with. I have a younger brother, 2

he's 1 2 and we were recently told by doctors that he has 3

asthma. Him already dealing with respiratory problems and 4

the fact that we live in area where the ppb is way above 5

the EPA standard is going to be the nail in his coffin. 6

He isn't the only person affect ed in my family. 7

My grandma and my five

- year
- old cousin have issues 8

breathing. 9

My grandma has lived through these problems for 10

her entire life (indiscernible) . It hurts me to see my 11

grandmother struggling to breathe. It hurts to watch her 12

trying to grab some breath. It hurts me to know that she 13

asks me to say in school while she's in the hospital hooked 14

up to machines trying to fight for her life over and over 15

and over again. 16

And now I have to deal with my brother as well 17

and my five

- year
- old co usin who was taken to the doctor 18

awhile back and they found out he is developing respiratory 19

issues as well. And it hurts me, because I do not want him 20

to live like my grandma and my brother. I want him to live 21

a happy life where he can run around without having to 22

worry. I want him to run around with a friend and I want 23

to be happy to chase after him and pla y with him. 24

And five months ago (indiscernible) a beautiful 25303

little girl that my aunt named Alyssa. (phonetic) My 1

entire family

-- I love my family too entirely. I do not 2

want her to grow up like that. And I do not want her to 3

grow up like that. I d o not want my children or anyone's 4

children to grow up like that. 5

I am asking here for a better community standard, 6

a 60 ppb standard that needs to be enforced by government 7

and everyone else. Clean air is a human right and I ask 8

you to help us keep tha t right or else we're all going to 9

be gone a lot sooner, because of that. Thank you, very 10

much. 11

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 12

The next group: Celina Abolos, Heidy Lin, 13

Filiberto Lopez, Jaime Lopez. 14

CELINA ABOLOS 15

HEIDY LIN 16

FILIBERTO LOPEZ 17

JAIME LOPEZ 18

MS. ABALOS: Hello. My name is Celina Abolos, 19

C

- E

- L

- I

- N

- A A

- B

- O

- L

- O

- S. 20

MS. LIN: I am Heidy Lin, H

- E

- I

- D

- Y L

- I

- N. 21

MR. F. LOPEZ: Hello. My name is Filiberto 22

Lopez , F

- I

- L

- I

- B

- E

- R

- T

- O Lopez, L

- O

- P

- E

- Z 23

MR. J. LOPEZ: H ello. My name is Jaime Lopez , J

24

A

- I

- M

- E L

- O

- P

- E

- Z

. 25304

MS. ABALOS: We are members of the human race. I 1

mean, because we all live in the same world we want the air 2

quality to go from 110 parts per billion to 60 parts per 3

billion. 4

I am speaking from a perspective of the Eastern 5

Coachella Valley, and other communities who because of 6

their isolated locations, don't get the same air quality as 7

the known locations. The odds aren't in our favor. Our 8

fellow brothers, cousins, neighbors, teachers, friends, 9

many of them suffer from asthma and br eathe air quality 10

that creates an environm ent that's even worse for them. 11

T his isn't only a cause to benefit the Coachella 12

Valley , this is a cause that benefits the world. We want 13

better air for a better world. This is our time and this 14

time is now. T hank you. 15

MR. PAGE: Very good. Thank you all

. 16

Our next group: Armando Rivera, Victor Valdez, 17

Anthony Ramirez and Jose Diaz. 18

ARMANDO RIVERA 19

VICTOR VALDEZ 20

ANTHONY RAMIREZ 21

JOSE DIAZ 22

Mr. RIVERA: Hello. My name is Armando Rivera , 23

A

- R

- M

- A

- N

- D

- O R

- I

- V

- E

- R

- A. 24

MR. VALDEZ: Hello. My name is Victor Valdez , V

- 25305

I

- C

- T

- O

- R V

- A

- L

- D

- E

- Z. 1

MR. DIAZ: Hello. My name is Jose Diaz, J

- O

- S

- E 2

D

- I

- A

- Z. 3

MR. RAMIREZ: Hello. My name is Anthony Ramirez , 4

A

- N

- T

- H

- O

- N

- Y R

- A

- M

- I

- R

- E

- Z. And we come from San Joaquin, 5

Cali fornia. 6

MR. DIAZ: We come from all the way over there, 7

because we care about our air pollution. 8

MR. VALDEZ: We want clean air for our 9

environment. 10

MR. RAMIREZ: Also, we want to have more than 60 11

-- no, 60 ppb smog standard. 12

MR. VALDEZ: Thank yo u very much for your time. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Thank you all. 14

All right, the next group: Diana Monroy and 15

Jonathan Salgado Torres

. 16

JONATHAN SALGADO TORRES 17

DIANA MONROY 18

MR. TORRES: Hello. My name is Jonathan Salgado 19

Torres, J

- O

- N

- A

- T

- H

- A

- N S

- A

- L

- G

- A

- D

- O T

- O

- R

- R

- E

- S. 20

Today I'm here for the Great Sierra Alliance 21

Club. I'm here to state that 82 percent of all greenhouse 22

gas emissions are formed from human activities alone. 23

MS. MONROY: Hello. My name is Diana Monroy , 24

D

- I

- A

- N

- A M

- O

- N

- R

- O

- Y. 25306

As Jonathan stated I am also from the G reat 1

Sierra Alliance Club and I am h ere to state that I want 60 2

ppb in the area we are living in. Currently, the standard 3

is 75 ppb, but it is not convenient. Most of the time it 4

is almost doubled. Due to this each year there are more 5

and more kids diagnosed with bronchitis and asthma. I t 6

comes down to 25,000 Californians dying every year, because 7

of the dirty air we are breathing. 8

MR. TORRES: I have a four

- year
- old cousin that 9

has bronchitis and that leads to asthma. Before she moved 10

to the U.S. she was healthy. After she came to th e U.S. 11

and moved to California, she started to get bronchitis 12

again and more frequently, usually. I found out later to 13

have bronchitis can lead suddenly to asthma, because of the 14

CO2 em i ssions. 15

I started to do research about CO2 emissions and 16

I found out that

-- which ones are affecting the earth at a 17

rapid pace and they shouldn't be. They are changing the 18

carbon side at a more rapid pace than it should also be. 19

In the United States the CO2 emissions have increased by 5 20

percent through 1990 through 7 (indiscernible) 21

In 2004 we had more dirty air days than in 2013. 22

I am stating a 60 ppb smog standard can better our health 23

and air quality. 24

MS. MONROY: Just as Jonathan , I too am worried 25307

about my friends and family living in California with these 1

conditions. I want them to be able to live long, healthy 2

lives. I want this to be enforced. I want clean air for 3

all of us. 4

One of the major carbon dioxide emissions, the 5

electricity

-- the conversion of fossil fuels to generate 6

electricity

-- is th e largest single source of CO2 emission 7

in the nation accounting for 38 percent of the total of 8

U.S. CO2 emissions and 31 of the total U.S. greenhouse gas 9

emissions in 2012. Which leads us to U.S. carbon dioxide 10

emissions (indiscernible) at 36 percent, tr ansportation at 11

32 percent, industry at 14, residential and commercial at 9 12

and other at 6 percent. 13

And this is because I want it all just to be the 14

60 ppb smog standard to be accepted and passed. Thank you. 15

MS. STONE: Thank you. 16

MR. PAGE: Thank you both

. 17

And the next group: Luz Gutierrez, Jennifer 18

Jim e nez. 19

LUZ GUTIERREZ 20

M S . GUTIERREZ: My name is Luz Gutierrez, L

- U

- Z 21

G

- U

- T

- I

- E

- R

- R

- E

- Z

. 22

As I mentioned my name is Luz Gutierrez , I'm from 23

the high school in Coachella Valley. I believe we have the 24

right to clean air, no matter our economic background. 25308

Clean air is a right, not a choice. We must get a 60 ppb 1

standard in California that will yield annual health 2

benefits of 2.2 to 4 .1 billion and save up to 430 lives 3

that matter more than money. 4

JENNIFER JIMENEZ 5

MS. JIMINEZ: Hello. My name is Jennifer 6

Jimenez, J

- E

- N

- N

- I

- F

- E

- R J

- I

- M

- E

- N

- E

- Z. 7

I want clean air and I want it now, because 8

asthma is a scary thing to have, not only for me, but for 9

my family. I've seen through my peers that their testimony 10

is scary. I don't want this to happen to any family. I 11

want clean air now. Thank you. 12

MS. JORDAN: Thank you. 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 14

So the next group is Karen Diaz, Lizbet h Cea , 15

Guadalupe Gonzalez and Victoria Valdez

. 16

KAREN DIAZ 17

LIZBETH CEA 18

GUADALUPE GONZALES 19

VICTORIA VALDEZ 20

MS. CEA: My name is Lizbeth Cea and it's 21

spelled, L

- I

- Z

- B

- E

- T

- H C

- E

- A. 22

MS. VALDEZ: And my name is Victoria Valdez, V

- I

23

C

- T

- O

- R

- I

- A V

- A

- L

- D

- E

- Z

. 24

MS. GONZALEZ: And my name is Guadalupe Gonzalez, 25309

G

- U

- A

- D

- A

- L

- U

- P

- E and Gonzalez is spelled G

- O

- N

- Z

- A

- L

- E

- Z. 1

MS. DIAZ: And I'm Karen Diaz, K

- A

- R

- E

- N and then 2

the way you spell my last name is D

- I

- A

- Z

. 3

We must stop justifying why we have dirty air and 4

start a conversation on how to make it safe. The EPA rule 5

is strong enough, it's a great starting point. 6

MS. GONZALEZ: We come from Desert Mirage High 7

School and we have the same goal as everybody else here. 8

We want a better breathing air quality. I think we deserve 9

it and we have a right to it, not only for us here, but for 10

others too, for our generation and the coming generations. 11

It's a right we have and we (indiscernible)

. 12

MS. VALDEZ: A ccording to the EPA a 65 ppb 13

standard in California will get us health benefits of 2.2 14

to 4.1 billion and they will save 430 lives. 15

MS. CEA: I believe that we need

-- I think we

-- 16

(overcome with emotion) 17

MS. DIAZ: We're done

. 18

MR. PAGE: Okay. Thank you very much

. 19

Okay, our next group: Moises Castr o, Jesus 20

Alvarez, Jose Castro, Yazmin Lopez 21

YAZMIN LOPEZ 22

JESUS ALVAREZ 23

JOSE CASTRO 24

MOISES CASTRO 25310

MS. LOPEZ: Hello. My name is Yazmin Lopez , Y

- A

1

Z

- M

- I

- N L

- O

- P

- E

- Z

. 2

MR. ALVAREZ: My name is Jesus Alvarez , J

- E

- S

- U

- S 3

A

- L

- V

- A

- R

- E

- Z

. 4

MR. M. CASTRO: Hello. My name is Moises Castro, 5

M

- O

- I

- S

- E

- S C

- A

- S

- T

- R

- O

. 6

MR. J. CASTRO: Hello. My name is Jose Castro, 7

J

- O

- S

- E C

- A

- S

- T

- R

- O

. 8

MR. ALVAREZ: I come on behalf of my community in 9

Thermal, California. I want to speak on the air quality 10

and how it's very poor. Our community has been affected by 11

pesticides and farm workers, parents and even our ecosystem 12

has been affected by these pesticides. And I come in 13

support of a 60 ppb standard. I want clean air for my 14

community and for future generations and to save our 15

ecosystem and to help my community. Very good. 16

MR. M. CASTRO: Clean air is what we all want and 17

that's why we're gathered here. To ask the EPA to make a 18

change, and help us make the change to a 60 ppb standard, 19

because we all want to have a h ealthier life where we don't 20

have to worry about all the pollution. We all share this 21

earth, so why not take care of it and reduce pollution so 22

we all can breathe clean air and have healthier lives 23

without respiratory diseases that (indiscernible) months. 24

MR. J. CASTRO: Hello. I wasn't really going to 25311

say anything, but all these people's words, they inspired 1

me. They got to me. I just want to start out saying that 2

I'm really into fitness. And sometimes I just talk to 3

people who want to get in shape, want to get in the best 4

shape of their lives. A nd sometimes they can't, because 5

they have trouble running and they can't get outside or 6

stuff like that. Just like my friend Marina mentioned 7

about her sister, but it's not just about them. This is my 8

tow n also. 9

When you run by our town there's many people that 10

have to work outside that require their body to work, not 11

just their mind, but sometimes those people have trouble 12

breathing and working hard, so they can provide for their 13

family. And sometime s they sacrifice their own body to 14

provide for their family and all I want to ask is like why 15

do we have to sacrifice a life to save some other life. 16

Why can't we all just breathe in a little bit of happiness. 17

MS. JORDAN: Thank you. 18

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much 19

Our next group is Marian Piedo , Isaez Garcia , 20

Jessica Ayon and Jazmeen Corona

. 21

MARIAN PIEDO 22

ISAEZ GARCIA 23

JESSICA AYON 24

JAZMEEN CORONA 25312

MS. PIEDO: Good afternoon. My name is Marian 1

Piedo, M

- A

- R

- I

- A

- N P

- I

- E

- D

- O. 2

MR. GARCIA: My name is Isaez Garcia, I

- S

- A

- E

- Z 3

G

- A

- R

- C

- I

- A

. 4

MS. AYON: Hello. My name is Jessica Ayon , J

- E

5

S

- S

- I

- C

- A A

- Y

- O

- N

. 6

MS. CORONA: Hello. My name is Jazmeen, J

- A

- Z

- M

7

E

- E

- N , Corona, C

- O

- R

- O

- N

- A

. 8

M S . PIEDO: Air pollution has to stop . It is 9

harming humans and our environment. People are causing it 10

and making it worse for themselves. The air we breathe is 11

a mixture of many gases of which oxygen is the most 12

important. If we were not able to breathe this precious 13

air for even a few m inutes we would die. This air is vital 14

to us. Air is vital to the plants and animals that live on 15

earth. We are all surrounded by air. Our bodies live and 16

move in it. That is why it's important that the air is 17

clean and pure. 18

MR. PAGE: Very good . Very good, thank you very 19

much. 20

Next group: Luis Gonzalez, Jenny Carbera and 21

Ricardo Ramirez. 22

LUIS GONZALEZ 23

RICARDO RAMIREZ 24

JENNY CARBERA 25313

MS. CARBERA: Hello. My name is Jenny Car bera, 1

J

- E

- N

- N

- Y C

- A

- R

- B

- E

- R

- A. 2

MR. RAMIREZ: Hi. My name is Ricard o Ramirez , 3

R

- I

- C

- A

- R

- D

- O R

- A

- M

- I

- R

- E

- Z. 4

MR. GONZALEZ: Hello. My name is Luis, L

- U

- I

- S , 5

Gonzalez, G

- O

- N

- Z

- A

- L

- E

- Z

. 6

MR. GONZALEZ: Good afternoon. I came all the 7

way from down in California to represent Desert Mirage High 8

School. I decided to come here to give my personal opinion 9

about the air quality and the problems it is causing our 10

community. 11

Our air pollution is not as clean and safe to 12

breathe as it should be. The EPA will bring benefits only 13

if you enforce it. Following through our commun ity can 14
save up to $2.2 to $4.1 billion and can end up saving 430 15

lives. Thank you. 16

MR. RAMIREZ: Well, good afternoon. As I 17

mentioned before my name is Ricardo Ramirez and I come from 18

the East Coachella Valley to talk about how pollution is 19

affecting our community. 20

According to the EPA we can save up to 430 lives 21

by reducing the pollution in the air. Toxic chemicals are 22

being released into the air every day and as we all know it 23

is affecting not only us, but the whole community. Asthma 24

is a major aspect in our community that is affecting people 25314

from all ages. We can change this by passing the 60 ppb 1

standard in the United States. Therefore I do think we 2

should enforce the standards to promote good quality air 3

and have a safer environment. It is time to make a change. 4

It is time to breathe clean air. Thank you. 5

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much

. 6

Our next group: Elijah Cervantes, Ruben Garza. 7

ELIJAH CERVANTES 8

RUBEN GARZA 9

MR. CERVANTES: My name is Elijah Cervantes , E

- L

10

I

- J

- A

- H, , C

- E

- R

- V

- A

- N

- T

- E

- S. 11

MR. GARZA: My name is Ruben Garza , R

- U

- B

- E

- N G

12

A

- R

- Z

- A. 13

Before I start I just want to say that I'm 14

representing for Mecca. I don't know if anybody else is 15

Mecca, but it's a small town and I want to represent them. 16

Dirt roads, salty seas, nights always cold around 17

my community. Have you ever heard of the place huddling up 18

together, forgetting about race? Trying to figure out what 19

happened, trying to retrace. 20

The last thing they needed was air pollution, all 21

these chemicals together using fusion. Hiding in plain 22

sight and it's no illusion. Why can't this end, where's 23

the solution? After all these years we haven't gotten to a 24

conclusion. 25315

My little sister and my mother , they all suffer

. 1

A sthma attacks coursing through the veins of my mother. I 2

don't want her to die

. I don't need another. 3

Why is it so hard to have faith in the process, 4

when you know you're a success? Yet people are dying, look 5

at this mess. We have to help and don't rest. 6

People aren't just num bers that you can't 7

increase, just (indiscernible) but you won't have peace. 8

We want the ppb to decrease. 9

Is that just too much to ask? Do I need to see 10

people wearing gas masks? 11

Part of me, deep down inside, is telling me that 12

I have to cry, b ecause I came, but I don't want to leave 13

knowing that we didn't make a change (indiscernible) having 14

to do the walk of shame. 15

I don't want that to occur, that's where I aim, 16

it's not even knowing the ones to blame, you tell me 17

because somehow I know th at name. 18

Wh y does someone have a job to protect lives when 19

people die? I don't want an excuse and I don't want a lie. 20

I don't want to hear from him that he'll try

. 21

I want to see and I want to be air pollution 22

free. I want to care for everyone here , these are my 23

family, even I don't know them completely. 24

I will stop to help them, because even if 25316

(indiscernible) fails my generation won't, because we stand 1

as one, never alone. 2

And here's what we will do, we will show that air 3

pollution won't m ake us go slow. W e know, because we all 4

have the same goal. 5

Now that you know us there's one thing you should 6

know . T hat everyone behind me, that I will never let them 7

go

. 8

MR. CERVANTES: As I said before earlier, m y name 9

is Elijah Cervantes

. 10

We demand that we have fresh air as a human 11

right. We don't need to ask, it's a right, no we don't 12

ask, we demand it and John Benoit enforces it as well. 13

Because as an older brother

-- I'm sure that if 14

you have siblings you understand where I'm coming from

-- 15

where you don't want to see your younger siblings suffer. 16

I have a nine

- year
- old brother, about yea high, a small 17

child for nine years old, who has asthma. 18

One of the things he love s to play is soccer. He 19

loves playing soccer and, of course, that involves a lot of 20

running. It saddens me to see that he has to sit out 21

through halftime, because he can't keep up with the other 22

kids. He has a lot of potential. And he has the potential 23

to become a professional soccer player, but is he going to 24

sit and watch or become a professional soccer player even 25317

though he has asthma. 1

A while ago we went to Long Beach. And we saw a 2

shop full of Lamborghinis and we have an interest in cars. 3

We go to see it. He tells my mother something and then she 4

goes in to a car dealer and tells them, "Tell them what you 5

told me." He said, "Save me a car, because when I become a 6

professional soccer player this is where I'm coming to get 7

my first car." 8

He has such high h opes and I don't want to see 9

them get destroyed. I want him to pursue it with all his 10

heart, to continue to chase his dreams. 11

So I come with you with a heart

-- I didn't write 12

any of this down, it comes from the heart. If you make 13

sure this happens

- - for our valley I speak for everyone 14

when I say it's getting worse and worse down in our valley. 15

Thank you. 16

MS. STONE: Thank you. 17

MR. PAGE : Thank you. 18

Our next group is: Jose Pompa, Alomera Galvez, 19

Kheila Toledo, Marten Valtiera and Luis Valde z. 20

JOSE POMPA 21

ALOMERA GALVEZ 22

KHEILA TOLEDO 23

MARTEN VALTIERA 24

LUIS VALDEZ 2531 8

MR. PO M PA: Hi. My name is Jose Pompa , J

- O

- S

- E 1

P

- O

- M

- P

- A. 2

MS. TOLEDO: Hi. My name is Kheila, K

- H

- E

- I

- L

- A , 3

Toledo, T

- O

- L

- E

- D

- O. 4

MR. ZALTIERA: My name is Martan Valtiera. 5

Martan is spelled M

- A

- R

- T

- A

- N, Valtierra, V

- A

- L

- T

- I

- E

- R

- R

6

A. 7

MS. GALVEZ: My name is Alomera Galvez, A

- L

- O

- M

8

E

- R

- A G

- A

- L

- V

- E

- Z. 9

MR. VALDEZ: My name is Luis Valdez, L

- U

- I

- S V

- A

10

L

- D

- E

- Z. 11

MR. POMPA: Hello. My name is Jose Pompa. 12

Despite having some of the nation's strictest air quality 13

control laws, California still has cities that fall among 14

the nation's most polluted. This clearly shows that 15

California needs to move towards a new direction in order 16

to achieve positive change that will result in be tter air 17

quality for today's people and as well for the future. 18

Living in the Coachella Valley, the progression 19

of the smog can be seen clearly as it seems that the 20

mountains around us disappear into a thick gray cloud every 21

day. The thick gray cloud is filled with toxins that are 22

affecting the respiratory conditions of everyone. 23

Everyone deserves to breathe clean air and it is 24

our duty to ensure that our future generations will be able 25319

to enjoy clean air as well. Thank you. 1

MR. PAGE: Thank you v ery much. 2

Our next two are Judith Ramirez and Jose Mendoza. 3

JUDITH RAMIREZ 4

JOSE MENDOZA 5

MS. RAMIREZ: Good afternoon. I am Judith 6

Ramirez, J

- U

- D

- I

- T

- H, Ramirez, R

- A

- M

- I

- R

- E

- Z. 7

MR. MENDOZA: Hello. My name is Jose Mendoz a , J

8

O

- S

- E M

- E

- N

- D

- O

- Z

- A. 9

MS. RAMIREZ: Unlike many others I did not write 10

a paper or anything I could read off of. I could only 11

share my personal experience. 12

My youngest sibling has asthma and he

-- it's 13

very hard for him to be outside, because sometimes the air 14

triggers. Sinc e he has asthma he is very vulnerable to 15

bronchitis. 16

I remember his first attack. I had to wake up at 17

night, because I heard him coughing. And then I started 18

yelling, because he couldn't breathe. He was turning red 19

and his coughs were just very stro ng and we had to take him 20

to the ER multiple times. And it's not something that

-- 21

it's not a good memory. I want to remember him as a happy 22

kid who could run around playing tag with his friends, but 23

instead he has to stay inside. He has to be

-- he is very 24

dependent towards my mom, because he has to be under watch. 25320

And it's just not something that any person wants to see or 1

have. 2

So it's very important that we don't have our air 3

polluted, because people suffer. 4

MR. MENDOZA: When families deal with the same 5

circumstances (indiscernible) there are those who suffer 6

from asthma or other respiratory illnesses , c lean air is 7

all we ask for. Thank you. 8

MR. PAGE: The next group is Lourdes Baez, 9

Jessica Dimas and Yasmin Ortega. Welcome. 10

LOURDES BAEZ 11

YASMIN ORTEGA 12

JESSICA DIMAS 13

MS. BAEZ: My name is Lourdes Baez, L

- O

- U

- R

- D

- E

- S 14

B

- A

- E

- Z. 15

MS. DIMAS: Hi. My name is Jessica Dimas, J

- E

- S

16

S

- I

- C

- A D

- I

- M

- A

- S. 17

MS. ORTEGA: Hello. My name is Yasmin Ortega, Y

18

A

- S

- M

- I

- N O

- R

- T

- E

- G

- A. 19

MS. ORTEGA: I come from North Shore. It’s 20

somewhat of a small town. It's home to many farm workers 21

and many people who come from cities, especially L.A. 22

I have a neighbor, that he rents his house, and 23

there was a certain family that wou ld rent there like, each 24

year, arou nd wintertime, because the weather's more 25321

approachable here I guess you could say. And they had this 1

little girl and I would play with her. 2

I didn't know what an inhaler was at that time, 3

so I took it as a normal thing. As I got older when I 4

found out what an inhaler was and what asthma was, the girl 5

who would come each year stopped coming. So I decided to 6

go next door and ask for her. And that's when her parents 7

told me that she's like, hooked up to machines, so she 8

can't come anymore. And I didn't know how to react to 9

that. 10

And eventually, when that happened I started 11

noticing that many people who come to North Shore are 12

coming from big cities like San Gabriel or San Francisco or 13

San Bernardino, especially L.A. And they're coming there 14

to literal ly run away, becaue the air pollution is 15

destroying their lives. 16

It's not a joke anymore. We have to take it 17

seriously. It's destroying families and it's causing pain 18

to people around us. And that's why I want this to be 19

passing for us, because we nee d clean air. Everybody needs 20

it. Nobody should suffer like that. 21

MS. BAEZ: I haven’t lost any family due to the 22

air quality, but I know people who have. We have doubled 23

the ppb standard advisers and medical professionals of the 24

EPA have recommended as a 60 ppb standard. If we can get 25322

it to 65 ppb we can save up to 430 lives annually including 1

our families. 2

I have a little brother and want him to be able 3

to play outside and have fun without having to worry about 4

the air quality affecting his lungs. I want him to have 5

the childhood that every child deserves. Thank you. 6

MS. DIMAS: I come from Mecca where most of my 7

family and people live. 8

The reason why I came today is because if we do 9

not stop this problem then my mother and younger sister, 10

who is ten years old, with my community can be affected in 11

the future. 12

And I would like to lower the ppb to 60. The 13

reason why is because medical and science advisers at the 14

EPA recommend 60 ppb, because it will help save up to 430 15

lives and protect thos e who are genetically prone to 16

getting lung cancer and have asthma, which can affect many 17

people in my community and my family like my younger sister 18

who can get asthma in the near future. 19

MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much. 20

So o ur next two are Christopher Avilla and Raul 21

Zendeja. 22

CHRISTOPHER AVILA 23

RAUL ZENDEJAS 24

MR. AVILA: Welcome. My name is Christopher 25323

Avila, C

- H

- R

- I

- S

- T

- O

- P

- H

- E

- R, and Avila is A

- V

- I

- L

- A. 1

MR. ZENDEJAS: Hi. I’m Raul Zend e jas, R

- A

- U

- L, 2

and Zendejas is Z

- E

- N

- D

- E

- J

- A

- S. 3

M R. AVILA: I am here today to give a voice to 4

the people of Coachella Valley that demand clean air, but 5

couldn't be here today. It's ridiculous that we must 6

travel nine hours, just to fight for something that should 7

be a natural human right. 8

Every morni ng I see hordes of hard

- working field 9

workers who are here to be working in fields where extreme 10

temperatures. As bad as these conditions are, many 11

families have no choice but to work in the fields. 12

Every year there's talk of multiple people being 13

hospi talized and one of the first symptoms they feel is 14

short of breath from polluted air. 15

Now, put yourself in that moment. As you're 16

working suddenly you feel something not right, the heat of 17

the day pouring down upon you. You take a minute to catch 18

your breath and notice the air seems thinner. Now what 19

could have been a life

- saving moment now fills you up with 20

panic as each inhale slowly suffocates you. You look to 21

the left and the right, but see no one i n screaming 22

distance. And you must find your way out of the maze

- like 23

field. But for many of the people that have been affected 24

by poll uted air don't make it very far out at all. 25324

Now, you lay totally helpless and unconscious as 1

the sun eats you up. Hopefully, your fellow works stumble 2

upon you, but if you're unlucky the possibility of dying 3

increases. 4

An actual situation that happen ed not so long ago 5

was when Saul Martinez had an emergency situation where the 6

students had to be immediately evacuated as a result of 7

poor air quality. 8

Oil companies often say that they provide 9

millions of jobs, which improves the economy. But at what 10

cost for those millions and many more who are affected and 11

it's highly likely that they could develop respiratory 12

illnesses. 13

Surprisingly only 2.8 percent of the industry 14

shares are owned by corporate and management ; t he rest is 15

owned by tens of millions of Americans who mostly are 16

middle class. This could potentially interfere with the 17

retirement plans of millions of Americans since the market 18

unstable. Not only is the health of millions of Americans 19

being affected we're also

-- our retirement plans are at 20

risk as well. 21

I understand big money

-- I understand money is a 22

big issue here, but the old ways of doing the factory work 23

have many problems attached to them. If a nonrenewable 24

resource like oil, which is unstable is replaced with a 25325

renewable so urce not only will it generate the same amount 1

of energy, but with no pollution, which will not only 2

benefit the environment, but the health of millions of 3

Americans. 4

Another benefit will be the human capital it 5

generates, which is the foundation of a strong economy with 6

a 60 ppb smog standard, which will ensure a strong, healthy 7

daily force ready to make a difference. 8

If this standard is passed, the air is clean, I 9

believe that will provide inspiration not only to me, but 10

to my fellow classmates in the community, to push our high 11

school, Desert Mirage, into a completely green

- powered 12

school, also strengthening an already successful green 13

academy. 14

To reiterate we are here, because we demand clean 15

air and want our voice to be heard. And the heal th of the 16

citizens of the Coachella Valley should be of more concern 17

than the profits of the oil field. 18

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 19

MR. ZENDEJAS: Hi , good afternoon. I'm here as a 20

resident of the Eastern Coachella Valley, but more 21

importantly I'm here as a representative of the entire 22

Coachella Valley. But I'm not the only one here, everyone 23

here is speaking for the Valley and I hope their stories 24

have moved you like they've moved me. 25326

I'm here for the people who weren't able to 1

attend. I'm here for th e families that were victims of 2

this pollution and I say victims, because that's exactly 3

what we are. We really are in this situation. 4

We are the victims of the corporate machine that 5

would prefer a dollar over a human being's life and that's 6

been pro ven in the past few years. There's been a number 7

of cases in which people have had severe asthma attacks due 8

a lack of clean air, which have led to death. 9

A 60 ppb smog setting can prevent that , but it 10

would also need to be enforced by John Benoit, th e 11

Riverside County Supervisor. And as he continues he is 12

doing a great job, but right now the air quality is 13

extremely poor. The ppb is at a 75, but always surpasses 14

that , but s ome days it's almost double over the current 15

standard. 16

This country was bui lt on a great foundation and 17

ideology, but it does not have the cleanest history. In 18

fact, it has one of the worst. But how it's progressed is 19

fascinating, all the way from what seemed to be civil, 20

humble people turn ing into these savages who have been 21

c onverted into some aristocrats. It's perplexing. 22

This country's motto or creed is "life, liberty 23

and the pursuit of happiness" and we don't have that right. 24

And instead we've been stripped of it due to the pigment of 25327

our skin and some due to our social class. 1

Explain to me why we have a dirty fuel gas plant 2

down the street and why those same owners also have a solar 3

farm in Lancaster. Why are we deprived of this clean 4

energy and air? Is it because we're a small valley, 5

insignificant to a company's eyes? Or is it because 6

there's more taco shops than Starbucks and coffee shops in 7

the Valley? Is it? 8

There's also been cases of companies dumping 9

toxic waste in the Salton Sea, which has a very potent 10

aroma consisting of dead fish and occasionally hu man waste 11

or fecal matter. Hold on, what else did I want to say? 12

They dump pesticides and other volatile chemicals in that 13

body of water. 14

A fun fact is when the sun hits a body of water, 15

for example, we're talking about the Salton Sea it 16

evaporates t he water making it into a vapor, making it 17

airborne, okay? And it makes the water airborne, which is 18

not a good thing. The smell goes around North Shore down 19

to Mecca and sometimes to Thermal. So imagine how fun it 20

would be waking up early in the mornin g and as soon as you 21

wake up the smell of pesticides hits you. That's not a 22

very pleasant aroma, I mean it's not a very pleasant scent. 23

So we took a nine

- hour drive. I missed a day of 24

school, which hurts me, because our school system is the 25328

best. Of c ourse, that's a bit of a sarcasm and anyways our 1

purpose here is not to ask for clean air. It's much more 2

of a demand. We need that 60 ppb standard. We want others 3

to live and our future spots growing in an environmentally 4

stable community. 5

Trust me, I could say a lot more, but I like to 6

keep it short. 7

(Applause) 8

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Jose Alcantra, Jose 9

Rodríguez

. 10

JOSE RODRIGUEZ 11

JOSE ALCANTARA 12

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Jose, 13

Rodriguez, J

- O

- S

- E, Rodriguez is R

- O

- D

- R

- I

- G

- U

- E

- Z. 14

MR. ALCANTARA: Good afternoon. My name is Jose, 15

J

- O

- S

- E, Alcantara, A

- L

- C

- A

- N

- T

- A

- R

- A. 16

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Today I am here not only 17

representing myself and the peers behind me, I'm here to 18

represent those people who couldn't make it fo r one reason 19

or another. 20

As you all know our community has very little 21

representation if any, especially because of the fact that 22

many of them are very low

- income people with very low 23

education. And many of them don't even know how our system 24

of governm ent works in order to pass policies to have a 25329

safer environment. 1

We live in a community where pesticides are 2
around us 24/7. You wake up and all you see are fields, 3

agriculture, which indeed brings jobs to our parents, but 4

at a very high cost due to the fact that they are engaged 5

with all those chemicals every single day of their lives 6

just to save their family. They can't stay home, because 7

of that. How would they help their family put food on the 8

table? 9

I work for a Boys and Girls Club in Mecca, wi th 10

the community. And it's the best thing in the world to 11

help other kids whose parents are always working, because 12

they need to provide food for them. But what happens when 13

all the kids are playing and having fun and all of a 14

sudden, one of the kids get s told he can't play? Out of 15

the 250 he's one of the two or three that can't play, 16

because if he continues to run or he continues to do 17

something inside the gym his asthma will start. 18

And, you know, telling a kid that he can't do 19

something that the re st of them can makes him feel 20

isolated. They cry sometimes and they say , "You know what, 21

mister? I don't want to have this, why do I have this?" 22

All I can tell the kid is just try to do something else, 23

try to motivate them to move somewhere else where h e's not 24

feeling isolated from the rest of the kids, because he's 25330

different. 1

And our country states that we have freedom and 2

liberty, but if we continue this way our slogan should be 3

"you have freedom and liberty, the only cost will be either 4

your healt h or your life." Thank you. 5

MR. ALCANTARA: My name is Jose. On behalf of my 6

mother I'm here to fight for her, because she fought for 7

me. 8

Two years ago my mom was diagnosed with 9

bronchitis. And the doctors told her that she would need 10

to have an inh aler with her at all times, because her 11

bronchitis was kind of heavy for her. 12

So one day at work she had an asthma attack while 13

working. With the strict policies of her work you can't 14

have any medical substance near the products , s o she had to 15

leave t he inhaler in her car. And while she had an asthma 16

attack she was panicking. She ran to the car. And then 17

knowing the fact that my mom would not reach the car and 18

would not get an inhaler in time scares me, because like 19

coming back from the school and like knowing

-- coming back 20

from school and getting the news that your mom's at the 21

hospital and your mom has died is just like, "Whew, no," 22

you know? 23

If you guys have ever felt that before it

-- I 24

don't want to feel it myself. Or you can know if like f or 25331

air quality or bad air quality for us

-- if it happens to 1

me
-- you know, if that time comes for me or for her I just 2

don't want it to happen for air quality reasons. 3

MS. STONE: Right. 4

MR. ALCANTARA: So that's it. 5

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 6

(Applaus e) 7

The next group: Omar Gastelum, Marisela Acosta, 8

Yesenia Hernandez, Jervoa Reyes, Alejandra Hernandez. 9

OMAR GASTELUM 10

ALEJANDRA HERNANDEZ 11

MARISELA ACOSTA 12

JERVOA REYES 13

YESENIA HERNANDEZ 14

MS. ACOSTA: Hello. 15

MS. STONE: Hi. 16

MR. PAGE: You guys are going to have to help me 17

out on these names here , sorry

. 18

MR. GASTELUM: My name is Omar Gastelum, O

- M

- A

- R 19

G

- A

- S

- T

- E

- L

- U

- M. 20

MS. A. HERNANDEZ: Press that? 21

MR. PAGE: Yes. It lights up green, did it light 22

up green? 23

MS. A. HERNANDEZ: Yes. My name is Alejandra 24

Hernandez, A

- L

- E

- J

- A

- N

- D

- R

- A, Hernandez, H

- E

- R

- N

- A

- N

- D

- E

- Z. 25332

MS. ACOSTA: My name is Marisela Acosta, M

- A

- R

- I

1

S

- E

- L

- A, Acosta, A

- C

- O

- S

- T

- A. 2

MS. REYES: Hello. My name is Jervoa Reyes, J

- E

3

R

- V

- O

- A R

- E

- Y

- E

- S 4

MS. Y. HERNANDEZ: Yesenia Hern andez, Y

- E

- S

- E

- N

5

I

- A H

- E

- R

- N

- A

- N

- D

- E

- Z

. 6

MR. GASTELUM: All of us are here as members of a 7

program called Keystone. It's a leadership program with 8

the Boys and Girls Club, and we're encouraged to seek 9

improvements in our community and get involved, so we 10

decided that air quality would be a good topic, and we h ad 11

the opportunity to come over here and speak. 12

I, myself, have asthma, and while that limits how 13

much physical activity I can do and that affects me well, 14

since I love to play sports too. You can see all around 15

the community

-- we are from the East Co achella Valley

-- 16

all around the community you can see all the pollution. 17

You wake up in the mornings, all you see is smog from the 18

local factories there. And during the winter it just gets 19

bad, like sometimes I can't run at all or do any type of 20

heavy p hysical activity. 21

And so that's why I decided to come over here to 22

speak and voice what I have to go through, and that's why I 23

ask that you can make change to the pollution and no 24

pollution allowed. 25333

MS. A. HERNANDEZ: Hello. Well, and like I said 1

my name is Alejandra. And just adding to a little bit of 2

what Omar said we are in a group called Keystone and we are 3

urged to make changes to our community. And today we had 4

this gathering up like in the park and they were handing 5

out inhalers as like a sy mbol of pollution that is in the 6

Eastern Coachella Valley . And I took that very to heart, 7

because a lot of people do suffer from asthma in the 8

E astern Coachella Valley . A nd it is hard during the 9

winter, like Omar said. And so I found that really 10

meaning ful. 11

And I feel like we just h ave this very like, 12

awesome opportunity to come here all the way to Sacramento

. 13

A nd just like voice our opinion about like the pollution in 14

the air, because it does affect us. Like even if we're 15

young, it affects us a lot . Yeah. 16

MS. ACOSTA: Our parents try to give us a better 17

life and we want to do all we can , so one day we can be 18

able to offer our children the same opportunity by giving 19

them clean air community to live in. 20

We don't want to w orry about our children having 21

asthma problems, because of the city being polluted

. 22

MS. REYES: Good afternoon, like I said again my 23

name is Jervoa. I am current ly a senior at Desert Mirage 24

High School, and throughout my four years of high school 25334

I've came across many definiti ons for the word "future." 1

But the one that I believe or that I take in strongly the 2

most, is " children, " because to me children are the future, 3

and I am one of them. I want to be able to secure my 4

future and my children's future . A nd by this I'm saying 5

our air pollution has to be in good condition, because 6

otherwise where would my kids be able to play or would they 7

even have a mother by that time? Because the air

-- I 8

mean, it's gotten to an extent that it shou ldn't have. 9

MS. Y. HERNANDEZ: Someday w e would like to be 10

great leaders in our community, and the only way we can 11

accomplish that is to speak the truth and try our hardest 12

to make a difference (indiscernible). 13

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. 14

(Applause) 15

Our next two are Cecilia Dimas and Verania 16

Barraza. 17

CECILIA DIMAS 18

VERANIA BARRAZA 19

MS. BARRAZA: Good afternoon. My name is Verania 20

Barraza. V

- E

- R

- A

- N

- I

- A B

- A

- R

- R

- A

- Z

- A. 21

MS. DIMAS: My name is Cecilia Dimas, C

- E

- C

- I

- L

22

I

- A D

- I

- M

- A

- S. 23

MS. DIMAS: We are students from Desert Mirage 24

High School and residents of the E astern Coachella Valley. 25335

We came today to be some of the group representatives of 1

those who couldn't come today and fight for their rights. 2

We live in a place where our ppb can go up to 110 3

when it's supposed to be 65 ppb. Sorry, I can't say that

. 4

And according to California's ppb standards, air pollution 5

in California kills about 25,000 people per year. 80 6

percent of lung diseases are caused by pollution from cars, 7

buses, trucks and other vehicles. If we reduce our ppb to 8

65 or 60, we can yield annual health benefits of $ 2.2 to 9

$ 4. 1 billion , which can end up saving 430 lives. This is 10

good news because we live in a community that can't afford 11

such expens ive medical bills with their current low

- paying 12

jobs. 13

With t he current ppb people can get lung cancer 14

as well or other breathing problems. Thank you. 15

MS. BARRAZA: We have a friend who is asthmatic 16

and she isn't able to talk good , because she got asthma

. 17

And (indiscernible) hard for her (indiscernible) so it 18

wo uld be better if the air was clear for her and everyone. 19

So thank you. 20

MR. PAGE: Our next speakers are Cynthia Ramirez, 21

Guadalupe Perez and Perlama Gana. 22

PERLAMA GANA 23

GUADALUPE PEREZ 24

CYNTHIA RAMIREZ 25336

MS. RAMIREZ: My name is Cynthia Ramirez, C

- Y

- N

1

T

- H

- I

- A R

- A

- M

- I

- R

- E

- Z. 2

MS. PEREZ: Hello, my name is Guadalupe Perez, G

3

U

- A

- D

- A

- L

- U

- P

- E P

- E

- R

- E

- Z. 4

MS. GANA: My name is Perlama Gana, P

- E

- R

- L

- A

- M

- A 5

G

- A

- N

- A. 6

MS. GANA : Most of us are here to ask for better 7

air. And I personally believe that we shou ld n't ask and we 8

should demand , because it's not a privilege, it should be a 9

right. And we want our generation to grow up in a healthy 10

environment. 11

MS. PERE : We've come a very long distance from 12

Thermal, California all the way over here to talk to you 13

guys about the air, because our air that we breathe is 14

polluted. It has a lot of pollution and we're breathing 15

it. And w e shouldn't have to suffer about that. 16

Humans all around the world suffer , because we 17

are breathing bad air from youth to elderly people. It 18

doesn't only affect humans, it also affects animals and 19

plants around us. 20

We demand that the air pollution decreases , 21

because many people suffer , because of respiratory issues 22

such as a sthma. I have family members that suffer from 23

asthma and it's very hard for me to see them suffer, and I 24

don't know what it would mean if I ever lost them because 25337

of asthma. 1

We shouldn't have to be here to ask that we have 2

better air, cleaner fresh air , because it's more of a human 3

right. Thank you. 4

MS. GANA: I have a little cousin and in my family 5

I'm the youngest, so for me he's like a little brother. I 6

remember getting a phone call late at night, midnight, my 7

mom answering the phone and telling m e that he was very 8

sick . A nd he had to get a helicopter to the hospital and I 9

remember telling my mom that I didn't want him to die. 10

And I remember getting to the hospital and not 11

even being able to see him. He looked up at me and told me 12

he didn't wa nt to die, t o give him courage . A nd at that 13

moment I didn't know what to do. That's why I'm here, I 14

don't want to see (indiscernible). 15

Every summer

-- summer, spring, it doesn't matter 16

-- I see him go to the hospital at least two times a week. 17

It's gotten pretty serious. He told me that if he ever 18

dies, that he

-- (Overcome with emotion.) 19

MS. RAMIREZ: We might be freshman and we might 20

be alone. Well, we're not alone physically. I f we pull 21

ourselves together we can actually make a change. 22

( A pplause) 23

MR. PAGE: Thank you, all. 24

And our next group is Ignacio Serrato, Miguel 25338

Sanchez, and Juan Garcia. 1

MIGUEL SANC H EZ 2

IGNACIO SERRATO 3

JUAN GARCIA 4

MR. SANCHEZ: Hello, my name is Miguel Sanchez, 5

that's M

- I

- G

- U

- E

- L S

- A

- N

- C

- H

- E

- Z. 6

MR. SERRATO: My name is Ignacio Serrato, I

- G

- N

7

A

- C

- I

- O S

- E

- R

- R

- A

- T

- O. 8

MR. GARCIA: My name is Juan Garcia, J

- U

- A

- N G

- A

9

R

- C

- I

- A. 10

MR. GARCIA: I am speaking for my group. We are 11

from Desert Mirage's Green Academy. We deserve clean air. 12

Every year smog pollution kills 25,000 people in 13

California. We want pollution to end , because we want to 14

prevent 25,000 people from dying. 15

We demand to have the ppb standards in California 16

be 60 to save 430 lives. And that's it. 17

MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much. 18

(Colloquy regarding translation services needed) 19

Okay. The next group is Serena Monroy and I 20

guess Diana will come up with her. 21

SERENA MONROY 22

MS. MONROY: (Speaking Spanish) 23

TRANSLATOR: And I came to talk about a condition 24

in our environment. We h ave an elementary school , which 25339

not long ago we had some meetings , because the environment 1

was horrible. At the school there were certain days where 2

classes were suspended , because the children were getting 3

sick constantly and they were having breathing p roblems. 4

And school staff , in fact had to take some of them to the 5

hospital and an ambulance had to come . A nd they started 6

investigating , because I don't know why

-- these young 7

people said they said everything you don't want in your 8

community is there. I mean, w e have this Salton Sea that 9

is so polluted out there, as these young people said . A nd 10

during the warm months you have these horrible smells that 11

you can't stand, you don't even want to leave your house 12

because it smells so bad. 13

So we have eve rything there in Coachella. We 14

also have certain factories and my husband's parents are 15

still alive, thank God. And Coachella , it smells horrible 16

and my father and mother

- in

- law never want to leave their 17

house either , because of how badly it smells. 18

I don't know what they do when they're doing the 19

packing operations. So we want a better world for the 20

future for the children for my daughter and for the future 21

of all the youngsters who are here, so I'm here 22

representing all of the parents. So I ask for permission 23

to miss work today and that's all these youngsters that we 24

came all from a long way away, many, many hours on the 25340

road, but I had to come to represent all the parents 1

because we want a better world for our children. 2

My husband has been worki ng the field for 40 3

years since we got to the U.S. H e's been working the 4

fields, and he has a boss who is very careful with 5

chemicals and that's a good thing, because when I worked in 6

Mexico I used to grab those chemicals with no protection, 7

with nothing in my hands . And I know that his boss gives 8

classes as far as how to protect themselves for the 9

workers, how to handle the chemicals and what to do, all 10

the essential aspects that they need. 11

But I don't know if other companies do the same, 12

because we h ave known of many parents who work in the 13

fields. I mean, that's where we like to work. But many of 14

those other parents are not treated as well. The parents 15

of these young people who are here today , so that they 16

can't suffer all of that. 17

I have a son who loves sports too . A nd very 18

often I have to take him to the doctor, you know, and he 19

likes to do sports, but the air is so bad . A nd we would 20

ask or recommend that you please help us, those who are 21

here reprsenting us , so that we can have a better futu re 22

for our children, our young people, and also our elder l y. 23

That's what I came here to say on behalf of everyone who 24

couldn't be here, because there are many of us. 25341

And I think that's it, but thank you. 1

( A pplause) 2

MR. PAGE: Our next group is Giovanni Villalta, 3

Bernard Lino, Nestor Nunez, Ignacio Ramirez, Onofre Zanora, 4

Baldwin Flores, and Mariano Corrales. Big group. 5

NESTOR NUNEZ 6

IGNACIO RAMIREZ 7

MARIANO CORRALES 8

ONOFRE ZAMORA 9

GIOVANNI VILLALTA 10

BALDWIN FLORES 11

BERNARD LINO 12

MR. NUNEZ: My name is Nestor Nunez, N

- E

- S

- T

- O

- R 13

N

- U

- N

- E

- Z. 14

MR. RAMIREZ: Hello, my name is Ignacio Ramirez, 15

I

- G

- N

- A

- C

- I

- O R

- A

- M

- I

- R

- E

- Z. 16

MR. CORRALES: My name is Mariano Corrales, M

- A

17

R

- I

- A

- N

- O C

- O

- R

- R

- A

- L

- E

- S. 18

MR. ZAMORA: My name is Onofre Zamora, O

- N

- O

- F

- R

19

E Z

- A

- M

- O

- R

- A. 20

MR. VILLALTA: My name is Giovanni Villalta, G

- I

21

O

- V

- A

- N

- N

- I V

- I

- L

- L

- A

- L

- T

- A. 22

MR. FLORES: Good afternoon, my name is Baldwin 23

Flores, B

- A

- L

- D

- W

- I

- N F

- L

- O

- R

- E

- S. 24

MR. LINO: My name is Bernard Lino, B

- E

- R

- N

- A

- R

- D 25342

L

- I

- N

- O. 1

MR. CORRALES: We are st udents from Desert Mirage 2

High School and we live in the E astern Coachella Valley. 3

I want pollution to stop , because I want to go 4

out every day and see the sun and the moon. I want to be 5

able to explore without worrying about air problems. Lots 6

of day s it's hard to see (indiscernible) in the air. I 7

don't think it's fair to our generation and the coming 8

generations. I want 60 ppb or less on smog standards. 9

Thank you. 10

MR. PAGE: Thank you , very much

. 11

Cecilia Gutierrez, Everlyn Vasquez, and Denise 12

Ruiz. 13

EVERLYN VASQUEZ 14

CECILIA GUTIERREZ 15

DENISE RUIZ 16

MS. VASQUEZ: My name is Everlyn Vasquez, E

- V

- E

17

R

- L

- Y

- N V

- A

- S

- Q

- U

- E

- Z. 18

MS. GUTIERREZ: My name is Cecilia Gutierrez, C

19

E

- C

- I

- L

- I

- A G

- U

- T

- I

- E

- R

- R

- E

- Z. 20

MS. RUIZ: My name is Denise Ruiz, D

- E

- N

- I

- S

- E R

21

U

- I

- Z. 22

MS. GUTIERREZ: Over the last couple 1,000 years, 23

us humans have helped cause the extinction of over 500 24

animals. 25343

MS. VASQUEZ: Through our pollution of water, 1

land and oxygen. 2

MS. RUIZ: And if we do not put a stop to it, we 3

will cause our own extinction. 4

MS. GUTIERREZ: To keep it short, all we're 5

demanding is to have better air quality. 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you. Celina Flores and Angelica 7

Tellez. 8

ANGELIA TELLEZ 9

CELINA FLORES 10

MS. TELLEZ: My name is Angelica Tellez, A

- N

- G

- E

11

L

- I

- C

- A T

- E

- L

- L

- E

- Z. 12

MS. FLORES: My name is Celina Flores, C

- E

- L

- I

- N

13

A F

- L

- O

- R

- E

- S. 14

MS. FLORES: We are students from Desert Mirage 15

High School and we believe that air pollution is very 16

damaging for our bodies ' health and it needs to be stopped. 17

There are gree n resoures available and 18

financially affordable to help this process. These 19

resources can be the first step for us to re

- obtain our 20

privileges and rights to breathe fresh air. Thank you. 21

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 22

Aloadra Urquiza, Jamilet Felis, Melissa Gonzalez, 23

Lisbeth Martinez, and Angeles Bautista. 24

// 25344

ALOADRA URQUIZA 1

JAMILET FELIS 2

ANGELES BAUTISTA 3

LISBETH MARTINEZ 4

MELISSA GONZALEZ 5

MS. FELIS: My name is Jamilet, Felis, J

- A

- M

- I

- L

6

E

- T F

- E

- L

- I

- S. 7

MS. URQUIZA: My name is Aloadra Urquiza, A

- L

- O

8

A

- D

- R

- A U

- R

- Q

- U

- I

- Z

- A. 9

MS. STONE: It's okay, take your time. No 10

worries. I was a young girl once, I understand. 11

MS. BAUTISTA: My name is Angeles Bautista, A

- N

12

G

- E

- L

- E

- S B

- A

- U

- T

- I

- S

- T

- A. 13

MS. MARTINEZ: My name is Lisbeth Martinez, L

- I

14

S

- B

- E

- T

- H M

- A

- R

- T

- I

- N

- E

- Z. 15

MS. GONZALEZ: My name is Melissa Gonzalez, M

- E

16

L

- I

- S

- S

- A G

- O

- N

- Z

- A

- L

- E

- Z. 17

MS. URQUIZA: We, like everyone behind us, we 18

come to demand and ask for to reduce our emission where we 19

live in the E astern Coachella Valley, and there we d on't 20

have what is called a good environment in the way that our 21

pollution is a sucky one (indiscernible). 22

All we're asking for, not asking for but 23

demanding , that you guys give us 60 parts per billion smog 24

standard. 25345

MS. FELIS: And j ust to rephrase wh at she said, 1

we come from Desert Mirage High School. We are eleventh 2

and twelve graders. We come to represent the E astern 3

Coachella Valley. 4

Our struggle right now is poor air quality. Many 5

in the community, in fact, I dare say the majority of them 6

su ffer a respiratory disease. My niece, an eight

- year
- old 7

child, suffers bronchitis and has to be rushed into the 8

emergency room at least twice a month. Probably the times 9

she's rushed into the ER isn't as many times as others in 10

my community, but the fact that she's this young and she is 11

already suffering from a respiratory problem is ridiculous. 12

I want my niece and the rest of the children to 13

breathe in clean air. No one has to die because of poor air 14

quality. We need a 60 parts per billion smog standa rd. 15

Thank you. 16

( A pplause) 17

MR. PAGE: Before the students go, because I'm 18

told that that's it, unless there are any other students 19

that want to say something. Sir ? 20

MR. VEGA: The number 430 is constantly dropped 21

today. Oh, my name is Anzel Vega, A

- N

- Z

- E

- L V

- E

- G

- A. 22

ANZEL VEGA 23

MR. VEGA: It is literally inhumane and 24

dehumanizing to let us live on like this. I want to put 25346

the number 430 on a very personal basis. 1

If you were to put yourself in our position and 2

think that one of those 430 could be yo ur moms and dads, 3

your brothers and sisters, your cousins, your wives and 4

husbands, and I want you to just take that into 5

consideration. Thank you. 6

MR. PAGE: Thank you all very much. I want to 7

say that, first of all, apologies for the horrible Spanish 8

accent I have, and thank you for not laughing at me. 9

Did you want to say something else? Okay. 10

MR. GARZA: Cristian Garza. 11

CRISTIAN GARZA 12

MR. GARZA: Well, it isn't just the disease that 13

damages the lungs. It's kind of mental , because as a kid I 14

was constantly bullied , because I couldn't run as fast. I 15

couldn't keep up with other kids. I was always picked last 16

for this and that, and I would always get picked on , 17

because I couldn't breathe well or I couldn’t do this and I 18

alwa ys had to have an inhaler or I would have an asthma 19

attack . A nd they would make fun of me , because they didn't 20

understand what I was doing, they thought I was just joking 21

around. And because of that like I had to (indiscernible). 22

So I ended up going to stay in the second school 23

and I met good friends that didn't bully me. But kids get 24

ridiculed really bad because of it. Thank you. 25347

MR. PAGE: Thanks. 1

MS. JORDAN: Thank you. 2

MR. PAGE: One more, okay? 3

SERENA MONROY 4

MS. MONROY: (Speaking Spanish) 5

TRANSLATOR: I apologize, first of all, because I 6

know I already had my turn. But then I realized that I 7

forgot to say this, but for me as everybody already 8

mentioned it, we're here because we want a better world. 9

We want an air to breathe, j ust like those wonderful 10

commercials that you can see on TV. 11

One of the reasons why I'm here, another family 12

member of mine was going to come, but he's had to stay home 13

because he's suffering from bronchitis as well. 14

And one of my problems also is t hat my kid loves 15

to play soccer, but he can't really do exercise that often, 16

because of the respiratory problems that he has. But he 17

loves to do it, so I can't stop it. 18

Another problem that we have in Mecca is all the 19

factories that are chemical and t hey're mixing a lot of

-- 20

I don't know how to say this

-- all of these

-- they're not 21

chemicals. They mix this organic mixes for planting 22

different (indiscernible) but I really don't know what 23

they're called in English. But they produce this horrible 24

sme ll and it really smells bad. I don't know if it would 25348

be in your hands to do something about it, because it 1

smells horribly and there's things that we have to deal 2

with it the same as the vapor from the water. 3

I think it might be in your hands to do s omething 4

about that, because it does smell really bad. And I have 5

kids that are sick, just a lot of these kids suffer from 6

asthma (indiscernible) for speaking at the last minute. 7

MR. PAGE: Well, I want to say thank you very 8

much for making the effort t o come here. Nine hours to 9

drive here and share your very personal stories with us. I 10

mean, it's very touching for us to be up here and hear 11

about your families and how much you care about your 12

community. And as someone said speaking from the heart the 13

whole time that you all were here. 14

And I want to thank the folks that spoke, but I 15

also was very impressed with the support of you joining 16

your colleagues up here even if you didn't speak you were 17

here and we felt that support as well. It's just as 18

imp ortant as speaking to be here. 19

And I will tell you I've been doing this for 38 20

years and I've never seen this kind of presentation. 21

You've covered all the issues that all the professionals 22

that have been trained and are much more educated . You've 23

touch ed all the subjects: the jobs, the health, everything 24

that they touched. And you did it, like I say, speaking 25349

from the heart. 1

So I'll tell you fro m me personally, thank you 2

very much for coming here. It's something I'll never 3

forget. I really apprec iate you being here. 4

(Applause) 5

Well, we wish you safe travels back. And we're 6

going to take a five

- minute break to allow the students to 7

go. 8

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Two adults want to 9

speak before they go, then take a break. 10

MR. PAGE: I'm sorry? 11

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBERS: You have two adults who 12

want to speak and then you can take a break. 13

MR. PAGE: Good, then let's have the two adults 14

come down. 15

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBERS: I'm sorry, just one. 16

MR. PAGE: One, okay. 17

MR. HERNANDEZ: Sorry about that. 18

MR. PAGE: That's okay, no problem. 19

MR. HERNANDEZ: I'm the coordinator, so

-- 20

MR. PAGE: Are you? They should've let you go 21

first. Your name and

-- 22

ALLEN HERNANDEZ 23

MR. HERNANDEZ: My name is Allen Hernandez, A

- L

-- 24

L

- E

- N H

- E

- R

- N

- A

- N

- D

- E

- Z. I'm the regional representative 25350

for San Bernardino

- Riverside Counties for the Sierra Club, 1

working on clean air, clean energy issues. 2

I've been w orking with the students at Desert 3

Mirage School High School after school program called The 4

Great Si erra Alliance, a partnership between Desert Mirage 5

and the Sierra Club to work on clean energy, clean air 6

issues. And just before I share a little bit why this is 7

so important to me. 8

But I'm 15 years older than the students here, so 9

not that much remove d but still kind of removed, kind of 10

next generation. And this is very

-- I was not doing this 11

when I was in ninth grade or even senior year, so I'm very 12

proud of them for coming up today. I know there were a lot 13

of jitters, I know there was a lot of spe aking from the 14

heart, that's never easy to do. And I'm just very, very 15

proud of these young boys and girls who came out here to 16

speak today. 17

MR. PAGE: We are too. 18

MS. STONE: Thank you. 19

MR. HERNANDEZ: For me personally I've been in 20

their shoes. I 'm from Fontana, California in the Inland 21

Empire. Outside of the Central Valley we have the worst 22

pollution in the nation and I grew up with childhood 23

asthma. I grew up going to the ER three times a week from 24

the ages of three until I was twelve . I reme mber one of 25351

the most dramatic experiences was to have six injections go 1

into each lung at one ER visit. And I was six and so I 2

still haven't forgotten it. And so I lived right by the 3

railroad tracks, lived by the warehouses and lived by the 4

one of the ga s plants, so I was stuck right in the middle. 5

So the reason I'm here is I outgrew that. They built a 6

wall on the railroad tracks, helped mitigate some of that. 7

But my little three

- year
- old niece, about two 8

weeks ago was hospitalized with what was though t was a 9

cold. She wasn't kicking her cold, she had been having 10

colds. And it turns out now the doctors are saying that 11

she has asthma, lives right by the freeway too, lives by 12

the warehouses. This little girl is my life. I have her 13

name tattooed on my forearm and I did that the day she was 14

born. She was literally born and I ran to a tattoo shop. 15

And so I went through a lot from the ages of 16

three to twelve with childhood asthma. She's beginning to 17

get those. They have her on an inhaler. They have her 18

doing breathing practices. I hope it's not that. I don't 19

want to see her go through that same thing. I don't want 20

to be in a situation. She's my world, so if she falls down 21

I panic. Even if she's just running and she falls and she 22

skins her knee I go crazy. I don't know what I would do if 23

I had to rush her to the hospital and she starts turning 24

blue. 25352

So like the students here behind me have said, 1

the 60 parts per billion for us is

-- you know, it's not 2

something we want to have a kid

-- it's so mething we just 3

need. Too many of us are suffering and I think it's very 4

important for this to stop. They're young. They're 5

worried about their families, their mom and dads that work 6

in the work in the fields, I'm worried about my little 7

niece. And so I just, you know, beg of you to really 8

consider the best possible standard. Thank you, so much. 9

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 10

MS. JORDAN: Thank you. 11

MS. STONE: Thank you. 12

MR. PAGE: All right. I guess the students need 13

to

-- 14

STUDENT: Rest. 15

MR. PAGE:

-- rest, yeah. Thank you all very 16

much. (Applause) 17

(Off the record at 7:08 p.m.) 18

(On the record at 7:10 p.m.) 19

MR. PAGE: Craig Thomas and Rick B ettis. 20

Mr. Thomas, you can start when you're ready. 21

Please spell your name for the court repor ter. 22

CRAIG THOMAS 23

MR. THOMAS: Thank you. My name is Craig Thomas. 24

It's C

- R

- A

- I

- G T

- H

- O

- M

- A

- S and I am the conservation 25353

director for Sierra Forest Legacy and we're a coalition of 1

over 80 environmental organizations that work on federal 2

forest policy in the Sierra Nevada. That's 11 national 3

forests and about 11 million acres. 4

I've got some written testimony and some 5

reference papers that I want to put in the maker. I o nly 6

made three copies, but I'll only give out the first one. 7

So thank you very mu ch for this opportunity to 8

speak tonight. It's really something to be in a room full 9

of young folks from high school. I'm 68, so I go back 10

between the dinosaurs and the moon walk, you know, before 11

federal EPA? I know that for sure. And I've spent a fai r 12

amount of my life working for environmental protection. 13

So first of all I want to say that Sierra Forest 14

Legacy , and many of our partner groups , are strong 15

supporters of the public health concerns expressed in the 16

new ground

- level ozone standard rule package and that need 17

for clean air and throughout the many different regions of 18

the country. 19

Interestingly from the perspective that I work 20

from, ozone pollution and higher ozone levels do 21

significant damage to one of the resources that we work to 22

prote ct, which is the large pine trees, the iconic trees of 23

the Sierra Nevada. And there's a photo in the statement 24

that shows the needle damage up close, not a god thing at 25354

all. 1

But I want to speak to you about a very 2

particular nuance for our concerns, b ecause I want to be 3

clear we are very supportive. But we seek and request and 4

hope that you target the primary pre

- ozone pollution 5

precursors that we strongly support the regulation of. But 6

we have one concern beyond public health and environmental 7

damag e from ozone. And that is that our conservation 8

coalition research scientists and forest service land 9

management folks share a significant concern about the 10

proposed rule. And that concern is that the regulations do 11

not limit the ability of land managers to use natural 12

ignitions and prescribe fire as a critical resource 13

management tool. 14

And that gets into the conversation about 15

background effects and background levels of certain 16

portions of air quality that we look at today and look at 17

very appropriat ely. 18

I want to speak to fire and fire management. 19

Fire is a primary natural disturbance process that 20

regulates fuel build

- up, enhances biodiversity such as 21

snags and logs and all other elements of biodiversity 22

really in the Sierra Nevada. It recycles n utrients. It 23

creates various vegetation patterns that limit 24

uncharacteristic fire like we've been seeing out here. 25355

fires of a size I couldn't imagine 25 years ago, largely 1

because of suppression of the kind of fire that we need. 2

So it's a very nuanced t hing. 3

I'll mention one bit about a historic fire, the 4

natural background if you will. Pre

- 1850 landscape fire 5

had a much larger natural ecosystem regulation. In a 6

recent fire paper by Dr. Scott Stephens et. al. 2007, which 7

is in the package he noted an astounding statistic. The 8

estimates of annual area burned in California is 88 percent 9

of the total wildfire area in the entire U.S. during the 10

decade of 1994 to 2004, which we characterized as an 11

extreme decade. 12

Fire researchers note that approximately 1.8 13

billion hect ares or 3.4 million acres burned annually in 14

California historically pre

- 1850. That's 500,000 acres a 15

year in a timeframe that we call pristine and natural 16

functioning. And it becomes a target reference condition 17

now, so it's astounding. But it was a very different kind 18

of fire than we see today. It was small fires happening 19

regularly that wound up being self

- regulating. The fires 20

from this year burned into the fires from last year. we 21

didn't see the kind of magnitude of fire effects or the 22

emissions that we're seeing today. 23

Another couple of pieces of research that are 24

really important is that the amount of the landscape that's 25356

actually treatable in the Sierra Nevada by other means, is 1

roughly 58 percent of the landscape is forested and 25 2

percent of that is treatable with mechanical treatments. 3

And on the rest of those acres we've got two choices. And 4

one of them is not "no fire." It's either the kind of fire 5

that we manage and use natural ignitions or prescribed fire 6

to manage t he landscape. Or uncontrollable wildfire that 7

we have very little say

- so and very little chance to stop 8

any more it appears, and a huge increase in emissions and 9

the elements that you don't want to see and we don't want 10

to see, occurring across the landsc ape. 11

The last thing I'll mention is

-- I'll be done in 12

just second here. We've been working hard with the Forest 13

Service and other partners such as the Lung Association and 14

the San Joaquin Air Board to develop an alert system that 15

helps work in the medical community, the Fresno

- Madera 16

Medical Society and their contacts. So the Forest Service 17

and we partner with them to send out an alert system of 18

notifications that are three in sequence, that basically 19

explain why the Forest Service is doing a burn project. 20

And also equally important is, "Here's what you can do to 21

protect yourself and your family from those affects." 22

And we use a thing called Blue Sky Modeling that 23

helps capture very tightly where the smoke plumes are 24

headed for each commun ity, so we can get it to those school 25357

nurses, those public health officials and the physicians 1

who are actually treating the people. So we're not just 2

putting an article in the paper that few people read, but 3

it's a very direct contact. It's a, "Here's w hat's 4

happening. Here's when it's going to happen. Now it's 5

happening. Now it's been lit and here's what you can do to 6

protect yourselves." So we give these communities a lot of 7

notice up front through the system of people that they are 8

normally, natur ally in contact with. 9

So the bottom line is that we ask that while you 10

consider the new limits on ozone emissions and their 11

precursors, in California and elsewhere in the country to 12

protect public heal th, please do not limit the ability of 13

land managers to use fire as a natural disturbance process 14

and as a critical restoration tool. 15

Treat the major ozone pollution sources: 16

automobiles and diesel exhaust, coal plants and other 17

stationary sources. And recognize that fire suppression 18

effects have largely failed to limit their resource damage 19

in the Sierra Nevada and failed to limit uncharacteristic 20

high

- severity fire. 21

Fire is

-- let's see, so the final thing I'll say 22

is that fire is a very important tool for restoration. It 23

builds resilience and it li mits the uncontrolled emissions 24

from large wildfire. Thank you, very much. 25358

MS. JORDAN: Thanks

. 1

MS. STONE: Yeah. 2

MR. THOMAS: Any questions? 3

MS. STONE: Yeah, I have a question. 4

MR. THOMAS: Yeah? 5

MS. STONE: This project that you talked about, 6

about alerting communities that there's going to be a 7

prescribed fire, that it's happening and here's what you 8

can do? 9

MS. THOMAS: Correct. 10

MS. STONE: Who's in charge of that, because I 11

think that might be a good model for other places. 12

MS. THOMAS: Well, thank you very much. I 13

grabbed the idea from a Forest Service employee in Northern 14

California, actually she was a very astute public affairs 15

officer. And she started just calling the personal doctors 16

in the community where she lived as ano ther way to get to 17

people, so that they'd see and hear about the plan. 18

So Sierra Forest Legacy took that and we 19

partnered in an agreement with the Forest Service that we 20

would write these series of alerts. And our logo goes on 21

and the Forest Service log o goes on these

-- they're one

22

page notifications, maybe a page and a half, basically. 23

And it starts out with, "The Forest Service's planning a 24

project in this area and here's why," you know? But the 25359

next thing we say in the message is

-- like we do, we' re 1

all feeling human beings like you and, "We care about you. 2

Here's the proposed timing and here's the things you can do 3

to protect yourself. And those things we don't make up, we 4

take it from you guys. 5

MS. STONE: Right. 6

MS. THOMAS: And California Airborne has a huge 7

amount of literature, so we go through all of that and we 8

work with the Forest Service officials to develop the 9

things that people can do, general knowledge things people 10

can do to protect themselves. 11

But the more important thing is we try to target 12

and get some really good information about where those 13

pollutants are likely to go. So it's not just 100 miles 14

away that nobody reads. It's zoning right into the schools 15

that are in the pathway of the thing, so we created it and 16

we did t hat with the Fresno

- Madera Medical Society, Sequoia 17

National Forest, that particular district where we have a 18

big 10,000 acre burn planned and it's a place where no 19

mechanical treatment can even get to. So it's fire we like 20

or fire we don't want of the tw o other choices. 21

And the Forest Service has a large restoration 22

objective to treat a whole bunch of acres and some of them 23

we can a mechanical. Most of them all have to be 24

maintained with fire or we lose the value of the treatment 25360

sooner or later. So we thought let's step into this in a 1

new way. And the medical society was wonderful to work 2

with. They're a large organization and they have this 3

massive list of all health community members and doctors 4

that work in respiratory health. 5

MS. STONE: Rig ht, well we do a lot of that work 6

with respect to fires that are actually wildfires that are 7

out of control. And so we work very hard on our 8

communication approaches, who we reach out to, how we 9

convey the information. And so it would seem like this 10

woul d be the type of thing that would also be useful. Lots 11

of places do it different ways. In eastern North Carolina 12

they have door hangtags that they put on doors when they 13

think they're going to have a prescribed fire. It's not as 14

precise, but this was te n years back. 15

MS. THOMAS: Yeah. I can email you that 16

notification sweep, so it's like there's going to be a 17

fire, it's in planning. Then the next one is it's being 18

lit." 19

MS. STONE: So I could get up with you if it's

-- 20

MS. THOMAS: Absolutely. I t's going to be lit 21

and then the third one is it's going to end soon. 22

MR. PAGE: Did you have a question? 23

MS. JORDAN: I was just going to ask do you 24

coordinate with whichever local air district has 25361

jurisdiction in that area? 1

MS. THOMAS: We have. S o we do this alert system 2

and then we get a call from the San Joaquin Air Public 3

Affairs and they picked it up and the Fresno representative 4

from the Lung Association and they called us up and said, 5

"Let's have lunch." And you know, honestly I wasn't sure 6

if they were going to be happy about us engaging like this 7

or not. And then it was a wonderful meeting. It was very 8

powerful. They were like, "We need help understanding the 9

ecological reasoning for why we're putting smoke in the 10

air. And we can help broadcast this kind of thing." 11

So now it's much more closely aligned. And you 12

know, honestly the government shutdown prevented that 13

10,000 acre burn right on the day it was going to get lit, 14

which was very tragic and costly for everybody. But we 15

still had the system put out and we've refined it a bit now 16

and we're happy to share that with anybody if it's useful. 17

MS. STONE: Okay. 18

MS. THOMAS: That's great. And I think the key 19

thing is getting to the physician community who talks to 20

the patients. 21

MR. PAGE: Right. 22

MS. STONE: Yeah, we know that. 23

MS. THOMAS: And the school nurses are talking to 24

the parents and you guys know that. A lot of it seems like 25362

it was a new thing to a lot of folks, but I give a lot of 1

credit for the Forest Service, be cause they're the ones 2

that came up with the idea. 3

MR. PAGE: Thank you, very much. 4

MS. THOMAS: Thank you very much. Thank you for 5

being here. 6

MR. PAGE: Mr. B ettis? 7

RICK B ETTIS 8

MR. B ETTIS: yes, thank you. My name is Rick 9

B ettis, that's R

- I

- C

- K B

- E

- T

- T

- I

- S. And I'm speaking as a 10

retired engineer and a volunteer with several organizations 11

on air quality, climate change, energy issues. And that's 12

Breathe, California which is a spinoff of the Lung 13

Association and also (indiscernible) at the state level. 14

Breathe is a

-- I work with their local affiliate, the 15

Sacramento Chapter, and also the Sierra Club and the League 16

of Women Voters and a little bit with Physicians for Social 17

Responsibility who you've heard earlier toda y. 18

And I am here to well urge your assertive action 19

on this. And I recognize your background paper says 20

there's uncertainty with respect to the benefits of going 21

below the 65 parts per billion, but I would think this is a 22

time when they're talking about health and human lives, to 23

take what I would call a progressionary principle, in 24

pushing for 60 parts per billion if we can justify that, 25363

and I think you can strictly on the health benefits. 1

I believe that we have to do this, because other 2

factors are m aking this problem worse. One of them is 3

climate change. As our global warming occurs that's going 4

to make the effects of ozone worse and actually I think it 5

accelerates the formation of ozone as I understand it. 6

And another thing, all these young peo ple back there, 7

they are wonderful and I think we should do all we can to 8

protect them. But I've got a factor is the aging newer 9

population. Our baby boomers are reaching an age where 10

they're more at risk from these health effects, 11

cardiovascular as well as other health effects. 12

So I feel

-- I just wanted to make sure

-- and I 13

really didn't prepare like Mr. Thomas did, but I really 14

feel that we should move this as far and as fast as we can. 15

And like I say I'm speaking for these three organizations, 16

the y're local chapters. And I hope you can move forward. 17

I don't mind pitching, but I'm a little bit familiar with 18

the forest practices world and I certainly think that what 19

Mr. Thomas mentioned is a great idea. And he'll have a 20

welcome here in Sacramento. 21

And Larry Greene, who I think spoke earlier 22

today, will I think be a welcoming person to work with. 23

He's our local air pollution control officer. So thank 24

you. 25364

MR. PAGE: Great, thank you for much for coming. 1

MS. STONE: Thank you. 2

MS. JORDAN: Thank you. 3

MR. PAGE: Is Sarah Matsumoto? 4

MS. Matsumoto: Yes. 5

MR. PAGE: Very good, okay. Welcome. 6

(Colloquy between Ms. Matsumoto and panel members) 7

SARAH MATSUMOTO 8

MS. MATSUMOTO: So I'm Sarah Matsumoto, S

- A

- R

- A

9

H, Matsumoto is M

- A

- T

- S

- U

- M

- O

- T

- O. I'm from Oakland, 10

California and work with the Sierra Club. 11

So I will try to keep it brief, because you've 12

heard from hundreds of our volunteers and members today. 13

But we really just wanted to say thank you to the EPA for 14

one, working to addres s smog pollution through these new 15

standards. And two, for having this space for us to come 16

and speak about. So you've heard from the students from 17

Coachella Valley just how critical an issue this is and how 18

personal an issue. And so we hope to work wit h you to save 19

thousands of lives and millions of dollars by a stronger 20

smog pollution standard. 21

So personally, I am going to have a baby in the 22

summer. 23

MS. STONE: Congratulations

. 24

MS. MATSUMOTO: Thank you. I've told some of my 25365

friends, but now it's on the record. 1

MR. PAGE: Yeah. I t's official federal business 2

now , yes. 3

MS. MATSUMOTO: But I wanted to speak about that, 4

because as someone who may know, it makes you worry all the 5

time about everything about what you're eating and what 6

you're putting on your skin and the cleaning products you 7

use. I mean, I constantly am worrying about the whole 8

thing. And there's this one huge threat to my children and 9

me and my family and my community that I can't do very much 10

about personally, which is air pollution. 11

And so that's why we're really hoping that you 12

all can protect us, protect our children. Of course, you 13

know that children and the elderly are some of the most 14

vulnerable to air pollution. I really don't want my kids 15

to grow up like many of the children we heard, not being 16

able to run around and play. And we've had a number of 17

Spare the Air Days where we're worried about going outside. 18

And, you know, I don't want them to struggle for air and 19

not be able to play soccer like some of the ki ds we heard. 20

Or I don't want them to grow up with asthma worrying about 21

midnight emergency visits. 22

But unfortunately, that really is the reality of 23

too many people in our communities, especially here in 24

California. As you may know a majority of the p eople in 25366

California live in counties with bad air and I think that's 1

just really unacceptable. And I hope it's unacceptable to 2

people that are working to set these standards and clean up 3

the air. 4

And in addition, this personally impacts low

5

income com munities and communities of color. As you may 6

know, African American and Latino children are two

- to

- six 7

times more likely to die from asthma, which I think is just 8

horrible and unfair and highly unjust. 9

So I could go on longer, but you've heard a lot. 10

So I just wanted to say again, you know, we are really 11

depending on you all to set as strong a pollution standard 12

as possible. And we really hope that you'll take 13

everything that you heard and everything that you know. 14

You've been researching for lives a nd personal careers and 15

worked to save thousands of people and millions of dollars 16

for California and the rest of the country. So thank you. 17

MR. PAGE: Thank you. 18

MS. JORDAN: Thank you. 19

MR. PAGE: Thank you very much for coming. 20

(Panel colloquy off re: closing hearing) 21

MR. PAGE: Well, that concludes this hearing on 22

the proposed NAAQS. We had a great turnout today, lots of 23

variety in the folks that testified. I can tell you I 24

never come to one of these things without learning 25367

something and this was no exception. We had a really 1

thoughtful group of folks here. 2

And again, I want to thank the folks that helped 3

support the hearing today. If you'll pass on the thank you 4

to the folks in California for providing this space and to 5

this space. Thank for the translation, we did need you. 6

Thank you very much. 7

TRANSLATOR: I know. 8

MR. PAGE: And thanks to everybody. We'll 9

conclude this hearing and if anybody's moved to submit 10

comments they can still be done through the EPA website 11

through March 17t h. 12

And with that do any of the other panel members 13

have anything to say? 14

(No audible response.) 15

We'll close it. Thank you very much for your 16

services. I appreciate it. All right. 17

(Whereupon, at 7:32 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.) 18

19

* * * 20

21

22

23

24

25 26368

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

ca ption.

I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand this 3rd day of March , 201 5

.

PETER PETTY CER**D

- 493 Notary Public

1369

1370

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

ca ption.

I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand this 3rd day of March , 201 5

.

Rebe c ca Hudson371

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 per son, 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