NAAQS PUBLIC HEARING 

UNITED STATES OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

COASTAL HEARING ROOM, SECOND FLOOR

1001 I STREET

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2012

9:04 A.M.

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

LICENSE NUMBER 12277

CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC

52 LONGWOOD DRIVE

SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901

(415) 457-4417
APPEARANCES

PANEL MEMBERS

Ms. Lydia Wegman, Chairperson

Mr. Kerry Drake

Ms. Deborah Jordan

Mr. John Hannon

Ms. Beth Hassett-Sipple

Ms. Gwen Yoshimura

ALSO PRESENT

Mr. Wally Albers, CVC America

Ms. Katie Barton

Mr. Brian Bateman, Bay Area AQMD

Mr. Rick Bettis

Ms. Julia Burrows, Greenwise

Ms. Hermalinda Chavez, Fresno Metro Ministry

Dr. Bradly Chipps, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ms. Stephanie Christiansen

Mr. Roger Christy

Mr. William Cooper, New Voices Are Rising

Dr. Linda Copeland, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Mr. Paul Cort, Earth Justice

Mr. Bill Davis

Mr. Steven Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Dr. Deborah Drechsler, CARB
APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Ms. Mary Elizabeth

Ms. Ranisha Evans, New Voices Are Rising

Mr. Matt Fidanque

Mr. Mei Fuiava, New Voices Are Rising

Mr. Tom Fulks, Diesel Technology Forum

Ms. Socorro Gaeta, Fresno Metro Ministry

Ms. Ina Gotlieb, Families for Clean Air

Dr. Shelley Green, OEHHA

Mr. Larry Greene, Sacramento Metro AQMD

Ms. Susan Griffin, American Lung Association

Mr. Kevin Hall, CVAQC

Mr. Kevin Hamilton

Mr. Jose Hernandez

Ms. Socorro Hernandez, Fresno Metro Ministry

Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, ALA

Ms. Jennifer Hui

Ms. Jean Jackman

Mr. Dan Jacobson, Environment California

Mr. Chris Kaiser, Rio Tinto

Mr. Andy Katz, Breathe California

Mr. Brandon Kitagawa, RAMP

Ms. Karen Klinger

Ms. Robin Kristufek, Physicians for Social Responsibility
APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Ms. Amy Padula

Ms. Sofia Parino, Center on Race, Poverty and the 

Environment

Mr. Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals

Mr. Gary Peterson

Ms. Betty Plowman

Dr. Robyn Prueitt, Gradient

Ms. Laura Lem, New Voices Are Rising

Mr. Michael Lewis, CIAQC

Mr. Robert Linkul, ALA

Ms. Tammy Lou

Mr. Rocio Martinez

Mr. Nick Matthews, Environment California

Ms. Theresa Maxwell

Ms. Maria Melgoza

Mr. Steven Maxwell

Mr. Roger McClennan

Mr. Robert McClerran, California Construction Trucking 

Association

Mr. Michael Monasky, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Mr. John Moore

Ms. Anne Mosgrove, CVAQC

Ms. Erica Morehouse, Environmental Defense Fund

Ms. Nakita Naik, NRDC
APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Ms. Janice Nolen, American Lung Association

Mr. John Nguyen, New Voices Are Rising

Dr. Kent Pinkerton, American Thoracic Society

Ms. Katherine Phillips, Sierra Club California

Ms. Robyn Prueitt, Gradient

Mr. John Rasmussen

Ms. Marcia Rasmussen

Ms. Sue Regan, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Mr. Mike Rogge, California Manufacturers and Technology 

Association

Ms. Lydia Rojas, American Lung Association

Ms. Ann Rothschild

Mr. Kelton Runnels, New Voices Are Rising

Ms. Stephanie Safdi

Ms. Sarah Sharpe, Fresno Metro Ministry

Ms. Sasha Shyduroff, Sierra Student Coalition

Ms. Rebecca Silverman

Ms. Gurleen Singh

Ms. Vickie Simmons, Moapa Band of Paiutes

Ms. Corrine Smith, Center for Environment Health

Ms. Susan Stephenson

Ms. Katherine Thompson

Mr. Errol Villegas
APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Mr. Johnson Vo, New Voices Are Rising

Mr. Harry Wang, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Mr. Mike Wang, WSPA

Ms. Jane Warner, American Lung Association

Ms. Gayann Barnsley White

Ms. Catherine Garoupa White

Ms. Susan Wilke

Ms. Jaxin Woodward
INDEX

 PAGE

Introduction1

Ms. Griffin8

Ms. Nolen 13

Ms. Warner 18

Mr. Maxwell 20

Ms. Rojas 23

Mr. Greene 26

Ms. Stephenson 31

Ms. White 32

Mr. Fulks 37

Ms. Shyduroff 41

Ms. Phillips 45

Ms. White 47

Mr. Jacobson 50

Mr. Matthews 52

Ms. Christiansen 54

Ms. Morehouse 56

Dr. Padula 58

Ms. Woodward 63

Ms. Smith 65

Mr. Cort 68

Ms. Simmons 71

Mr. Kaiser 75

Mr. Villegas 81

Ms. Rothchild 88

Mr. McClellan 89

Ms. Gotlieb 94

Ms. Naik 99

Dr. Prueitt 103

Mr. Davis 108

Ms. Holmes-Gen 111

Dr. Pinkerton 115

Dr. Drechsler 118

Mr. Linkul 122

Mr. McClerran 125

Ms. Plowman 129

Mr. Martinez 132

Ms. Melgoza 133

Ms. Wilkie 136

Mr. Wang 142

Ms. Jackman 146

Mr. Lewis 149

Ms. Sharpe 154

Mr. Hall 157

Mr. Hamilton 162
INDEX CONTINUED

 PAGE

Mr. Christy 165

Ms. Burrows 169

Ms. Gaeta 173

Ms. Chavez 174

Ms. Hernandez 175

Mr. Rogge 176

Mr. Hernandez 181

Dr. Green 185

Mr. Bateman 189

Ms. Lou 194

Ms. Singh 194

Mr. Fidanque 194

Ms. Hui 195

Ms. Barton 195

Ms. Silverman 195

Ms. Rasmussen 196

Mr. Rasmussen 197

Mr. Peterson 199

Ms. Safdi 202

Ms. Parino 203

Ms. Williams 206

Ms. Lem 206

Mr. Nguyen 207

Mr. Cooper 208

Mr. Runnels 209

Ms. Evans 209

Mr. Fuiava 210

Mr. Vo 210

Mr. Kitagawa 211

Ms. Maxwell 215

Ms. Elizabeth 219

Mr. Katz 219

Mr. Douglas 223

Ms. Klinger 229

Dr. Kristufek 234

Mr. Monasky 238

Dr. Wang 243

Mr. Moore 248

Dr. Chipps 256

Ms. Thompson 261

Ms. Bettis 263

Ms. Regan 265

Dr. Copeland 268

Mr. Albers 270

Mr. Peters 275

Adjournment 283

Reporter's Certificate 284
PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Good morning, everyone. And 

thank you very much for attending the US Environmental 

Protection Agency's public hearing on our proposed rule 

for particulate matter. 

I recognize many of you have traveled quite a 

distance to attend this hearing, and I'm very appreciative 

of the time you've all taken to come here and provide 

testimony to us on this proposed rule. It means a lot to 

us that you have made this effort, and we look forward to 

hearing from each and every one of you who wants to speak. 

My name is Lydia Wegman, and I'm the Director of 

the Health and Environmental Impacts Division for EPA's 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and I'll be 

Chairing today's hearing. I will go over more details on 

the hearing and the proposed rule in a moment, as well as 

introduce the Panel. 

But before I do that, I've been asked to just 

provide some information about housekeeping arrangements. 

And the first is that I need to explain what actions to 

take in case of an emergency. California Air Resources 

Board has asked us to provide this information to 

everybody here in the building. If an emergency situation 

should arise, which of course we very much hope does not 

occur, an alarm will sound and strobe lights will indicate 

California Reporting, LLC

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the need to evacuate the building. Please follow Agency 

staff to the doors -- to the exit doors, and we will go 

down the stairs and exit the building. And the designated 

relocation area is across the street in Cesar Chaves Park. 

And we will be notified when it is time to re-center the 

building. 

And rest rooms are located around the corner to 

your left. I understand there is a drinking fountain 

there as well. 

And just so folks know, the workshop is -- well, 

it's not a workshop. Our public hearing is scheduled to 

last until 9:00 this evening. So if you know anybody who 

wants to speak, please invite them to come. We'll be here 

all day. We will be taking a lunch break at 12:30 and 

dinner break at 6:00 for an hour and a half each, I 

believe. 

So to continue now, today, we are here to listen 

to your comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the 

national ambient air quality standards, or NAAQS, for 

particulate matter, PM. And this hearing is an 

opportunity for the public to comment on our proposed 

rule. And we and the Panel may ask questions to clarify 

comments that you make. 

But our purpose today is to hear your comments. 

And we're not here to debate or discuss the proposal. But 

California Reporting, LLC

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
we are happy to answer any clarifying questions you may 

have, if there's something that's unclear to you in the 

proposal. 

I want to briefly describe the proposed rule that 

is the subject of our hearing today. It was published in 

the Federal Register on June 29th of this year. An 

extensive body of scientific evidence shows that exposure 

to particulate matter causes premature death and is linked 

to a variety of significant health problems, such as 

increased hospital admissions and emergency department 

visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems, 

including non-fatal heart attacks. Exposure to 

particulate matter is also linked to the development of 

chronic respiratory disease. 

With regard to welfare effects, there is a 

long-standing science characterizing the contribution of 

particulate matter, especially fine particles, to 

visibility impairment. In addition, there is scientific 

evidence that particulate matter is linked to a variety of 

non-visibility welfare effects, including ecological 

effects, effects on materials, and climate impacts. 

The current NAAQS PM standards includes standards 

for both fine and coarse particles. The standards for 

fine particles, also known as PM2.5 generally refer to 

particles which are less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

California Reporting, LLC

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
in diameter. The standards for coarse particles also 

known as PM10 generally refer to particles less than or 

equal to 10 micrometers in diameter. And the PM10 

standards provide protection against effects for particles 

that are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter, but 

larger than PM2.5 or PM10 minus 2.5, which is another way 

in which we measure coarse particles. 

The U.S. EPA is proposing to revise the current 

suite of fine particle standards to provide increased 

protection of public health and welfare. And in doing so, 

we are responding to a court decision we received from the 

US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

which remanded to us the primary annual PM2.5 standard and 

the secondary PM2.5 standard that we set in 2006. And 

this was a litigation on that 2006 standard. And we are 

proposing to retain the current coarse particle standards 

and we are asking for public comments on all aspects of 

our proposed standards. 

So to go over in a little more detail what we are 

proposing. For the primary standards to protect public 

health, we propose to lower the level of the annual PM2.5 

standard from the current level of 15.0 micrograms per 

cubic meter to a level within the range of 12.0 to 13.0 

micrograms per cubic meter. 

We're proposing to retain the 24-hour PM 2.5 

California Reporting, LLC

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
standard level at a level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter 

and to retain, as I said, the current 24-hour PM10 

standard at a level of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. 

With respect to the secondary standards to 

protect public welfare, we're proposing to set separate 

fine particle standard to address PM-related visibility 

impairment, primarily in urban areas, and retain the 

current secondary standards for PM 2.5 and PM10 to 

continue to provide protection for non-visibility welfare 

effects. 

This proposal also addresses several things 

related to implementation and monitoring for PM generally. 

We are proposing to update our air quality index, or AQI, 

for PM2.5 to be consistent with the proposed primary fine 

particle standards. And we are proposing to update our 

fine particle monitoring regulations, including adding a 

requirement that a small number of PM2.5 monitors be 

relocated to measure fine particles near heavily traveled 

roads. 

We have proposed grandfathering pre-construction 

permitting applications, and we are also specifying an 

approach for implementing the prevention of significant 

deterioration program, particularly for the proposed 

secondary standard, the visibility standard for fine 

particles. 

California Reporting, LLC

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Our proposed rule provides a significant amount 

of background information and describes our current 

thoughts on implementation issues related to the proposed 

NAAQS revisions. 

And there are fact sheets outside the room here 

if you want to get a brief overview of what's in the 

proposal. And I believe we also have copies of the issues 

on which we're requesting comments throughout the 

proposal. That's also available outside. And that might 

be helpful if you do want to submit written comments. 

Today's hearing is one of two public hearings 

we're conducting on this proposal. We held a hearing on 

July 17th in Philadelphia, and we are going to be 

preparing a written transcript of each of the hearings, if 

you are interested in seeing it. Those transcripts will 

be available as part of the official record for the rule. 

The hearing record will be kept open for 30 days 

after completion of these public hearings to provide an 

opportunity for submission of any rebuttal comments and 

any supplementary information that you might wish to 

provide. 

And in addition, more information can be 

provided, of course, in written comments on the proposed 

rule. And the comment period for this rule remains open 

until August 31st of this year. And there are handouts 

California Reporting, LLC

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
outside, not only on what we're requesting comment on, but 

how to submit written comments, if you wish to do so. 

Now how will today's hearing work? I will call 

the scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. I 

would ask that you come up together. When it is your turn 

to speak, please state your name and affiliation, if you 

have one. And it also help our court reporter if you 

could spell out your name. We have Tiffany as our court 

reporter. And it will help her just in case there are any 

names that she doesn't know how to spell. 

To be fair to everyone, we are asking you limit 

your testimony to five minutes each and to remain at the 

microphone until both speakers in the pair have finished 

speaking. After you finish your testimony, we may ask 

clarifying questions. And we are, as I said, transcribing 

today's hearing. And each speaker's oral testimony will 

become part of the official record. 

And again, if you have any additional -- I should 

say if you have any additional written comments, 

references or data to support your testimony and you have 

that with you, please provide a copy to our staff at the 

registration table and we will put those materials in the 

docket for you. 

We have a time keeping system of green, yellow, 

and red lights. When you begin speaking, the green light 

California Reporting, LLC

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
will come on. You have five minutes to speak. And then 

the yellow light will signal you have two minutes left to 

speak. And when the red light comes on, we will ask you 

to stop speaking. And if you are still talking, I will 

ask you to stop speaking after a few seconds. 

We plan to stay until 9:00 tonight, as I said. 

And if anyone is here who has not registered to speak but 

wishes to do so, please register at the table outside. 

We have tried to accommodate everyone's request 

for specific time slots. And please be patient as we 

proceed through the list today. 

Now, our panel members, I'd like to introduce 

them all. We have John Hannon here. He's with our EPA's 

Office of General Counsel. Gwen Yoshimura is with our 

Region 9 office in San Francisco. Debbie Jordan is the 

Director of the Air Division with our Region 9 office in 

San Francisco. And Beth Hassett-Sipple works with me in 

the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in the 

Health and Environmental Impacts Division. 

Again, thank you all for coming today and 

participating in our hearing. 

And I will now call our first two speakers, who 

are Susan Griffin and Janice Nolen. 

Good morning. 

MS. GRIFFIN: Great. Thank you. 

California Reporting, LLC

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
My name is Susan Griffin, G-r-i-f-f-i-n. 

And again, good morning, Panel. It's nice to 

meet you this morning. And welcome to Sacramento, for 

those of you who are not from here. 

My name is Susan Griffin. And I'm on a member of 

the National Board of Directors of the American Lung 

Association and also on the Board of Directors for the 

State American Lung Association in California. 

I've been a volunteer with the Lung Association 

since 1989, and I live in Woodland in Yolo County, which 

is a small city close to Sacramento. 

I'm a third generation native San Franciscan and 

relocated from the Bay Area in 2003. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to let 

me share my personal perspective and the position of the 

American Lung Association with you on the need for new, 

stronger, health-based particulate matter national air 

quality standards. 

First, let me share with you that I'm a 

grandmother with an 11-year-old grandson who has asthma. 

He suffered with his illness for five years. Because of 

his asthma, my grandson had to have three injections a 

week and take asthma and allergy medications that had 

serious side effects. Those side effects and those 

medications negatively impacted his ability to learn in 

California Reporting, LLC

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
school. Last fall, he moved out of this area and moved to 

the coast and now is doing much better. 

Children like my grandson desperately need strong 

federal action to clean the air. The national ambient air 

quality standards provide the backbone for nearly 

everything we do in this country to protect all Americans, 

including children and vulnerable populations. The 

standards define how much particle pollution can be in the 

air we breathe and still have it safe for us all to 

breathe. 

Not just safe for healthy adults, but safe for 

newborn babies, for teens with asthma like my grandson, 

for retirees with heart disease, for mothers with 

diabetes. For my daughter and her children and seniors, 

like my dad, who is 91. 

More than 40 years ago, Congress passed an 

important public health law, the Clean Air Act. The Act 

states that the standards should be set at a level that 

will protect health with an adequate margin of safety. 

The sole basis is the impact on human health, a decision 

upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court in 2001. 

Now the only issue is to decide how much particle 

pollution it takes to make people sick from breathing it. 

The American Lung Association believes the current 

standards allow far too much particulate matter into the 

California Reporting, LLC

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
air. The Lung Association urges the EPA to adopt much 

stronger more protective fine particle standards. We 

recommend an annual standard of 11 micrograms per cubic 

meter and a 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic 

meter. 

Since 1997, when EPA adopted the current annual 

standard, more than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific 

studies have been published. The evidence is clear that 

particulate matter kills, causing premature death and 

threatening respiratory and cardiovascular systems. These 

studies inform us that millions of people face higher risk 

from particulate matter. And those at-risk groups include 

infants, children, teenagers, who are still developing 80 

percent of their lungs. Older adults whose respiratory 

systems have worked hard for decades are also impaired. 

People with lung disease like asthma or COPD, people with 

cardiovascular disease or diabetes, and people who have 

low incomes and even healthy adults who exercise or work 

outdoors. 

The evidence for these conclusions comes from 

large studies of differ populations across the nation and 

internationally. Recent research also has expanded our 

understanding of the wide range of harm that particles 

cause and has found these harms at lower exposure levels 

than previously reported. The new evidence reinforces 

California Reporting, LLC

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
already existing strong studies and supports the 

conclusion that particulate matter harms humans at 

exposure levels far below the current standards. This 

conclusion demands prompt action to protect human health. 

Last year, we released a report with our 

colleagues at Earth Justice and the Clean Air Task Force 

that estimated the benefits of cleaner healthier air. 

That report called "Sick of Soot" found that if the nation 

cleaned up particles enough to meet the standard 

recommended by the American Lung Association -- that's an 

annual standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter and 

24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter -- that 

we could prevent the premature deaths of 35,700 people 

each year. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Ms. Griffin, if I could ask 

you to please wrap up, I'd appreciate it. I'm sorry. 

MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you very much. I saw red, 

but I thought it was something else. I apologize. 

Anyway, I just want to thank you very much for 

your time. And I ask and urge you to please help my 

grandson and other children who are suffering from asthma 

by moderating the standard so that we have a margin of 

safety. And thank you very much. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 

much. 

California Reporting, LLC

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
If you could just stay where you are until 

Ms. Nolen speaks, thank you. 

MS. NOLEN: Good morning. My name is Janice 

Nolen. J-a-n-i-c-e. N-o-l-e-n. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 

proposed particulate matter national ambient air quality 

standards. 

I'm the Assistant Vice President of National 

Policy and Advocacy for the American Lung Association. 

I also want to thank you and the EPA for the hard 

work it has taken to get us to this hearing. As Susan 

Griffin shared with you, the Lung Association believes 

that this current primary standards fail to meet the 

requirements for the Clean Air Act to protect human 

health. 

I'd like to take a few minutes to explain our 

support for an annual standard of 11 and a 24-hour 

standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. We will submit 

much more detailed discussion into the docket. 

First, the current standards cannot protect human 

health as required. Multiple large city studies show 

convincing evidence of serious harm at levels well below 

15, the extensive data from the Women's Health Initiative, 

the extended American Cancer Society Study, the MediCare 

study all show that levels of exposure well below 15 are 

California Reporting, LLC

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
associated with serious harm, including premature death. 

As the extended studies have shown, current 

levels of particulate matter, though lower, continue to 

cause premature deaths and other harms. Consequently, we 

need to protect against pollution, not just at the main 

levels, but well below the main to begin to meet the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

The Lung Association supports an annual standard 

of 11 because it would protect against harm shown with 

high confidence based in major studies. Looking at where 

to set the standard, EPA has argued that the strongest 

certainty about the data in these studies lies in the data 

above the 25 percentile. Just to be clear, the question 

is not over whether there is harm, but how much harm 

occurs at these levels. 

We note that several major studies show evidence 

of harm below 12 that fall well above the 25th percentile 

and well within EPA's own assessment of levels where 

strong certainty exists. The large Women's Health 

Initiative and the Medicare study both had data showing 

harm with strong certainty well below twelve. Even that 

data -- even the data that EPA scientists found the most 

robust, the extended Cancer Society Cohort, had its 25 

percentile at 12 and had 11 as one standard deviation 

below the main values. Given the evidence that no 

California Reporting, LLC

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
threshold of harm exists, we believe this calls for an 

annual standard of 11. 

One large long-term exposure study with its main 

value below 12 found serious harm to one of our most 

vulnerable populations, new-born babies. Babies aren't 

just the most vulnerable because of their age. Their 

exposure to pollution in the womb and until maturity can 

effect their health throughout their entire lives. 

Measuring those end points, too, is in its 

infancy. But the evidence so far tells us that they need 

desperately that critical protection, the potential harm 

and the magnitude of that harm demanded. 

The 24-hour standard also needs to be 

strengthened. The Lung Association disagrees with EPA's 

conclusion that the annual standard should be the 

controlling standard and that the 24-hour standard could 

remain at 35 and provide supplemental protection. 

Fundamentally, we do not agree that either

standard should be controlling. Both should be determined 

based on their ability to protect health. Sources that 

cause elevated short-term levels are very often different 

from those that cause annual levels. And communities 

where the sources dominate deserve a standard that 

protects them, too. 

Thanks to numerous studies, we know that 

California Reporting, LLC

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
traffic-generated air pollution, including fine 

particulate matter, increases risks to our health. We 

commend EPA's proposal to begin a roadside monitoring of 

PM2.5, but urge that EPA expand the network to protect the 

health of millions of Americans who live in high-traffic 

areas. Without adequate monitoring, we will not know the 

full extent of the burden the source places on our health. 

The roadside monitors are also essential tools to help us 

know whether the steps we are taking to clean up 

particulate matter are working as hoped. 

Finally, I note that the Washington Post reported 

that the White House changed EPA's proposal to include 13 

and an option for the annual standard. We are 

disappointed that the White House once again has injected 

itself into the scientific review in a way that would 

provide significantly less protection to public health. 

These standards should be set as the law requires on the 

basis of the health science at levels that protect the 

public. The American people deserve nothing less. Such 

protection requires a 24-hour standard of 25 and an annual 

standard of 11. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Yes, John? 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Ms. Nolen, quick question. 

On the issue of which is controlling, the 24-hour 

California Reporting, LLC

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
versus the annual, you said you disagreed and that we 

should -- neither should control and they should both be 

based on what the science tells you. Perhaps in your 

comments it would be helpful to expand on how that fits 

with the remand from the DC circuit on the 2006 NAAQS. In 

the last review, EPA looked just at the science from the 

short-term studies to look at the 24-hour standard and put 

it off on the side and then looked just at the science on 

the long-term studies for the annual standard and the 

court rejected that. It's not an adequate way to address 

the long-term risk or the short-term risk, that we really 

need to look at a combination, a suite of standards. In 

effect, they said we didn't have a good explanation of why 

we could look at them separately and treat them as either 

separate issues. 

So I don't know exactly what you're saying yet, 

and I'm sure it will be explained in much more detail in 

your written comments. Would it be useful to tie it back 

to the court's concerns from the last review. 

MS. NOLEN: We're happy to do that. 

I will just say quickly that one of the things 

we're looking at is the options of making sure that in 

linking both them together we're not -- we are not 

neglecting the harm that exists at that level for the 

short-term standard. And that it's supplemental, but 

California Reporting, LLC

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
essential. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both very much. 

Our next two speakers are Jane Warner and Dr. 

Steven Maxwell. 

MS. WARNER: Good morning. My name is Jane 

Warner, W-a-r-n-e-r. I'm the President and CEO of the 

American Lung Association in California. 

From the first breath to the last breath, our 

lives are defined by the simple act of breathing. But for 

far too many, breathing is anything but simple. 

California is home to some of the most polluted 

air in America. The San Joaquin Valley residents 

experience the worst particle pollution. Bakersfield tops 

the list of the most polluted cities in the country in 

both annual and short-term particle pollution. Three 

other cities in the Central Valley, Fresno, Hanford, and 

Modesto, rank in the top five worst polluted cities in the 

nation. 

More than 75 percent of Californians live in 

areas that experience unhealthy levels of particulate 

matter, particulate pollution, and breathe that every 

year. 

Children who grow up in California experience 

stunted lung development that they live with for the rest 

California Reporting, LLC

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
of their lives and they have a far greater risk of 

developing asthma. And you will hear from a mother who 

has lost a child to asthma today. 

Fine particle pollution is deadly. Breathing 

particulate matter is linked. We know this through 

science, asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart attacks, 

strokes, and many, many more visits to the emergency room 

and to the hospital. Particulate matter and particulate 

pollution takes the lives of over 9,000 Californians every 

year. In California, cars, trucks, diesel freight 

movement and wood smoke contribute to this unhealthy 

situation. 

Strengthening the standards is the right thing to 

do. It is the right thing for our children. They are 

depending on us. They are depending on you to make the 

right decision. You must set stronger standards. You 

must set the standard at 11 micrograms and 25 micrograms 

for the reasons that Janice just shared with you. 

When a baby takes their first breath to the time 

when all of us will take our last breath, our lives are 

defined by breathing. We need you to set stronger 

standards. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Just one request, Ms. Griffin. You mentioned the 

figures of the number Californians that die from exposure 

California Reporting, LLC

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to PM each year. I assume when the ALA submits comments, 

there will be some citations for those figures, but it 

will be helpful. 

MS. WARNER: Absolutely. We will provide you 

with that information, no question. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Thank you. 

DR. MAXWELL: Thank you, Dr. Wegman. 

My name is Steven Maxwell. I'm a thoracic 

surgeon, Director of Thoracic Surgery in the Sutter 

Hospital system here in Sacramento. 

I'm also here today as a volunteer with the 

Sacramento Leadership Team and the American Lung 

Association of California. 

Here, in California, as you know, we have 

significant problems with particulate pollution and these 

new standards are critical to protecting our most 

vulnerable citizens from this deadly pollutant. Every day 

in my practice, I see the impacts of lung disease and lung 

cancer up close. I know the suffering, and I see it 

firsthand caused by air pollution. And I strongly support 

strengthening these life-saving regulations to remove 

cancer-causing soot from our air. 

There are thousands of scientific studies that 

have documented consistently that particulate pollution 

has deadly impacts on our health. Fine particles can 

California Reporting, LLC

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
shorten life, cause illness, and increase the risk of 

hospital and emergency room admissions. Infants, before 

and after they're born, children, and teenagers are 

especially sensitive to particulate pollution, as are the 

elderly and people with cardiovascular disease, lung 

disease, or diabetes. 

According to the State Air Board's research, over 

9,000 Californians die annually due to particulate matter 

pollution, including over 600 right here in Sacramento 

alone. We must do more to protect our citizens from 

preventable disease and death from air pollution sources, 

such as diesel and wood smoke. 

The World Health Organization recently concluded 

that diesel particulate matter, which is a component of 

total PM2.5 mass, is a known human carcinogen. But 

bringing it closer to home, earlier this week, I admitted 

to the hospital a 14-year-old girl who had severe 

life-threatening asthma for having done nothing other than 

playing outside on one of our bad air days with her 

friends. It was neither her last admission or first 

admission to the hospital. 

I view the Clean Air Act and strong air quality 

standards as tools to help patients like these and urge 

you to help significantly strengthen both the annual and 

24-hour average national ambient air quality standards for 

California Reporting, LLC

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the fine particulate matter to protect public health. 

I may be the only person testifying today who 

hopes that your actions will actually put me out of work. 

As such, I hope you will use this opportunity to build 

standards that would actually prevent people from walking 

to the doctor's office or emergency room. 

We support strong standards that protect the 

health of people who are most susceptible to the serious 

health effects of particulate pollution. These effects we 

believe are preventable, and therefore your actions 

represent the most cost-effective form of medicine. 

As a volunteer of the American Lung Association 

of California, I urge you to adopt the Association's 

recommendations for stronger standards of 11 micrograms 

annually and short-term particulate pollution standards of 

25 micrograms. 

We believe that the research shows this is needed 

and in doing so will protect the most sensitive people 

with an adequate margin of safety, as required by the 

Clean Air Act. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity 

to improve lung health and prevent lung disease. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to 

speak to you today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Dr. Maxwell, you're here on 

California Reporting, LLC

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
behalf of the American Lung Association, but you're with 

ATS. Will ATS also be submitting comments or taking a 

position on the standards and the level of the standards, 

for example? 

DR. MAXWELL: I believe the ATS, the American 

Association of Thoracic Surgery, does support these 

general recommendations. I'm not speaking on behalf of 

them today, nor can I comment if there will be a 

representative for them today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both very much for 

your time and your testimony. 

Our next two speakers are Lydia Rojas and Larry 

Greene. 

MS. ROJAS: Hi. I'm Lydia Rojas, L-y-d-i-a, 

R-o-j-a-s. 

Hello. My name is Lydia Rojas. I'd like you to 

remember me as Steph's mom. The last time I saw my 

daughter, 15-year-old daughter, was when she was leaving 

for school five-and-a-half years ago. An asthma attack 

took my daughter's life during aquatic class. Steph was 

talking with her friends in the swallow end of the pool 

when they noticed a strange look come over her before her 

body went limp. Because her teacher was in the office 

talking on the phone, three of Steph's classmates had to 

pull her out of the pool. Knowing Steph had asthma, one 

California Reporting, LLC

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
of her classmates ran to the locker room to grab her 

inhaler, but the door was locked. 

When the school called to tell me Steph had been 

taken to the hospital, I was on the other line with my 

husband, not knowing my husband had also received the same 

call, only to switch back on the phone, I was startled 

when he returned on the line to hear him shout, "Get to 

the hospital now. They just took Steph." 

Too upset to drive, a friend rushed me to the 

hospital. My hopes that it was just a broken arm or leg 

were stolen from when the chaplain called to tell me to 

hurry up because it wasn't looking good. 

My life went into slow motion the moment we 

pulled into the hospital parking lot. I remember jumping 

out of the car while it was still moving and feeling 

alarmed by the number of school officials crowded out in 

front of the entrance. My friend yelled to me, "Don't 

think the worst. Think positive." And I remember yelling 

back at her saying, "How can I not think the worst? That 

was the chaplain." 

I was led into a private room and will never 

forget seeing my husband leaning against the wall with his 

face in his hands crying. Before that day, I had never 

seen my husband cry. He looked up at me and said, "She's 

gone. Stephanie is dead." And at that moment I fell to 

California Reporting, LLC

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
my knees. 

There is nothing in life that can prepare you for 

your child's funeral. No one should die from asthma, 

especially our children. My daughter deserved better that 

day. 

Overcome by anger and grief, I shut myself off to 

the outside world for three-and-a-half years. I didn't 

speak to friends, family, or neighbors. I essentially 

stopped being the mom my teenage son needed me to be and a 

ghost of a wife my husband once knew. I felt myself 

trapped in a very dark place. Sometimes I wished I would 

just go to sleep at night and never wake up. Yet for some 

miraculous reason during my darkest days, I managed to 

care for our nine-month old baby. Caring for Isabella was 

all I could bring myself to do. She was my reason to get 

out of bed every day. She was my saving grace. 

I never want another family to go through the 

pain we have endured the past several years. I want 

people to know that healthy air saves lives, and it is a 

matter of life and death for people with asthma. My son, 

daughter, and I all have asthma. I will not stand and let 

another tragedy happen to my family. 

That is why I'm here today. Setting a more 

stringent soot standard is something I urge the EPA to 

take action on now. Every breath is a gift that cannot be 

California Reporting, LLC

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
taken for granted. Soot triggers asthma attacks and can 

cause premature death. 

Please help me honor my daughter's memory by 

setting a standard that allows bright, vibrant children 

like my Steph to enjoy the long healthy lives they 

deserve. Thank you for remembering Steph when setting a 

standard. She was only 15 and just beginning to blossom. 

Doing good things in her name is how I get to parent Steph 

now. So thank you for allowing me to do that today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you so much for coming 

and telling us your story. I'm so sorry about your 

daughter's death. It's such a tragedy. And we so 

appreciate your coming to talk to us. Our hearts go out 

to you. 

MS. ROJAS: Thank you for having me. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you for coming. 

MR. GREENE: Wow. Hard to follow that. Sure 

shows why we do what we do for a living, doesn't it? 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Very, very much so. 

MR. GREENE: Good morning. My name is Larry 

Greene. I'm testifying today on behalf of the National 

Association of Clean Air Agencies, of which I'm Past 

President. I'm also the Executive Director of the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 

Welcome to our district. 

California Reporting, LLC

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
NACAA is the National Nonpartisan Nonprofit 

Association of Air Quality Control Agencies of 45 states 

and District of Columbia, four territories, and 116 local 

air pollution control agencies. This testimony is based 

on our preliminary review of EPA's PM NAAQS proposal and 

focuses on a few key issues. 

First, EPA's proposal to tighten the primary 

annual standards to a level in the range of 12 to 13 

micrograms per cubic meter and retain the primary 24-hour 

PM 2.5 standard are appropriate and consistent with the 

recommendations of CASAC, the Agencies congressionally 

chartered by the independent scientific advisors. NACAA 

supports this proposal. 

In a September 10th, 2010, letter to the EPA 

administrator, CASAC supported EPA staff's conclusion that 

currently available information clearly calls into 

question the adequacy of the current standards and noted 

that the primary PM2.5 standard levels under consideration 

by the Agency are supported by epidemiological and 

toxicological evidence and by the risk and air quality 

information compiled in EPA's various PM assessment 

documents. 

Second, NACAA supports EPA's proposal to 

collocate PM2.5 near-roadway monitors besides measuring 

NO2 and CO. This consistent with CASAC's recommendations 

California Reporting, LLC

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to develop a near-roadway network with a multi-pollutant 

focus and to include PM2.5 on a list of pollutants that 

should be measured. 

However, in order to ensure the best possible 

measurement of near-roadway PM2.5 concentrations, NACAA 

asks that State and local agencies be given flexibility to 

identify alternative siting locations on a case-by-case 

basis where there is scientific justification for doing 

so. We will be providing feedback on specific aspects of 

the proposed PM2.5 near-roadway network in our written 

comments, which I've dropped off outside. 

We also support EPA's efforts to phase in 

implementation of near-roadway monitoring requirements. 

Phased approaches in line with CASAC's recommendation that 

near-roadway network be implemented in stages. NACAA 

continues to stress that monitoring requirements must be 

fully funded, including staffing as well as operation and 

maintenance costs. 

New monitoring mandates must be supported by 

appropriate increases in federal funding. It's also 

important to note that the relocation of existing monitors 

does result in additional cost to state and local agencies 

and it requires the use of additional staff time and 

resources. These costs must be fully funded. 

NACAA also continues to encourage EPA to work 

California Reporting, LLC

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
with State and local agencies to address a number of 

complicated implementation issues that are raised by the 

near-road monitoring network and non-attainment area 

designations. 

The Clean Air Act requires states to address and 

reduce emissions in order to achieve attainment and to 

focus on the emission control effort is within a 

non-attainment area, typically CPSA or county. In a 

near-roadway ultra microscale environment, however, one 

issue that arises is what control measures beyond 

federally required motor vehicle fleet standards that are 

beyond our control are appropriate or effective for State 

and local agencies to take. 

The third set of -- third, setting NAAQS and 

implementing them are independent issues and must remain 

so. Whatever decision EPA makes on the level and form of 

the PM NAAQS will have a profound impact on the work of 

State and local agencies. 

EPA must recognize this, not in setting the 

NAAQS, but by requesting sufficient funds for State and 

local agencies to carry out the work associated with 

meeting the new NAAQS, providing sufficient infrastructure 

for State and local agencies from the onset and developing 

implementation rules and guidance and issuing rules and 

guidance in a timely manner. It is imperative that EPA 

California Reporting, LLC

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
work in close partnership with State and local agencies to 

address implementation issues and achieve the ultimate 

goal of public health protection. 

It is also important that any potential economic 

impacts of a more stringent PM2.5 standard be taken into 

consideration during implementation. 

Finally, although EPA has projected that all but 

a few non-attainment areas for primary PM2.5 NAAQS will 

attain by 2020 based on expected emission reductions from 

a number of federal sources, there are concerns that EPA 

may have overestimated the scope of attainment and that 

additional areas may be unable to attain by 2020 and face 

challenges in meeting the standard. 

It is important that EPA work closely with such 

areas to identify and correct potential errors in 

attainment projections and to collaboratively establish 

viable implementation approaches. 

In conclusion, NACAA looks forward to providing 

more comprehensive comments on this important proposal by 

the close of EPA's public comment period. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you. And 

thank you so much. 

Thank you again, Ms. Rojas, for coming. So 

appreciate it. 

California Reporting, LLC

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Our next speakers are Susan Stephenson and 

Catherine White. 

MS. STEPHENSON: Hi. Good morning. I'm Susan 

Stephenson, S-t-e-p-h-e-n-s-o-n. And I'm Executive 

Director of Interfaith Power and Light. 

Interfaith Power and Light is a national network 

of 14,000 congregations working to clean up our energy 

supply, protect our climate, be good stewards of creation. 

Here in California, we work with 560 

congregations of all major faith traditions, engaging 

nearly a quarter of a million people throughout the state 

every week. 

We believe soot pollution contributes to a wide 

range of health problems, especially for children, the 

elderly, people with respiratory problems and most 

vulnerable among us. 

Since our faith calls on us to protect creation 

and to protect our most vulnerable neighbors, we urge the 

EPA to move expeditiously to adopt this new standard. We 

also would support strengthened standards, as the Lung 

Association has recommended. 

The EPA's job is to protect human health and the 

environment. And your own research I believe has shown 

for years that thousands of people are needlessly dying 

because of lax regulations that allow unhealthy levels of 

California Reporting, LLC

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
pollution. The numbers and the studies are staggering, 

and I think we can be a little bit numbed. I believe it's 

35,000 lives a year according to the Lung Association that 

are at risk and lost because of inadequate health 

protections. 

I really appreciate Lydia being here and 

reminding us, putting a human face on these numbers. 

These are real people that are dying every year because 

their government has failed to protect them from something 

completely preventable. 

So we urge you to move expeditiously to adopt 

these standards. And even as you move forward, to adopt a 

truly protective standard in the future. 

Appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

Thank you for listening. Thanks for coming to California. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Just one question, 

Ms. Stephenson. 

You support the American Lung Association 

recommendation of 11 for the annual standard and 25 for 

the daily standard; is that right? 

MS. STEPHENSON: We do. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MS. WHITE: Good morning. Catherine White. 

C-a-t-h-e-r-i-n-e, W-h-i-t-e. 

I'm here before you this morning as a breather 

California Reporting, LLC

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
from the San Joaquin Valley who's been advocating for 

clean air for more than six years as a part of the Central 

Valley Air Quality Coalition. I'm also a PhD student in 

geography at US Davis. I'm here both as an advocate for 

my region, as someone who's personally been impacted by 

this problem, and as a researcher who's looking for better 

data to improve decision-making around these issues. 

So first, I just want to thank staff and 

stakeholders for the incredible amount of hours that have 

gone into the draft rule that sits before us today, and 

particularly to the staff who have been available to me to 

answer the questions that I had to understand such a 

lengthy rule. 

In general, I support the call for stronger 

24-hour and annual standard. And today, I want to focus 

my comments on the provisions for near-roadway air quality 

monitoring, as the area I'm particularly concerned about 

and interested in. 

My main concern at this point is that the draft 

criteria in the rule as written requires that monitors be 

relocated near-roadways in core based statistical areas, 

with a population of a million or greater which 

effectively excludes the San Joaquin Valley. 

As has been mentioned previously, the San Joaquin 

Valley is in severe non-attainment for PM2.5 so at the 

California Reporting, LLC

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
regional level we're struggling with particulate matter. 

Furthermore, we have a significant percentage of 

our population that is also living near the roadway. And 

so the criteria really should focus on exposure to traffic 

and not the population of the area. 

I would also ask you to consider that there is a 

cumulative impact for those populations because they're 

struggling with the regional air pollution problem and 

facing a disparate exposure when they're living close to 

the roadways or breathing close to the roadways. 

So again, as we do this work, I think it's really 

important to keep in mind the people in the communities 

that are impacted by these problems. 

So just one example in the valley is in the city 

of Fresno, a small community called the Adams community 

where their elementary school is within 100 yards of 

Highway 99, 500 yards of a rail line, 250 yards of two 

distribution centers. And unfortunately, they have the 

third highest documented asthma rate in Fresno Unified 

School District. 

They've been featured in numerous reports, 

including the Brookings Institution, Katrina's Window 

Report, which documented clusters of poverty in Fresno and 

particularly in the Adams community. This community has 

also been documented in the US Davis Center for Regional 

California Reporting, LLC

34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Changes report called "Land of Risk, Land of Opportunity," 

Which found that this area faces an incredibly high level 

of exposure to toxins and an incredibly high level of 

social vulnerability which limits their ability to respond 

effectively to these problems. 

This area along Highway 99 coincidentally is also 

proposed for future expansion and the potential of a high 

speed rail line being added next to it. I've been part of 

a research project where we used mapping and modeling to 

try to estimate what the local exposure would be, but we 

had to make an incredible amount of assumptions without 

local data. And it was very time intensive and required a 

lot of technical analysis that community residents 

themselves don't have the capacity to complete. 

So in summary, my main concern is really about 

population criteria leaving out the San Joaquin Valley. 

But I would also add as secondary concerns that even in 

the areas that are designated to get the near-road 

monitors right now, that one monitor may not be enough. 

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I'm working on a research 

project looking at the east day transportation corridor 

and interstate 880 receives a disparate number of diesel 

trucks because interstate 580 has a diesel truck ban. If 

their near-road monitor was moved to the 580, the readings 

would be very different than the readings they'll get 

California Reporting, LLC

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
being located near 880. 

I would urge you to consider whether collocating 

the PM monitors with the NO2 monitors will compromise the 

rigor and relevance of the data and to do your best to 

address that issue. 

In conclusion, as states like California move 

forward to promote efforts like smart growth where we're 

trying to encourage transit oriented development and 

increase densities, we need to be better documenting and 

addressing the impacts that come from putting breathers 

closer to major sources of pollution like roadways. 

And I will follow up with detailed written 

comments about everything that I've just shared. So thank 

you for your time this morning. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

And yes, some detailed written comments would be 

helpful as well as any thoughts you have about how we 

might change the criteria so we're not just focusing on 

CBSAs of a million or more. Those are very interesting 

points and having more detail would be very helpful. 

Thank you. Thank you, both. 

Our next speakers are Tom Fulks and Sasha 

Shyduroff. 

MR. FULKS: Ready? 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Ready. 

California Reporting, LLC

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MR. FULKS: My name is Tom Fulks, F-u-l-k-s. I'm 

here representing the Diesel Technology Forum. We have 

supplied the written testimony. And so since my testimony 

here is fairly detailed, it's got some data in it, we 

would like for you to take a look at that written format 

when you can. I can't get to everything because there's 

just no time to be able to do that. 

So with that, I will begin, and I'll try to keep 

this as brief as possible. I'll keep to your time limit. 

Just cut me off, if you have to. We are ready for that. 

Again, my name is Tom folks. I serve as the west 

coast representative of the Diesel Technology Forum, a 

not-for-profit educational group representing the nation's 

lead diesel engine, vehicle, and equipment manufacturers, 

fuel refiners and suppliers, companies that manufacture 

emissions control technology and allied organizations. We 

appreciate the opportunity to appear today on the issue of 

the national ambient air quality standards for fine 

particle matter. 

Our statement today will focus on three areas: 

The unique value of diesel engines and equipment to key 

sectors of the economy and economic impact of the 

technology; the transformation to clean diesel technology 

over the last decade with an emphasis on particulate 

emissions; and as a result of this transformation, the 

California Reporting, LLC

37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
small and declining role of diesel particulate emissions 

in the current and future PM inventory. 

Diesel technology delivers unique value to key 

sectors of the economy. And as a result, has a 

significant impact on the US economy. Because of its 

unmatched combination of power, performance, and engine 

efficiency, diesel technology is the workhorse of the US 

in the global economy, powering more than 90 percent of 

its commercial trucks, more than three quarters of all 

transit buses, 100 percent of freight locomotives and 

marine work boats, and more than two-thirds of all farm 

and construction equipment. 

Diesel engines are also found in back-up 

emergency electrical generators, stationary pumps, and 

other industrial equipment. 

Finally, the new generation of fuel-efficient 

clean diesel cars is making up a growing percentage of new 

passenger vehicles in all 50 states. 

Diesel technology has undergone a complete 

transformation to near zero emissions. In 2000, a little 

more than a decade ago, EPA and the Air Resources Board 

here in California challenged diesel engine manufacturers 

to produce a new generation of clean diesel technology 

with near zero emissions within a ten-year period. 

In 2004, similar challenges were posed for the 

California Reporting, LLC

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
many categories of off-road diesel engines and equipment 

setting forward a similar set of emissions goals. We've 

got charts in our appendix that attach to the written 

documents that you can see to take a look at. 

Today, manufacturers have met these challenges, 

investing billions of dollars in research and development 

in engine technology, such as combustion optimization, 

common rail fuel injection systems, and advanced turbo 

charging. Low-sulfur diesel fuel, which was very 

important to this transformation and also contains 

emission control technologies. 

These last ten years truly were a decade of clean 

diesel and the results are visible today. New highway 

diesel truck engines have near zero emissions of PM and 

NOx, a remarkable 98 percent -- a drop of 98 percent from 

1988 models. 

It's also noteworthy that truck and engine 

manufacturers are not only producing near zero level 

emissions, but these vehicles are also consuming an 

average of five percent less fuel. Just to put this into 

perspective, a new truck today, it takes basically 60 

trucks built prior to 1980 to equal the emissions of one 

truck produced today. 

Similar reductions in emissions of PM and NOx are 

well underway and will be completed by 2014 for a wide 

California Reporting, LLC

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
range of off-road engines found in everything from small 

construction equipment, in farm machinery, to freight 

locomotives, marine vessels, work boats in very large 

off-load machines and mining equipment. 

I'm going to skip past some of this material and 

get to the inventory because I think I'm running out of 

time. 

Advancements in clean diesel technology have 

resulted in diesel emissions being a small and declining 

contributor to the inventory of fine particles. According 

to the most recent public EPA emissions inventory data, 

diesel engines of all kinds make up less than six percent 

of the national PM emissions inventory. Here in 

California, more current and detailed inventory data is 

available are available in review that highlights the 

progress in clean diesel. 

In the last year in, which data are available was 

2008, California Air Resources Board identified the top 

ten largest contributors the PM2.5. Diesel engines and 

equipment rank as the 8th and 9th highest contributors. 

This is behind wildfires, residential fuel combustion, 

managed burning and disposal, paved road dust, unpaved 

road dust, fugitive wind blown dust, farming operations, 

and then comes heavy-duty diesel trucks, off-road 

equipment, followed by mineral processes. 

California Reporting, LLC

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
According to the ARB, diesel PM from on-road 

heavy-duty trucks have declined from 7.5 percent of the 

overall inventory in 1990 to 3.8 percent in 2008, with the 

future projections in 2020, PM from these sources will 

account for only 1.6 percent of all emissions. 

On-road diesel's portion of the PM inventory in 

California is expected to drop over the next twelve years 

by 57 percent, which follows a drop of 53 percent during 

the previous 18 years. This is a 30-year drop of 80 

percent in PM. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Mr. Fulk, I'm afraid your 

time is up.

MR. FULKS: Last sentence, and I've leave you. 

Again, this is all written. 

Thank you for your patience and indulgence. I 

appreciate that. No other category is making this kind of 

contribution to reducing PM emissions. 

And with that, I will thank you and be on my way. 

Again, this is all in writing. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Thank you very much. 

MS. SHYDUROFF: Hello. My name is Sasha 

Shyduroff. It's S-h-y-d-u-r-o-f-f. I'm a resident of 

Sacramento, California. And I'm an organizing manager for 

the Sierra Student Coalition, which is the youth branch of 

the National Sierra Club. 

California Reporting, LLC

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The first time my young brother, Toby, struggled 

to breathe, my whole family was scared, as my mom rushed 

him to the emergency room. He was diagnosed with asthma 

at age eight. After that, my family's view of summer 

changed forever. I had always thought of summer as a time 

when kids explored the great outdoors. But for my brother 

and the 17 million other Americans with asthma, summer can 

be dangerous. Heat mixed with pollution, like soot, can 

make it life-threatening to breathe outside. 

Unfortunately, my generation has found that having asthma 

or having a family member with asthma is all too common. 

My father, who lived in Boston most of his life, 

remembers a time when air pollution was so thick he 

claimed you could tell the different pollutants by the 

vivid colors they created in the evening sky: Brown, 

yellow, orange, red, maybe a hint of purple. When he 

started having breathing problems, he could link it to his 

past as a metal worker. But for my brother, who was just 

a young child, there was no link except for the air we 

breathed on a daily basis. 

Because particulate matter is so microscopic, it 

presents a hidden danger. It can get deep inside the 

lungs and bloodstream, causing problems like asthma, other 

respiratory illnesses, and even non-fatal heart attacks 

and strokes. 

California Reporting, LLC

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
In the mid 90s, my father had a non-fatal heart 

attack, which was complicated by a collapsed lung. This 

is when my parents decided to move us out of the city so 

we kids could grow up in a healthier, less toxic 

environment. Eventually, my brother and father didn't 

have to depend so much on their inhalers. And as a 

teenager, Toby was able to join the rowing team and earn a 

black belt in karate, a level of athleticism that most 

kids with asthma are told they won't ever be able to 

achieve. 

My family was lucky because we have the privilege 

and the opportunity to start a new home in a less polluted 

area. But this is not a viable option for the millions 

suffering from soot-related illnesses. People shouldn't 

have to leave their homes in order to save their lives. 

Breathing clean air shouldn't be a privilege for a few. 

It is a human right. Everyone has a right to clean air. 

Everyone has the right to breathe easy. 

That's why I was thrilled last month when the EPA 

announced new proposed standards for particulate matter 

that will help save lives in people like my brother and 

father. 

However, many medical and public health groups 

say the proposed standards are not strong enough. We are 

calling on the EPA to have stricter annual standards at 11 

California Reporting, LLC

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
micrograms per cubic meter and daily standards of 25 

micrograms per cubic meter, in line with what science 

tells us it should be. 

Since moving to California a few months ago, I 

have noticed just how many bad air days we have here in 

Sacramento. Almost on a daily basis, I can see the 

pollution hang over the valley in a dirty cloud. 

California is home to some of the worst area in the 

country, especially in the central valley and southern 

California. In organizing citizens to come testify at 

this hearing, many of our friends to the south could not 

make it today. They were enraged that the EPA would not 

host a hearing on soot pollution in the most deeply 

impacted communities. This is an environmental justice 

issue. 

Therefore, those of us here today have to be the 

voices of those not present. The Sierra Club and 

Coalition partners have already collected 80,000 comments 

on this issue. We urge you to pass the proposed standards 

that will help save millions of lives and clean up the air 

so that our future children and the next generation don't 

have to live in the fear of the very air that is supposed 

to give them life. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. We appreciate 

your coming to speak today on behalf of yourself and 

California Reporting, LLC

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
others. Thank you very much, both. 

I just want to mention if you are registered to 

speak today, please make sure you've checked in at the 

desk, which is right outside the hearing room. We just 

are trying to keep track of who has come to speak. If you 

have registered and haven't checked in, please do check 

in. 

The next two speakers are Katherine Phillips and 

Gayann White. 

MS. PHILLIPS: Hi. Good morning. I'm Katherine 

Phillips, the Director of the Sierra Club California. I 

work on the 27th floor of the building about two blocks 

from here. And after a rain when the pollution has 

cleared from the air, I can see the high peaks of the 

Sierra Nevadas about 70 miles away so clearly I feel like 

I'm looking at an early California painting. 

Yesterday, I couldn't see to the edge of 

Sacramento County, the mountains beyond were hidden by air 

pollution. 

I represent more than 170,000 Sierra Club members 

and activists in California. Most of them experience some 

form of air pollution every day. Most of them are exposed 

to fine particulate matter every day. And most of them I 

know are like most Californians; they're sick and tired of 

dirty air. 

California Reporting, LLC

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The soot regulations you've proposed represent 

another step to help this state and its people experience 

clean air. It isn't the leap we would like or I would 

like, but it's an important step. 

There are three key reasons we need these 

regulations to help us clean up the air in this state. 

One is to help protect our health. And there are many 

others in the audience who have and will continue to 

expound on the health impacts. So I'll just note that 

these effects are real and important. 

A second reason is economic. Fine particulate 

pollution costs Californians tens of billions of dollars 

every year to pay for health care to deal with the effects 

of bad air. Billions in business activity and 

productivity are lost because of the effects of bad air. 

Untold billions are lost as companies decide its simply 

too polluted to locate here. And that's true, especially 

in place like the San Joaquin Valley and portions of Los 

Angeles. 

The third reason is environmental. Fine 

particulate is among the pollutants weakening forest 

health, polluting rivers and streams, and ruining 

visibility, especially in some of our Sierra Nevada gems, 

like National Parks like Yosemite and Sequoia Kings 

Canyon. 

California Reporting, LLC

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
That's why I ask you to do the following: 

Adopt an annual fine particulate matter standard 

that will get us to clean air in my lifetime. 

Set it at 11 micrograms per cubic meter, and set 

the 24-hour standard to 25 micrograms per meter. 

And retain a strong standard for coarse PM. 

We still need that, despite what some may have 

testified in Pennsylvania and may testify later here. 

And give us better visibility. Set the deciviews 

levels to more than 25 in the visibility standard. 

In short, give us a standard that will protect 

our health, cut our health care costs, and restore our 

environment and the views of the great Sierra Nevada and 

within the Sierra Nevada. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MS. WHITE: My name is Gayann Barnsley White. 

B-a-r-n-s-l-e-y. W-h-i-t-e. G-a-y-a-n-n. 

I wasn't sure I was going to come here today and 

speak, but one of my friends encouraged me to. I'm a 

college professor, an anthropologist. I'm an artist. And 

I was a community developer in Bethel, Alaska and in 

Bolivia in Tiquina de San Pablo. 

I started off my life in clean air. That's 

basically what I want to talk about today. I know what 

clean air is. I know what breathable air is. In 

California Reporting, LLC

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Colorado, growing up outside of Bolder, the air was clean. 

I'm not talking about Denver, but up higher. So I never 

breathed any bad air. And I was healthy. 

And when I went in to Vista and I was in the 

first group up in Bethel, Alaska, the air was clean. I 

could go out in the morning and breathe the cleanest air 

in the world, and I know what that's like. 

When I went down with the Peace Corp. in Bolivia 

and I was in El De Plano, the air was clean. Everybody 

got the same air. We all breathed the clean air. When I 

moved the California -- I love California. But the first 

thing I noticed was I couldn't breathe deeply. It wasn't 

what I was used to. When I look out into the air, I just 

sort of saw little things in it that -- and that really 

bothered me. And I noticed after a while that my eyes 

were really red, scratchy red all the time. I developed a 

little bit of asthma, which I got rid of myself in my own 

way. But I just noticed that people who live in a 

non-clean air environment may not be aware of what it's 

like to breathe really clean air. 

My kids live in Alaska now and my grandchildren, 

and I'm glad they're up there because it's clean. I keep 

emphasizing clean air, but I want everybody to have the 

chance to breathe clean air and to be healthy. And what I 

do now, besides teaching at ESL, is I teach health and 

California Reporting, LLC

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
wellness at Sac State. It's really easy for me to talk 

about health and wellness, but at the same time knowing 

that when my faculty and staff come to the classes, 

they're walking through dirty air. So I can't do anything 

about that. 

I do believe that all of us working together, the 

government, the private industry, and the citizens in this 

country and in Sacramento can come together and work 

together to establish standards that are going to promote 

clean air, the laws will be enforced better. 

But that's basically what I wanted to say to you 

today, there's clean air. And I want everybody to have a 

chance to know what really clean air is and how it feels 

to breathe it. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you both 

very much. 

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: Thank you both. 

Ms. Phillips, you testified that your 

organization supported specific levels for the fine 

particle primary and secondary standards and that you 

supported a strong coarse particle standard as well. If 

you provide written comments, it would be helpful to 

understand the specific elements of the standards that 

your organization supports and the rational behind that 

support. 

California Reporting, LLC

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MS. PHILLIPS: We'll do that. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Our next two speakers are 

Dan Jacobson and Nicholas Matthews. 

MR. JACOBSON: Thank you very much. I'm going to 

have some of my people from our citizen outreach office 

that are part of our 200 people team up around the state 

educating people on clean air just stand behind me. 

But to start off, first of all, let me say good 

morning and thank you very much. And thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to speak on this critically important 

issue of particulate matter air pollution, also called 

soot pollution. 

I'm Dan Jacobson, the Legislative Director for 

Environment California. Environment California is a 

statewide organization that's working for clean air, clean 

water, and open space. 

On behalf of Environment California, I applaud 

the EPA for moving to protect our health and strengthening 

the current national ambient air quality standard for soot 

pollution and urge the agency to move forward with 

finalizing the strongest possible standards this year. 

Specifically, Environment California calls on the EPA to 

set an annual standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter in 

fine particulate pollution and a daily standard of 25 

micrograms per cubic meter. 

California Reporting, LLC

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Too many scientific studies have found that soot 

pollution poses a serious threat to public health. And in 

fact, soot pollution is the deadliest of the common air 

pollutant. The main reason soot pollution is so dangerous 

is because the particles that make up soot pollution are 

so small and are able to lodge deep in our lungs where 

they can cause serious damage. 

Soot pollution, which is emitted by diesel 

vehicles, coal fire plants, and several other sources, is 

linked to a variety of cardiovascular and respiratory 

health problems, including asthma, heart attacks, strokes, 

and chronic respiratory disease, and is blamed for 

hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year. 

The problem is particularly acute for those that 

are the most vulnerable among us. Children, senior 

citizens, and those who suffer from the respiratory 

problems are at heightened risk of being sickened by soot. 

The bad news is for all of us, but especially the over 

nine million children and over four million seniors in 

California who suffer from asthma. 

Soot pollution is not just a problem for health, 

but it's also a very real problem for our environment. 

Most notably, soot pollution contributes to haze that 

hangs over many of the country's most scenic parts and our 

beautiful wilderness areas. Thankfully though, we have 

California Reporting, LLC

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the technology to drastically reduce soot pollution 

levels. We can make buses run cleaner. We can install 

proven pollution control technologies on power plants. 

But to help ensure that these and other steps 

actually happen, we need air quality standards in place 

that reflect what the latest science tells us about the 

dangers of soot. That's why Environment California 

applauds the EPA for moving to strengthen the current 

pollution standard and urges the agency to finalize the 

strongest possible standards this year. 

Thank you again very much for your time. And let 

me introduce Michael. 

MR. MATTHEWS: Good morning. And thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nick 

Matthews. I'm a Research Assistant with Environment 

California. 

I am very proud to have been born and raised here 

the city of Sacramento where I grew up in the neighborhood 

known as the pocket. The pocket takes it names from its 

unique geography bounded by the Sacramento River on the 

north, the west, and the south, and by Interstate 5 on the 

east. Interstate 5 is a major thoroughfare not just for 

commuters here in Sacramento, but also for diesel truck 

traffic heading all over the state. Regardless of where 

you live in the pocket, you almost certainly live within 

California Reporting, LLC

52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
at least two miles of Interstate 5, if not closer. 

The story is the same for many other 

neighborhoods in Sacramento. This means that air 

pollution, including soot pollution, is a very real health 

concern for myself and other young individuals growing up 

here. 

I'm here today to applaud the EPA for taking 

action to protect our health by strengthening current 

national ambient air quality standards for soot pollution. 

I urge the agency to move forward with finalizing the 

strongest possible standards for the Sierra. 

Specifically, the EPA should set an annual standard of 11 

micrograms per cubic meter for fine particle pollution and 

a daily standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. We 

have the technology to drastically reduce pollution from 

these and other sources. We should put this technology to 

use and provide must needed relief for young people who 

are exposed to air pollution on a daily basis. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you both 

and thank you for the team support there. I'm glad to see 

everybody here. Thank you. 

Our next two speakers are Stephanie Christiansen 

and Erica Morehouse. 

California Reporting, LLC

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MS. CHRISTIANSEN: I'm Stephanie Christiansen. 

This is Max. He's five. He's my grandson, one of six. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Hi, Max. 

MS. CHRISTIANSEN: He was quite nervous, not as 

nervous as me. 

But this is like a dream come true for me to 

speak before you. 

We're both asthmatics, and this is his little 

medication, the same medication I take. We also use a 

nebulizer and been to the ER. He's been there several 

times. 

We're active. We take him hiking and bicycling. 

And air quality is every day for us, as I look at the air 

index to see how bad it is and if it's going to keep me in 

my house, especially in the summers and the winter. 

I wrote the Sacramento Air Management District 

last November to stop wood burning. And I hope they do 

one day, because this is part of my wardrobe when the air 

is really bad. It's very scary. 

I worry about his future. He just finished 

baseball camp over at Sac State last week, and the air was 

really bad. We had a couple Spare the Air days, and they 

had to cut short the camp. 

But I worry about our future. I worry if he's 

going to be able to play baseball outdoors and do other 

California Reporting, LLC

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
things like he likes to do in the future. Also it's 

already inhibited what he does today and whether I'll be 

around to see it and that kind of stuff. It's very 

worrisome. And I appreciate what you do and hopefully 

more can be done. 

I've been a Sacramento resident I could say 

before the freeways. So I don't -- you can kind of guess 

how long that's been. But I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak. And I hope we can -- most folks that don't have 

asthma, they look at breathing as a natural body function. 

But for us who suffer from asthma, it's not normal. I 

mean, it's not natural. Every day can be a struggle. And 

I hope that the air will get better, I suppose. 

Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity. And I'd 

like to leave my letter that I wrote to the Air Board. I 

was also -- we had something like 19 days of bad air this 

last winter where we couldn't burn. And I was quoted in 

an article and I was really disturbed by some of the 

comments that -- because I was against it obviously -- was 

to move or something, you know. And that was one of the 

kinder comments. 

So anyway, I appreciate this opportunity. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: We very much appreciate you 

and Max coming today to talk to us. Thanks a lot, Max, 

for taking the time. And thank you very much, 

California Reporting, LLC

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Ms. Christiansen for coming and bringing him along. 

MS. MOREHOUSE: Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

My name is Erica Morehouse. I'm a staff attorney 

specializing in climate and clean air at the Environmental 

Defense Fund, a nonpartisian environmental organization 

with more than 750,000 members nationwide. 

EDP is dedicated to working towards innovative, 

cost-effective solutions to environmental problems 

building on a foundation of rigorous science, economics, 

and law. 

As we've heard over and over again today, 

particulate pollution, or soot, is associated with serious 

adverse human health impacts, including premature death, 

cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease. It's 

estimated that 9,200 premature deaths every year in 

California are associated with fine particulate pollution. 

Consistent with the most recent health science, we urge 

EPA to strengthen the annual standard for fine particulate 

matter to 11 micrograms per cubic meter. And although EPA 

is proposing to maintain a 24-hour standard at 35 

micrograms, we recommend the 24-hour standard be 

strengthened to 25 micrograms due to the public health 

threat posed by short-term exposure. 

Particulate matter is the main cause of reduced 

California Reporting, LLC

56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
visibility in haze which harms the scenic vistas in our 

treasured National Parks visited by 280 million people 

every year. When compared to current air quality, 

strengthening the nation's current health standards for 

particulate pollution could prevent as many as 35,700 

premature deaths, 2,350 heart attacks, and 23,000 visits 

to the hospital and emergency room each year. 

EPA's analysis found that strengthening the 

annual standard to 11 micrograms and the daily standard to 

30 micrograms could yield economic benefits of 14 to 36 

billion. 

California stands to benefit more than any other 

state from protective health-based standards for 

particulate pollution. Clean air standards protect human 

health from particulate pollution will help save thousands 

of lives. According to the American Lung Association, the 

nation's top five ranked metropolitan area's most 

populated by year round and short-term particulate 

pollution are all in California. And the communities most 

heavily burdened by air pollution are often the ones with 

the fewest resources to cope with the burden. 

Asthma in the San Joaquin Valley has reached 

crisis levels. One in five children in Fresno County and 

one in three children in Kings County have been diagnosed 

with asthma by a health provider. And the Central Valley 

California Reporting, LLC

57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
communities have child poverty rates above 30 percent, 

with Fresno reaching the highest at 38 percent. 

The Sacramento Metro area is ranked 21st 

nationwide for short-term particulate pollution and home 

to more than 40,000 children at risk of asthma and more 

than 600,000 people at risk from heart disease. 

The public has been waiting long enough for 

updated standards based on the latest science. This 

proposal is an important one for our nation and for our 

health. And the EDF will submit further technical 

comments on the proposal. And we thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on your work. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much. And if 

you can, I'm sure you will provide citations for all the 

figures you mentioned in your written comments. That 

would be great. Thank you. 

Our next two speakers are Amy Padula and Jackson 

Woodward. 

MS. PADULA: My name is Amy Padula. A-m-y, 

P-a-d-u-l-a. And I'm a postdoctorate fellow at the 

Stanford University School of Medicine in the Department 

of Pediatrics and Neonatology. I'm an epidemiologist, and 

I work with Children's Health and Air Pollution Study. 

And my role is to study the health effects of ambient air 

pollution during pregnancy and its effects on adverse 

California Reporting, LLC

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California. 

And I've also been entrusted in the revision of 

the PM rule for a few years, and I worked with some 

colleagues as part of the Reach the Decisionmakers Program 

at the University of California San Francisco, and 

speaking on behalf of those folks as well. 

First, I want to applaud your efforts in lowering 

the annual standard of PM2.5. And I agree with the 

recommendation also that the standards should eliminate 

spacial averaging and rather use single highest monitor 

because these highest monitors are often in areas where 

people of lower socioeconomic status live and are most 

vulnerable populations. And if we average them out, they 

will -- we will underestimate their exposure. 

Second, I would also like to support the proposal 

for monitoring PM2.5 near-roadways. And although it would 

be ideal to add monitors rather than to relocate them, at 

the very least, I propose that the EPA include all core 

based statistical areas with more than 800,000 people, 

rather than a million. And this would add a total of 66 

monitors, rather than 52 monitors. And this would add a 

critical set of areas, including Fresno and Bakersfield, 

California, where there has been extensive research on the 

effects of traffic-related air pollution and adverse birth 

outcomes, including low birth weight, pre-term birth, and 

California Reporting, LLC

59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
birth defects. And this research is in addition to all 

the well-known research on health concerns associated with 

traffic-related air pollution, including heart disease and 

lung disease and especially asthma. 

And third, I would also like to ask that the 

areas that are not currently in attainment receive 

monitors that are able to speciate particulate matter so 

that we can find out the chemical constituents that are -- 

that are in different areas. And research clearly shows 

upwind and downwind differences near-roadways from 

in-chemical constituents from vehicle exhaust are much 

larger than those from PM2.5 mass alone. And these 

include elemental carbon, organic carbon, black carbon, 

polycytic aromatic carbons. And I think ultra fine 

particle number would be useful as well. 

And the benefits of measuring these chemical 

constituents on a real-time basis are three-fold. 

First it would distinguish -- it would 

distinguish if aspects of PM2.5 are harmful to human 

health. 

Second, it would identify sources that can inform 

solutions on how to reduce particulate matter. 

And then third, it could inform future 

regulations on components that may be particularly 

harmful. 

California Reporting, LLC

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
And finally, I'd like to mention that the 

additional costs of the proposed changes would heavily be 

outweighed by the improvement in public health, 

particularly for infants and children. 

And I recommend that the EPA monetize the 

benefits at preventing such adverse birth outcomes in 

their cost benefit analyses. And even though those won't 

make a difference in the decision making, I think it's 

important to demonstrate that good science can inform good 

decision making and a wise investment in our future. 

And thank you very much. And I'll provide 

written comments as well. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: I have one question, too. 

As you know, we don't take costs into account in setting 

the standards. But when you talked about monetizing the 

benefits and related to birth outcomes, do you have any 

information on how to do that monitization? We'd be very 

interested in it, because as you well know, our regulatory 

impact analyses have difficulty quantifying many benefits. 

And this would be one. So if some of your work or you 

know of studies which we could use in doing that, that 

would be very helpful. 

MS. PADULA: Sure. I will. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. John has a 

question. 

California Reporting, LLC

61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL MEMBER HANNON: A question on the 

monitoring. An earlier witness, Catherine white, 

commented we should lower the population level for the 

required monitoring below a million. And you're 

suggesting 800,000. She also raised a concern about 

collocating monitors and the integrity of the data. Did 

you have any thoughts on that? 

MS. PADULA: I think in terms of collocating them 

with NO2, I believe that they should be as close to the 

roadway as possible. Because as we get further away from 

the roadway, the amounts drop considerably and people are 

in closet proximity to the roadways. 

I think collocating them practically makes the 

most sense because the sites are already set. I would 

maybe suggest that in areas where there's non-attainment 

or there is particular concern that we actually use more 

monitors in that area to really capture an area. I don't 

know if that answers your question. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Yes. Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER YOSHIMURA: Thank you for your 

comments. 

I think you also mentioned pacing speciation 

monitors in non-attainment areas and in your written 

comments if you could just elaborate on any specifics idea 

that you have about where exactly those would go and what 

California Reporting, LLC

62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
areas. 

MS. PADULA: Okay. Thank you. 

MS. WOODWARD: Hi. My name is Jaxin Woodward. 

J-a-x-i-n, W-o-o-d-w-a-r-d. I'm ten years old, and I have 

severe asthma. I was diagnosed with asthma since I was a 

baby. 

Having cleaner air is important to me because it 

lowers the chances of my asthma being triggered. I take 

Flovent daily to control my asthma symptoms. But I don't 

let these symptoms stop me from playing outdoors or 

competing nationally in track and field and cross country. 

My long-term goal is to compete in cross country and track 

and field in middle and high school and even college. 

My short-term goal is to bring home two national 

AAU Junior Olympic medals in the 800 and 1500 meter runs 

this summer from Texas. 

To accomplish this, I must follow my asthma 

treatment plan, which my asthma nurse has written for my 

safety. This plan is usually updated yearly. But because 

of my competition level and travel, I see my nurse every 

four to six months or before I leave the state. I also 

have to use Advair, which is a combination of Flovent and 

Albuterol which traveling to different places because of 

humidity or air pollutants. 

Although I take my medication and follow my 

California Reporting, LLC

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
treatment plan, I still worry about air pollution caused 

by smoke and truck exhaust because it triggers my asthma 

symptoms. When I smell these air pollutants, I quickly 

cover my mouth and nose with my hand, shirt, or cloth 

because my nose starts to sting and my breathing quickly 

changes, so I begin to take short breath so that I don't 

deeply inhale these pollutants. 

This means that getting a full breath of air -- 

clean air -- is really hard for me. It also means my mom 

is going to have to give me an Albuterol treatment using 

the nebulizer. 

I would like to continue playing outdoors and 

competing at a national level in track and field and cross 

country. Having cleaner air would help me achieve my 

goal. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Well, thank you so much for 

coming, Jaxin. You sound like quite a competitor. You 

sound pretty amazing. And I think it's great that you are 

doing that and taking care of your health at the same 

time. So we really appreciate your coming to talk to us 

today. And thanks to your mom and maybe your grandma -- 

I'm not sure -- for coming. We appreciate the whole 

family coming. Thank you and good luck. I hope you're 

very successful. 

Okay. Our next two speakers are Corrine Smith 

California Reporting, LLC

64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
and Paul Cort. 

MS. SMITH: Good morning. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak today. 

My name is Corinne Smith -- C-o-r-i-n-n-e. 

Smith, S-m-i-t-h -- with the Center for Environmental 

Health. Based in Oakland and New York, we're a national 

organization fighting to protect American families, 

especially children, against exposure to toxic chemicals. 

Our work is to maintain the health and integrity of 

communities from the assault of toxic chemicals. 

Today, there are more than 84,000 chemicals that 

are circulating the biosphere along with us in our water, 

air, food, and daily products and in our bodies. Only 

five of those have been judged as poisonous enough to be 

banned with the power of federal oversight. 

But right now, we are here to address the air, 

our lifeline and most essential connection to health in 

the global commons. While strides have been made to 

integrate and inform citizens about the public health 

hazards and burdens of our community, daily life, 

especially each breath, should not be about monitoring 

one's personal toxic exposure. 

I'm a fifth generation California native, born 

and raised in the Bay Area in Oakland, California. And 

I'm here today also to speak for my neighbors in Oakland. 

California Reporting, LLC

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Today, my city of Oakland is confronted by the challenges 

of being a thriving cultural and industrial hub, along 

with harboring many significant point source polluters 

coming from the Port of Oakland, the airport, industrial 

business, and transported thoroughfares. 

The most vulnerable people today who live and 

work in the soot and diesel contaminated airways of the 

port area in west Oakland are also the most economically 

and socially marginalized. They disproportionately suffer 

the consequences of air pollution, with higher rates of 

heart disease, respiratory illness, and asthma, especially 

for children, as we've heard today. 

In 2003, the Pacific Institute reported in west 

Oakland some residents are exposed to roughly five times 

more diesel particulates than residents in other parts of 

Oakland. West Oakland residents may have an increased 

risk of extra cancer per 1,000 residents due to diesel 

particulate exposure over a lifetime. There are six times 

more diesel particulates emitted per person and over 90 

times more diesel particulates per square mile per year in 

west Oakland than in the state of California. The amount 

of toxic soot produced by trucks traveling in west Oakland 

in one day is the same amount produced by 127,677 cars. 

This is enough cars to cover all the streets in west 

Oakland four cars wide and two cars deep. 

California Reporting, LLC

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The new national air standard for particulate 

matter is a vital opportunity for the EPA to demonstrate 

its commitment to environmental justice. Capital greed 

cannot convolute and overpower the right to health and 

well-being of our communities in California and around the 

world. 

In the spirit of the precautionary principle, the 

population must protect -- must be protected from the most 

powerful stakeholders to avoid exploitation and 

facilitation of our common demise. The fact of the matter 

remains we must empower the law to guide and protect 

society's common spaces. This is a critical opportunity 

to incorporate environmental justice and civil rights into 

national policy. It is time for the EPA to uphold its 

commitments to plan EJ 2014 and take action. 

I urge you to enact the strongest limits on soot 

pollution to protect people here in California and across 

the U.S. and demonstrate strategic and forceful action to 

make our global community cleaner, safer, and healthier. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

I just wondered, do you have any comments 

specifically on our proposal as far as supporting the 

numbers we proposed or any other numbers? 

MS. SMITH: Yes. The Center for Environmental 

California Reporting, LLC

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Health agrees with the Sierra Club and their position with 

those standards. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MR. CORT: Good morning. My name is Paul Cort. 

I'm a staff attorney with the nonprofit environmental law 

firm of Earth Justice. 

This proposal has been a long time in coming and 

EPA should be commended for many of the changes being 

proposed. We will be submitting comments with others, but 

I wanted to address two issues today. 

First, EPA cannot reasonably adopt an annual 

standard of 13 micrograms per cubic meter. We are all 

well aware that EPA did not set out to proposal an annual 

standard of 13 combined with retention of the current 

24-hour standard. The addition of a proposed annual 

standard above 12 micrograms per cubic meter came not from 

EPA, but was a last-minute change provided by the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

An annual standard of 13 is scientifically as a 

result legally indefensible. An annual standard of 13 

represents a level of pollution that is higher than the 

mean pollution levels in several studies that found a 

causal or likely causal connection between soot pollution 

and serious health impacts. In other words, in studies 

where we are confident that people died or were 

California Reporting, LLC

68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
hospitalized as a result of soot pollution, the average 

annual pollution levels were actually lower than the level 

that OMB proposes for the annual standard. 

Under the Clean Air Act, the standards must be 

requisite to protect public health allowing for an 

adequate margin of safety. A standard of 13 would be 

insufficient to protect public health, let alone provide 

any margin of safety for the most vulnerable, including 

children, the elderly, and those already suffering from 

lung or heart disease. 

Second, EPA must revise the criteria for siting 

near-roadway monitors. EPA's proposed to require near 

road component in the PM2.5 monitoring network design 

criteria. This is a very important and overdue revision. 

Unfortunately, EPA proposes to require 

near-roadway monitoring only in CBSAs, core base 

statistical areas, with one million people or more. This 

cutoff, as you've heard, would mean that the most PM2.5 

polluted region in the country, the San Joaquin Valley, 

would not be required to conduct near-roadway monitoring. 

EPA must revise this criteria. EPA claims that the higher 

population areas will tend to have higher traffic volumes, 

but the major concern, as EPA acknowledges, is diesel 

truck traffic. Truck traffic is more closely tied to the 

nodes in the goods movement system, ports, distribution 

California Reporting, LLC

69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
centers, more connected to those than it is to population. 

Interstate 5 and highway 99 corridors through the 

San Joaquin Valley have some of the highest diesel truck 

traffic volumes in the country, even though these are 

largely rural areas. EPA's criteria should look directly 

at traffic volumes, in particular, diesel truck traffic 

volumes, rather than using population as a surrogate. 

What makes EPA's criteria especially troubling is 

that many of the CBSAs meeting the proposed population 

criteria will be in the east, where the particulate 

problem is dominated not by mobile sources as it is in the 

west, but by coal fire powered plants. According to EPA, 

most areas in the east will meet the proposed standards 

without any additional controls because of already adopted 

federal regulations on these coal plants. In other words, 

not only are the areas in California the most polluted, 

but they will receive the fewest benefits from federal 

control measures. EPA's proposed criteria for monitoring 

of roadway sources leaves a gap in the very areas that 

need the best information to solve their soot pollution 

problems. 

EPA must revise the criteria to match the need. 

Instead of population, EPA's criteria should focus on 

PM2.5 levels and the inventories showing significant 

contribution of roadway sources to the attainment problem. 

California Reporting, LLC

70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. And we look 

forward to your written comments. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: And for Mr. Cort, I assume 

it's pretty -- you're starting to get into pretty 

significant details about the siting criteria, but I'm 

sure it will warrant much more detailed discussion. So we 

recommend that in your comments. 

MR. CORT: Yes. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. I'm going to 

step out one second, if you wouldn't mind. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Vickie Simmons and Chris 

Kaiser. 

MS. SIMMONS: My name is Vickie Simmons. 

V-i-c-k-i-e, S-i-m-m-o-n-s. 

I have traveled from Nevada to represent my small 

tribe of 330 members, which 220 live on the reservation, 

the Moapa Band of Paiutes, located 50 miles north of the 

bright lights of Las Vegas. Those bright lights are 

powered by the Reid Gardner Powerplant, a 650 megawatt 

coal fired powerplant. 

The reservation was established in 1870s near the 

Muddy River. And due to the water, the plant was located 

right next to the reservation in 1965. 

As we know, coal plants produce soot. And what 

California Reporting, LLC

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
we fear the most is the fine particulate matter that gets 

deep into our bodies. We fear what we can see, but we 

also fear what we can't see. We have lived with air 

pollution, soot pollution for nearly 50 years, and we have 

experienced many health problems as long as I can 

remember. Air pollution is taking its toll on my tribe 

and we have lost four members since January. We are dying 

faster than any other southern paiute tribe of the same 

tribe. We sing salt songs each time someone dies and 

those songs last all night, salt and bird songs. We are 

singing those songs way too often and exhausting the last 

remaining salt song singers. They can hardly do it 

because of the amount of deaths that we have. 

In 1992, there was a health study done by my aunt 

who was a chairman. She knew at the time that there was 

something wrong. She was very ill with diabetes. She was 

the chairman, and she was blind. 

When I participated in the health survey, I was 

sitting where they were testing their lungs. And they 

said that these kids here have diminished lung capacity. 

After she died, the study went away. A new Chairman took 

over. But that was a long time ago. She did not live 

much longer. 

Two weeks after she died, my brother Tommy, who 

worked at the power plant, he also died. He died at the 

California Reporting, LLC

72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
age of 31. He worked 11 years in the coal yard. He died 

of -- within one month's time, his heart was so enlarged, 

he lived one month. There was maybe over the years about 

five tribal members who have worked in the coal yard. 

Another of my neighbor who lived across the street, he 

also died of cardiomyopathy at the age of 33. My brother 

told me that the chances of having this were one in 

100,000. So what are those statistics? Two out of the 

five dying of cardiomyopathy at a young age. 

I know what I have witnessed and what I'm living. 

I'm being treated to prevent uterine cancer right now and 

I'm trying to get my heart problems diagnosed. We have 16 

houses that are closest to the power plant. In those 16 

houses, they are less than half a mile. Some closest, 300 

feet, from the power plant. Of those houses, there are 14 

children. Of those 14 children, I know about nine that 

have asthma. And they require a nebulizer. 

I have just read the current statistics and they 

are one of ten children. So I would call our statistics 

alarming. 

Last week, we had a story air on the local news. 

My friend Russell participated in the survey. He was 

sick, but agreed to be interviewed. The day his story 

aired last Tuesday, he is now in the hospital and fighting 

for his life. He's been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 

California Reporting, LLC

73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
His brother the very same day, who is a member of my 

Environmental Committee, had a stroke the same day and is 

also fighting for his life in a different hospital and 

paralyzed on half of his body. 

Also I have very many stories, you know, of the 

people -- when I think about it, many people have left the 

reservation and moved back. And they've always commented 

on how they can't breathe very good. And this is in 

everybody's memory of all of their elders. And that story 

continues today. Anybody who leaves and moves back or 

leaves the reservation and moves backs, they cannot 

breathe and must go on nebulizers. 

Last week, I wore a t-shirt that says "I love 

clean air," and I was approached at the gas station. I 

was scared because the power plant is right there, and not 

everybody is being very nice to us people that protest. 

So I was scared he was going to accost me. But he said, 

"Where did you get that t-shirt?" I told him I got it 

when I attended a conference. And he said that he has 

just moved from California where he used to cough up 

blood. And since he moved from California and to a place 

where there is trees, he is no longer sick and can 

breathe. And so I told him, well, that was a good 

instinct to move away and air pollution does damage your 

body. 

California Reporting, LLC

74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I remember watching on Dr. Oz when Lisa Jackson 

was on there. But they did produce a set of lungs, as 

they do on Dr. Oz where they showed damaged lungs. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Ma'am, Ms. Simmons, if you 

could come to an end, that would be great. Thank you

MS. SIMMONS: I urge the EPA to take public 

health into consideration. Please don't listen to big 

business and the coal and oil industry. Please enforce 

the Clean Air Act. We need protection. We want to live. 

When the coyote cries in the morning, they say 

that death will follow. I pray upon returning to Moapa 

that I don't hear the coyote cry. I pray for Russell and 

Calvin. Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Thank you. 

MR. KAISER: My name is Chris Kaiser, 

K-a-i-s-e-r, from Rio Tinto, Kennecott Utah, Copper, and 

Salt Lake City. 

The Rio Tinto Group is an industry leading 

international mining group that concentrates on developing 

first class ore bodies into large life and efficient 

operations. Rio Tinto has extensive operations in the US. 

Kennecott Utah Copper is a vertically integrated copper 

producer along the Wasatch front in Utah. 

Rio Tinto supports the advancement of balanced 

environmental regulation based on sound science. Our 

California Reporting, LLC

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
perspective on the proposal is influenced by the unique 

meteorology of our local air shed. 

With respect to particulate pollution, these 

effects include wintertime thermal inversions, typical in 

western inter-mountain basins, and wind blown dust events 

in an arid environment, also typical in western regions. 

We would like to offer the following comments 

regarding the proposed PM NAAQS. Regarding the annual 

PM2.5 standard just detailed comments regarding the 

monitoring and the data substitution provisions. We 

believe the proposed monitoring provisions, including the 

addition of near road monitors and urban areas and the 

elimination of spacial averaging of monitored values, 

represents a tightening of the standard beyond the 

reduction of the numeric value. The magnitude of this 

effect is not clearly communicated in the proposal 

documentation. 

Some comments regarding the data substitution 

provisions. Substitution of a three-year average of 

quarterly maximum monitored values would introduce a 

positive bias due to the episodic nature of particulate 

levels in our air shed and would not accurately reflect 

the actual concentrations. Substituting collocated PM10 

data could result in over reporting by a factor of 

approximately three to ten in our local conditions. 

California Reporting, LLC

76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
We offer the following comments regarding the 

secondary urban visibility standard. There are 

significant gaps in the technical analysis regarding the 

proposed secondary urban visibility standard and in the 

information that was provided with the proposal. Issues 

of particular concern to us include uncertainty of how the 

proposed standard would characterize our local air shed 

conditions and account for such factors as short term 

inversion particulate episodes, characterized by large 

short-term fluctuations in particulate levels and 

composition and relative humidity, while an assumed 

quarterly relative humidity value accurately characterized 

these conditions. We do not believe the proposal includes 

adequate information to understand these issues and 

provide meaningful comment. 

The deciviews standard does not include a 

mechanism for flagging the exceptional events that are 

beyond the ability of local authorities to control. We 

are concerned that due to local relative humidity and 

particulate composition variability EPA had proposed a 

visibility standard that corresponds to significantly 

different particulate levels in different regions of the 

country. We haven't seen the analysis to understand the 

policy ramifications of this dynamic. 

Our air shed has particulate speciation monitors 

California Reporting, LLC

77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
currently that run in one every three or six days. In 

order the accurately characterize our short-term 

visibility fluctuations, these monitors would likely be 

required to run every day, which creates additional 

monitoring costs that will need to be accounted for. 

In summary, we are concerned that gaps in the 

technical understanding of the proposed visibility 

standard remain. And until this understanding advances 

and these issues are adequately communicated to 

stakeholders, we are unable to provide adequate comment on 

the proposed visibility standard. 

Regarding the proposal to retain the 24-hour 

coarse particulate standard, we support retaining the 

standard at the current level of 150, as it's based on the 

current science. And if it can be done in a manner that 

includes a functional exceptional events process that 

explicitly acknowledges the role of anthropogenic 

emissions during the exceptional events. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look 

forward the reviewing EPA's response to these issues. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: A couple questions. 

First on the PM fine annual, you mention that 

spacial averaging and the data substitution and the 

monitoring were effectively making the standard more 

stringent. To clarify, the spacial averaging certainly is 

California Reporting, LLC

78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
discussed and the removal of it is discussed as a -- and 

supported as providing an additional margin of safety and 

also recognizing that it actually, in fact, has not been 

used anywhere in the country I think we're aware of. 

But I have a specific question about the 

monitoring. Could you explain how monitoring makes the 

standard more stringent in the sense that the standard 

applies, whether a monitor is there or not, and what the 

monitor does then provide information as to whether the 

standard has or has not been attained. How does the 

monitoring make the standard more stringent? 

MR. KAISER: I guess the point I was making that 

for our current local conditions, if you implement these 

monitoring changes, the design values would increase 

compared to what's reported today. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Okay. I can understand 

that. That makes sense. When the monitor identifies 

there is higher air quality, then there's more stringent 

as far as implementation goes. 

On the secondary, some of your comments were 

about the specific local meteorology. And it will be very 

important for you to amplify that in your comments. 

Also, you mention that you're not going to be 

able to comment on certain things because of technical 

inadequacies. It will be critical for you to identify 

California Reporting, LLC

79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
exactly what it is you can't comment on and what is the 

technical gap. On the visibility, there is a years of 

science as to the actual chemistry and physics of light 

diminution by different kinds of particle matters in the 

air and the humidity. So it would be very important for 

you to identify what is it that's missing that is keeping 

you from commenting on it. 

And I just tell you that out of importance 

because we're the people that look at those comments and 

having someone tell us we just can't comment on it does -- 

it makes it hard to persuade us that there is a problem 

without going beyond that to really identify what's 

missing. 

MR. KAISER: Yes. So we can certainly do that. 

And you know, as we try to understand how this applies to 

our local conditions, that analysis of how our unique 

combination of meteorology, humidity, particulate 

composition, that's kind of what we're still struggling to 

understand. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: I think there is some 

discussion of that in the package already because it's not 

a terribly -- it's not a totally new issue unknown to us. 

But it would help to get your input on it. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: I'll just add, if there is 

specific things that aren't in the package that we might 

California Reporting, LLC

80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
be able to provide and add into the docket, that would be 

helpful to know in advance of the close of the comment 

period. Because it is possible there is some other 

information we have that could help. So let us know. 

That would be good. 

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: I was just going to 

make a point that there is a number of technical EPA staff 

memos that are available in the docket as well as on our 

technology transfer network. In the current review under 

other technical information, a number of those memos are 

associated with the urban focus visibility assessment that 

supports the proposed decision. 

So I encourage you to look at those. And I can 

help you give you more specific information where to find 

those during the break. 

MR. KAISER: Okay. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

Our next two speakers are -- I'm sorry I've got 

this out of order. So I apologize to these two speakers 

who were supposed to come up earlier, Errol Villegas and 

Ann Rothchild. 

MR. VILLEGAS: Good morning. Errol Villegas 

spelled E-r-r-o-l, V-i-l-l-e-g-a-s. Again, my name is 

Errol Villegas. I'm the Program Manager with the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and I'm 

California Reporting, LLC

81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
testifying today on the U.S. EPA's proposed revisions to 

the particulate matter national ambient air quality 

standards, or NAAQS. 

To begin, we'd like to thank EPA for the 

opportunity to comment. And our comments are focused on 

ensuring EPA fully understands the impacts of lowering the 

PM2.5 standards. As a public health agency, we're 

supportive of EPA's efforts to reduce public health 

impacts associated with air pollution through the adoption 

of stringent national air quality standards. Although 

we're supportive of strengthening the PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

the latest scientific data, the district believes that 

either end of EPA's proposed annual standard will pose 

significant challenges for areas like the San Joaquin 

Valley that should be brought into consideration. EPA is 

showing that the San Joaquin Valley will attain even the 

lower annual standard of 12 micrograms without any further 

actions to reduce emissions. And we are strongly inclined 

to disagree. 

Our current annual design value, which is 

approximately at 18.2 micrograms and we're aggressively 

implementing all feasible control strategies in order to 

meet the existing standard of 15 micrograms based on the 

2006 standard. The significance of EPA's overly confident 

portrayal of the standard is that it under-emphasizes the 

California Reporting, LLC

82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
degree of the challenge and what it will really cost to 

attain the standard. 

If even feasible to attain, the district 

estimates that businesses and residents of the San Joaquin 

Valley alone will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to 

comply with this new standard. Unlike many other region 

in the nation, the valley air district has already adopted 

multiple attainment plans and very stringent, if not the 

most stringent regulation in the nation, to reduce PM2.5 

as well as precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone, i.e., 

oxides of nitrogen or NOx. And while we've seen 

improvement, we're having difficulty in lowering the 

annual design values. 

Due to our topography being surrounded by 

mountain ranges on all three sides and our meteorology 

where we have long stagnation periods with strong 

inversions, without significant advances in pollution 

control technology, the annual standard of twelve 

micrograms may not be attainable for our region. 

There is also a growing body of research showing 

that not all types of PM2.5 have equal health risks. EPA 

should be moving forward toward PM2.5 standards and 

implementation that empower regions to better address 

actual human health risks based on particulate size and/or 

toxicity. 

California Reporting, LLC

83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
For example, organic carbon particulates have 

much higher toxicity than, say, ammonium nitrate 

particulates. And also ultra fine particulates are also 

of growing concern. The district believes prioritizing 

efforts to expedite the reduction of public health risks 

versus a mass-based approach is a better use of our 

agency's resources. 

Accordingly, EPA must act in a timely manner in 

the publication and implementation of rules and guidance 

associated with this new standard and need to work closely 

with State and local agencies to allow its development. 

As mentioned above, the San Joaquin Valley has 

been through multiple attainment planning efforts and 

would like the opportunity to help improve the 

implementation process. 

EPA's also proposing to require the near-roadway 

PM2.5 monitors and CBSAs with the population of one 

million or more, which the agency estimates will result in 

52 locations nationwide having to install these monitors. 

State and local agencies will also be required to 

implement these near-roadway monitors by January 21st, 

2015. 

Unfortunately, EPA's analysis doesn't include 

CBSAs that are near the one million population threshold. 

We've been discussed previously the Fresno CBSA currently 

California Reporting, LLC

84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
is not included, but we're at a population of about 

947,000 currently and will exceed that one million 

threshold in a few years. 

Again, this is an example of EPA underestimating 

the cost of implementing this new standard. Specifically 

with the Fresno CBSA required to install the monitor, we 

also request that EPA fully fund all new monitoring 

requirements, which include staffing operation and 

maintenance. 

And then with State and federal agencies facing 

budget issues, the staffing shortfalls, it's imperative 

that EPA ensures adequate amount of federal funding to 

support these monitors. 

The district also requests that EPA reconsider 

the implementation deadline of January 2015. Many regions 

are already encountering delays in implementing the NO2 

near-roadway monitors, which have a deadline of January 

13. And to require the siting of PM2.5 monitors by 2015 

may be overly aggressive, where one region currently 

encountering those issues for the near-roadway NO2 

monitors. EPA also proposes -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Could you please wrap up? 

MR. VILLEGAS: Absolutely. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MR. VILLEGAS: EPA proposes to allow the 

California Reporting, LLC

85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
relocation of near-roadway monitors to collocated. We 

support that. We ask for some flexibility with those 

siting criteria. 

And the near-roadway monitors will likely 

exacerbate the region's non-attainment challenges. EPA 

hasn't accounted for this in this attainment projections. 

We ask that EPA start considering and addressing these 

concerns. 

So in conclusion, we thank you for this 

opportunity to testify, and we'll provide additional 

comments in writing prior to the end of the public comment 

period. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Very good. Comments related 

to the regulatory impact analysis will be helpful. We 

are, of course, going to redo that analysis for the final 

rule. And if you have information to provide to us 

concerning controls that the air district has adopted or 

is looking at adopting, that would be helpful to us 

because we are very much do want to refine that analysis 

and ensure that we are as accurate as possible in our 

projections, recognizing they are projections and 

estimates out to 2020. 

I wanted to ask you if you're willing to comment 

on this. We did, as you know, get some comments 

suggesting we ought to change the criteria for the 

California Reporting, LLC

86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
location of the near road monitors from one million to 

800,000 or something below one million, specifically 

because of problems such as the one you mention with 

Fresno. I just wondered if the district has an opinion on 

that

MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, we believe the 

near-roadway siting criteria is appropriate. We 

understand -- I guess our biggest concern is that the 

current projections doesn't have the Fresno CBSA, which 

will likely exceed the one million by the 2015 deadline. 

We're okay with the one million threshold. 

The concern with the San Joaquin Valley is again 

near-roadway is associated with diesel traffic, generally 

associated with congestion as discussed in the NO2 

standard. We don't see that same congestion the San 

Joaquin Valley. Ours are basically truck traffic and 

vehicular traffic up and down, but we don't see the same 

congestion, so we don't expect our near-roadway monitors 

to have as high as you would see in some of these 

congested metropolitan areas. And that's why we're okay 

with that. 

We feel that the representative ambient monitors, 

the neighborhood monitors, are representative of our 

challenges, which as testified today, are very, very 

difficult to accomplish. But we do feel that the 

California Reporting, LLC

87

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
near-roadway siting criteria is appropriate at this time. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Okay. Thank 

you. 

MS. ROTHSCHILD: Hello. My name is Ann 

Rothschild. R-o-t-h-s-c-h-i-l-d. And I'm a retired 

college instructor, but I'm here as a concerned resident. 

And my concern is for the young, for the 

undeveloped lungs, for the young people. Young people 

growing up and accepting what is. When they grow up in a 

smoggy atmosphere, they think that's what's normal. And I 

grew up in clean air. And asthma was a rarity in my 

childhood. 

And when I taught my classes, I would ask them, 

"How many of you have asthma or know someone who has 

asthma?" And half the class would put their hand up. I 

was shocked. And they would be -- they would shrug and 

just accept it. And that really bothered me. 

There is no need for this. We can regulate. We 

can insist on coal fired power plants having stronger 

regulations. 

And my beg -- my plea to you is thank you for 

coming up with these new standards. Please have the teeth 

to enforce it. In the past, the EPA has been weakened by 

certain administration's actions. I'm very aware of the 

previous administration that actually changed the rules on 

California Reporting, LLC

88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the coal fired power plants so that they would not have to 

obey the clean air rules of the time. 

So I hope that now you have the teeth to enforce 

this and work with industry. I'm very impressed that the 

diesel industry is doing so very well at cutting down 

their emissions. So that's terrific. 

And of course, I know you will work with 

industry. But I hope I speak for many people in the 

public who really, really want to see these stronger rules 

enforced. Thank you very much. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you. 

Our next speakers are Roger McClellan and Ina 

Gotlieb. 

MR. MC CLELLAN: Good morning. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you today. I'm Roger McClellan. 

R-o-g-e-r. M-c, C-l-e-l-l-a-n. I serve as an advisor to 

public and private organizations on ventilation toxicology 

human health risk analysis issues related the air quality. 

This is EPA week for me. On Tuesday, I participated in 

the multi-pollutant consultation. And today, I'm here. 

My career has been devoted to developing 

scientific information on the impact of air quality and 

human health. I have served as a Chair of EPA's Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee, served on numerous CASAC 

panels reviewing the science that informs the policy 

California Reporting, LLC

89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
judgments required to set the national ambient air quality 

standards for each of the criteria pollutants. 

I served on the panels that reviewed the science 

that informed the setting of the 1987, the 1997, and 2006 

standards for particulate matter. I understand the 

process by which the standards are developed and 

appreciate the unique role of CASAC in advising the 

administrator. 

Over the past three decades, an increased body of 

scientific information has developed on the health effects 

of PM. That science has provided the basis for changes 

and the indicators for PM, for total suspended 

particulates, PM10, PM2.5 the concentration levels for the 

24-hour annual averaging times and changes in the 

statistical forms. 

As you're aware, the setting of standards in and 

of itself does not actually change air quality. What is 

significant are the actions taken to attain the standards. 

Numerous EPA regulations in company with State 

implementation efforts and the response of regulated 

industries and the public have resulted in remarkable 

improvements across the United States in air quality since 

passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments. I'm pleased 

to have participated in one of those remarkable advances 

that's already been commented on here, the revolutionary 

California Reporting, LLC

90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
changes in diesel technology. 

In my opinion, certain aspects of the current 

proposed rule are rooted in the contentious ending of the 

2006 revision of the PM NAAQS. At that time, the PM 

panel, which I served on, urged the administrator to 

reduce the PM 24-hour standard from 65 micrograms to 30 to 

35 micrograms and the annual standard from 15 to 13 to 14. 

As a member of that CASAC panel, I did not think 

that prescriptive advise was appropriate. I hold strongly 

to the view the difference between leaving the annual 

standard then at 15, reducing it to some lower level was 

not a scientific decision. Rather, a matter of policy 

judgment informed by science left to the administrator. 

It's important to remember that the Scientific Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee is an Advisory Committee, 

not a standard-setting body. 

I have carefully followed the development of this 

proposed rule. In my opinion, the documents that EPA has 

produced overstate really the changes in the science since 

that 2006 review. Indeed, the core long-term 

epidemiological studies basically remain the same as those 

used earlier, the American Chemical Society Cohort and the 

Harvard Six Cities Studies. It's very important to 

remember those studies are based on exposures that 

occurred decades ago when air quality was markedly 

California Reporting, LLC

91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
different than today, the mix of pollutants, the PM. The 

older studies have been re-analyzed and re-interpreted by 

the EPA in the current effort in their distribution 

statistics activity. These re-analyses were not reviewed 

by CASAC. And ironically, in some cases, the reanalyses 

used data not available to other scientists for analysis. 

The discretion to make the policy judgments 

inherent in setting the level and form the NAAQS are, in 

my opinion, exclusively reserved to the EPA administrator. 

The guidance of CASAC in interpreting the science informs 

those decisions is important. However, it is clear that 

any CASAC advise on the level and form of the standard 

represents a blending of their interpretation of the 

science and their personal policy preferences. 

Supreme Court Justice Bryer and Wittman American 

Trucking Association opinion provided guidance for 

interpreting the discretionary authority of the EPA 

administrator under the Clean Air Act when he wrote, "They 

permit the administrator to take account of comparative 

health consequences. They allowed to take account of 

context when determining the acceptability of small risks 

to health, and they give her considerable discretion when 

she does so." 

I think that advice is still sound today and 

applicable to the community situation. 

California Reporting, LLC

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Mr. McClellan, if you can 

wrap up, please. 

MR. MC CLELLAN: In summary, it's my view the EPA 

administrator has the discretionary policy judgment to 

retain the current PM NAAQS set in 2006 and also 

discretion to make changes. 

However, I think it's very important there be 

much clearer rational for the selection of the specific 

level in the statistical form for each indicator in 

averaging time when we come to the final proposal. 

Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Dr. McClellan, on your last 

statement that the administrator would have the discretion 

to retain the current standards, so is it fair to say that 

your view is that the science would support such an 

exercise of discretion? Is that your statement? 

MR. MC CLELLAN: Yes. Because in the end, 

science in and of itself cannot tell you what the level 

should be. That decision is a decision as to acceptable 

or unacceptable risk. That is a policy judgment, not 

science. Science can describe what is associated with a 

particular level. Science cannot tell you whether that 

level is or is not acceptable. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: So your view would be that 

the administrator could determine that a level of 15 

California Reporting, LLC

93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
would -- given the science, would provide an adequate 

margin of safety and would be precautionary in nature, 

that the risks at 15 are low enough and based on what the 

science tells us about the risk, that they're low enough 

that it would be -- 

MR. MC CLELLAN: That would be a policy judgment 

on the part of the administrator. 

I think, in my opinion, the administrator erred 

in putting forward a proposal that did not explicitly 

include the existing standard. I think the proposal would 

have been much stronger if that had been done and if the 

policy judgments that are being made by the administrator 

are clearly articulated in the proposal. 

What I'm concerned about is that we should not 

have decisions being macerated as being science when they 

are what they are, policy judgments. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MS. GOTLIEB: Good morning. My name is I-n-a, 

G-o-t-l-i-e-b. And I'm program director for a group 

called Families for Clean Air, and I gave you a little bit 

of information about our organization. We are a 501(c)(3) 

nonprofit based in the San Francisco Bay Area, and our 

group's focus is wood smoke pollution. As you probably 

are well aware, wood smoke pollution is a major source of 

PM2.5. It is the marginally ignored. Not just by the 

California Reporting, LLC

94

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
EPA, but by the public in general. 

In our basin in the Bay Area, wood smoke accounts 

for up to 50 percent of our wintertime PM2.5. Our problem 

is not unique. Many other areas in the country currently 

experience similar and worse air quality due to the 

combustion of wood in wood stoves and fireplaces. Yet, 

this source of PM has largely been ignored, and EPA itself 

has taken on an ambiguous attitude about wood smoke as 

evidenced by the guidance it has promulgated on this 

issue. 

As you move to change the air quality standards 

for particulate pollution, Families for Clean Air urges 

you to consider the following: 

PM2.5, such as produced during wood combustion, 

has been established to be a major threat to human health. 

We urge EPA to take this opportunity, which it doesn't 

have very often, to set the annual standard for fine 

particulates to 11 micrograms per cubic meter. This is a 

number that has been sort of thrown out there, but hasn't 

floated to the top as a possibility. And we'd like you to 

reconsider that number again. 

We feel that that is a number that would better 

serve the public in protecting especially the most at-risk 

of our population, such as the children, the elderly, and 

those already suffering from asthma and cardiovascular 

California Reporting, LLC

95

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
illness. This threshold would compel reaches of wood 

smoke pollution to begin addressing this and other PM 

sources impacting their communities and provide impetus 

for areas already doing a little to do more. 

We're very discouraged by EPA's decision not to 

lower the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. We feel it's a lost 

opportunity to close the loopholes in the current standard 

and to provide a clear message to all regions that PM2.5 

is a major health threat that needs to be addressed. 

Families for Clean Air strongly urges EPA to 

consider lowering the 24-hour standard to 25 micrograms 

per cubic meter from the current standard of 35. We feel 

that this is necessary in order to protect the public from 

short-term exposure to fine particulates that can have 

devastating and even deadly impacts in our communities. 

EPA proposed changes involve moving air monitors 

closer to transportation corridors. We believe this is a 

misguided strategy, as it will focus only on pollution 

created by mobile sources and will ignore stationary area 

sources away from major transportation arteries. In 

valleys throughout the United States, wood smoke collects 

on a daily basis in the wintertime months and chokes the 

communities who live there. These people deserve 

protection from air quality laws as much as those who live 

near freeways. And in order to do this, it is important 

California Reporting, LLC

96

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to characterize their pollution burdens through effective 

monitoring, which it sounds like the EPA is trying to move 

away from. 

States rely on EPA's guidance to improve their 

air quality. But the agency's current guidance on wood 

smoke is ambiguous at best. On the one hand, EPA is 

saying how bad wood smoke is to the public health and how 

it is a major source of particulate matter. But at the 

same time, it gives advise about how to burn wisely. 

Consider the analogy of secondhand smoke which has many of 

the same harmful constituents as wood smoke. Imagine if 

the surgeon general said, "Well, secondhand smoke is 

dangerous. But you can smoke near an open window and 

that's okay." Basically, that's what EPA has been saying 

about wood smoke for the past eight to ten years. 

As part of this efforts to reduce PM pollution, 

the EPA needs to create unequivocal guidance on wood 

burning that underscores its danger to public health and 

to promote a reduction in wood burning nationwide. 

We'd like you to consider wood smoke pollution as 

you go forward in promulgating new standards for PM2.5 and 

fine particulates because we feel it's a source that has 

largely been overlooked and needs to have more attention 

from EPA to be able to give states better opportunities to 

create SIPs that are most effective. 

California Reporting, LLC

97

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Thank you very much. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

I want to assure you that EPA has not overlooked 

wood smoke, and I'm sorry it appears to you we have. We 

actually have in our office in North Carolina a group that 

focuses on wood smoke, and it's possible we have different 

views of what the right strategy is. But I'd actually 

like to give you after this the names of a couple of 

people you might contact. 

MS. GOTLIEB: We've been talking to people in 

Research Triangle Park. But frankly, to date, the 

approach that EPA has taken as to certify wood smoke -- 

wood stoves that are cleaner and we have found all kinds 

of alarming information about the operation of those wood 

stoves over the long term, the fact that they require so 

much maintenance. And if something goes wrong, all of 

those air quality benefits that it's supposed to make 

pretty much go away. 

And so we also -- it's sort of ambiguous to say 

wood smoke is bad, but if you burn it in an EPA-certified 

appliance, it's okay. We want to get beyond that to date 

and say wood smoke is bad, just like secondhand cigarette 

smoke is bad. Just because you're smoking near an open 

window or you have a filter in your house does not make 

smoking a good thing. 

California Reporting, LLC

98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

Our next two speakers are Nikita Naik and Robyn 

Prueitt. 

MS. NAIK: Good morning. My name is Nakita Naik, 

spelled N-i-k-i-t-a, N-a-i-k. I'm a scientist 

representing the Natural Resource Defense Council. Thank 

you for this opportunity to comment. 

I'm here today in strong support of this 

important effort to update the federal PM2.5 standards. 

Together, with experts from the medical field, American 

Lung Association, Sierra Club, and many others, we are 

calling for health protective standards for fine 

particulate matter pollution, including an annual standard 

of 11 micrograms per cubic meter and a daily standard of 

25 micrograms per cubic meter. 

As you know, particulate matter kills thousands 

of people every year, sickens millions, and leads to 

billions of dollars in health and other costs to society. 

EPA's efforts to update the fine particulate matter 

standards are of paramount importance to public health. 

And for this, we applaud you. 

The proposal to lower standards for PM2.5 to 

between 12 and 13 micrograms per Cubic meter is strongly 

supported by the current scientific literature and would 

yield significant benefits, including up to 15,000 lives 

California Reporting, LLC

99

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
saved each year. However, EPA has acknowledged that there 

is no safe exposure level for particle pollution of this 

size. Therefore, we strongly encourage and support a more 

health-protective annual standard of 11 micrograms per 

cubic meter. A standard set at this level can save up to 

an estimated 27,300 lives per year, providing roughly 

twice the health benefits of the currently proposed 

standard. This update to the PM2.5 standard is one of the 

most important actions that EPA can take, given the 

staggering total of particulate pollution on public health 

throughout the U.S. These very fine particles can 

penetrate deep into the lungs where they cross into the 

blood stream and cause a variety of serious health 

impacts, including aggregated asthma, chronic bronchitis, 

and other respiratory complications, heart attacks, and 

cardiac illness and premature death. 

We also support an updated 24-hour standard of 25 

micrograms per cubic meter as compared to the current 35 

micrograms per cubic meter because of the current evidence 

of short-term health impacts calling for a more protective 

level. The 24-hour standard is important because it 

informs the air quality index that many people rely on to

know whether it is safe to send their children outside to 

play. Communities, schools, and families need to be 

advised that outdoor activities during pollution spikes 

California Reporting, LLC

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
above 25 micrograms per cubic meter pose a health hazard, 

and they look to the EPA for this important information. 

One of the most important elements of the updated 

PM2.5 proposal is a new requirement for air monitoring 

along busy roads and large urban areas. This requirement 

is long overdue to protect the roughly 45 million 

Americans who live in close proximity to high traffic 

areas and likely experience elevated PM2.5 pollution 

levels. We believe that this monitoring requirement can 

easily piggyback on the existing network of near-roadway 

monitors that will now be required for the NO2 standard. 

The near-roadway monitoring requirement is a 

significant improvement that begins to correct a major 

shortcoming in our nation's system of roughly 900 

monitors, nearly all of which have been deliberately 

placed far away from major sources of air pollution, 

including busy freeways. Near-roadway hot spots of 

elevated PM2.5 constitute a serious environmental justice 

issue as demographic data consistently indicate that 

family in these areas are more likely to be non-white and 

among lower income brackets. 

Dozen of studies have shown both greatly elevated 

fine particulate matter levels near-roadways and 

significant increase risk of respiratory and other health 

hazards. For example, one long-term study in southern 

California Reporting, LLC

101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
California found that children exposed to traffic-related 

pollution in schools were more likely to develop asthma. 

Scores of other studies have found that following 

additional health hazards associated with traffic 

pollution, of which PM2.5 is a primary ingredient. 

Increased incidents are risk of cancer, adverse birth 

outcomes, adverse impacts to the brain, including 

potentially higher risk of autism, heart disease, and 

premature death. 

Therefore, we strongly support a near-roadway 

monitoring network for PM2.5 that will ensure a number of 

clean air policies aimed at protecting the millions of 

people living at these fine PM hot spots and facing these 

greatly elevated health risks. 

Again, we strongly support EPA's efforts to 

update the PM2.5 standards as a critical step towards 

protecting public health. Together, with many other 

health experts and advocates here today, we ask for an 

annual PM2.5 standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter and 

a daily standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. With 

the update to these important standards, all Americans can 

rest assured knowing that they will be exposed to less 

deadly particle pollution that can cause asthma attacks, 

heart attacks, and even premature death. 

Thank you. 

California Reporting, LLC

102

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. We'll look 

forward to comments, which I assume will have more detail 

associated with them. Thank you. 

MS. PRUEITT: Thank you very much for the 

opportunity to speak today. 

I'm Dr. Robyn Prueitt, R-o-b-y-n, P-r-u-e-i-t-t, 

a senior health scientist at Gradient, which is an 

environmental consulting firm based in Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. I received funding from the American 

Petroleum Institute to travel here today, but I'm speaking 

on my own behalf. 

Based on my expertise in epidemiology and risk 

assessment, I conclude that EPA's rational for lowering 

the PM2.5 annual standard to a level between 12 and 13 

micrograms per cubic meter is not based on a 

scientifically-sound approach. 

EPA based its conclusions almost exclusively on a 

limited number of epidemiology studies that are not 

informative for PM-related health effects at levels below 

the current standard. 

EPA asserted that the epidemiology studies 

published since the completion of the last PM NAAQS 

provides stronger and more robust evidence of causal or 

likely causal associations between both long- and 

short-term PM2.5 exposures and cardiovascular and 

California Reporting, LLC

103

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
respiratory effects on mortality. 

To assess these potential causal associations, 

EPA used a framework it developed and described in the 

integrated science assessment. EPA used this framework 

inappropriately in the assessment of PM, however. An 

appropriate use of the framework demonstrates that 

evidence for PM-related health effects at levels below the 

current standard is weak and too uncertain to be used as a 

basis for the lowering the standard. 

The EPA-developed framework is based on the 

Bradford Hill criteria for determining causality of health 

effects. These criteria include evaluating the strength 

of associations, consistency of results across studies, 

coherence of effects observed across different study 

types, specificity, biological plausibility, 

exposure/response relationships, and the temporal 

relationship of the observed associations in epidemiology 

studies. 

I find that the EPA used the Bradford Hill 

criteria inappropriately and that it overstated the 

strength and consistency of observed associations in PM 

epidemiology studies. In doing so, EPA did not give 

appropriate weight to the magnitude of the association 

between PM and mortality and morbidity. Almost all risk 

estimates measured in the available studies either 

California Reporting, LLC

104

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
indicate a zero effect or very close to it. 

Similarly, EPA overstated the consistency of the 

results supporting an association between PM2.5 and 

various health effects because it considered all risk 

estimates greater than one to be positive, even if not 

statistically significant. 

On the other hand, EPA placed less weight on or 

ignored studies that reported no associations. This is 

not a scientifically sound way to weigh the evidence, and 

it is not consistent with EPA's framework or the Bradford 

Hill criteria. 

The epidemiology data as a whole are inconsistent 

both within and among studies, with some analyses 

suggesting increased risks for some heath effects and 

others reporting no effects of annual average levels below 

and above the current PM standard. This indicates that 

the epidemiology data are not robust enough to support 

lowering the standard. 

Specificity can be examined by determining 

whether one disease is specific to an agent or whether one 

agent is specific to a disease. But factors such as other 

pollutants or stress, which have been shown to be 

correlated with PM exposure, can cause adverse health 

effects, but EPA did not adequately consider the 

possibility that some effects attributed to PM could be 

California Reporting, LLC

105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
linked to these other factors. 

When evaluating causality, EPA should consider 

the lack of specificity with respect to other contributing 

factors. 

Coherence is the degree to which all evidence 

comes together in a common and mutually supporting way. 

The data from controlled human exposure and toxicity 

studies for PM are mixed and lack coherents. Although a 

few studies indicate increased markers of cardiovascular 

effects and mild respiratory effects in humans and 

animals, this only occurred at PM exposure levels that are 

higher than ambient levels, by usually at least an order 

of magnitude. These inconsistencies suggest that the mode 

of action for adverse health effects from PM exposure is 

not consistent with effects occurring at low doses, which 

provides little support for the biological plausibility of 

PM-related health effects at exposure levels below the 

current standard. 

In conclusion, based on many of the criteria of 

the EPA framework, there is little scientific evidence 

that is strong, consistent, and coherent for ambient PM2.5 

induced health effects occurring at levels below the 

current PM2.5 standard. Because of this, the level of 

annual PM2.5 standard should not be lowered. 

Thank you very much. 

California Reporting, LLC

106

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL MEMBER HANNON: First for Ms. Naik, one 

statement you made was that EPA's determined there is no 

safe exposure level on PM. I think that's what your 

statement was. 

I want to clarify. I don't think we've made that 

determination. I think we were actually phrasing very 

carefully about a threshold. And I think I get it right. 

Beth will correct me if I don't, that the evidence doesn't 

demonstrate there is a threshold below which there is no 

effect or that there is safety. But that's a little bit 

different than saying we've determined that it's unsafe at 

all levels or that there is no safe level. 

And Dr. Prueitt, you finished saying that 

consistency confounders, coherent, et cetera, don't 

support the finding of causality below the level of 15. 

How about above 15? Do you have -- recognizing that we 

look at the science as a whole, not just below 15 and 

above 15, but what is your view of the science on the 

levels above 15? Are you saying that those problems -- 

there are not those problems or there are those problems? 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Or actually at the level of 

15. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: I'm sorry. At the level 15 

and above. 

MS. PRUIETT: I think there is inconsistent 

California Reporting, LLC

107

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
evidence for even around that level. But this is 

addressed in more detail in Gradient's written comments we 

will be submitting where we actually go through more of 

the literature. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Okay. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you, both. 

Our next speakers are Bill Davis and Bonnie 

Holmes-Gen. 

MR. DAVIS: Hi. My name is Bill Davis. That's 

Bill Davis, spelled the normal way. 

And I'm the editor of two construction industry 

publications, for the California Trucking Association and 

the Southern California Contractors Association magazine 

for the last ten years. I've been an advocate for the 

best interests of the construction industry in the air 

quality arena consistent with public health. I've seen 

Ms. Holmes-Gen at a hundred air quality meeting with the 

Air Resources Board next door. 

And I haven't heard anybody say this yet, but 

welcome to California. I hope the weather is nicer than 

it was in Philly. 

And despite a lot of what you've been hearing 

today, we are the third healthiest state in the nation in 

terms of life expectancy. And our air quality is nearly 

90 percent better than it was when your agency was 

California Reporting, LLC

108

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
founded. 

We, in the construction industry in general, 

support the EPA approach to air quality improvement from 

emissions standpoints. You require equipment and engine 

manufacturers to improve their emissions rather than the 

approach that the California Air Resources Board is 

taking, with its in-use regulations, which are, as we 

speak, forcing contractors and truckers to sell or scrap 

otherwise serviceable and paid-for equipment to meet the 

state fleet standards and a construction economy that 

remains down 60 percent from where it was in 2006. 

We do oppose your proposal to increase 

restrictions with regard to the PM2.5 standards, rather, 

as both unnecessary and perhaps unwise. Since we are 

aware that you will not consider economic arguments 

regarding the proposed rule, only public health related 

considerations, we will confine our comments to that side 

of the issue. 

And while I'm not a scientific, a mere reporter, 

I have been involved in covering these issues for the 

better part of the last decade. And I can report to you 

that the science regarding PM2.5 isn't settled, at least 

not in a major way. 

One of the most interesting events I covered 

regarding PM2.5 was the symposium held in Ontario, 

California Reporting, LLC

109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
California, August 1st, 2009, with the subject line, "None 

of this is Real." Tantalizing title. One of the speakers 

was Dr. Robert Phalen, a Ph.D. at the California 

University of Irvine School of Medicine, a real scientist, 

a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science, a fellow of the Academy of Toxicological 

Sciences, a fellow of the Southern California Academy of 

Sciences, member of the Board of Directors for the 

California Society for Biomedical Research, and not 

incidentally a member of the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee. 

Dr. Phalen discussed PM2.5 and what it actually 

is, a measurement of mass of very small particles that 

occur in the air all around us from a variety of sources, 

not a substance. Dr. Phalen explained that the chemical 

composition of PM2.5 varies from region to region, not a 

substance, but a measurement. Made me wonder then if 

PM2.5 is a pollutant -- a quart pollutant? How about a 

gallon? I mean, really, the people that are asking for 

you to identify the materials within that measurement are 

right; you need to find out what it is. You have some 

notions in some places, but not others. And using a 

measurement as a pollutant seems illogical. 

The one thing that Dr. Phalen said that was 

emblazoned on my reporter's notebook is that our average 

California Reporting, LLC

110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
lifetime exposure to all forms of PM2.5 over a 70-year 

lifetime is about one teaspoon of material. That's one 

teaspoon. If I had known it was "Bring Your Grandkids to 

Work Day" I would have had some very cute people behind 

me. But instead, I use this as my prop for today. My 

beloved allowed me to bring this scientific measuring 

device as a visual aid for this presentation, although she 

did ask if it was one of the cheap ones. 

I had thought about bringing some carbon black to 

substitute for diesel soot. I mean, it's in everybody's 

toner cartridges, in your tires. It's everywhere. But 

then I thought, if I spilled it, you would call the hazmat 

squad. 

I see my time has run out. I appreciate the 

opportunity to have shared some thoughts with you and will 

extend and revise those thoughts in writing. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you. 

MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you. Thanks for the 

opportunity to speak today. 

I'm Bonnie Holmes-Gen, the Executive Director for 

Air Quality and Public Health with the American Lung 

Association in California, and also a 20-year resident of 

Sacramento and a mom. 

And you heard from several speakers today from 

the American Lung Association in California. We're proud 

California Reporting, LLC

111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to be out here in force today. Starting, with our 

President and CEO, Jane Warner; Dr. David Maxwell; our 

Governing Board Member Susan Griffin; and several 

individuals who are suffering because of asthma and lung 

illnesses. And you heard some very profound stories. 

All of us are here today urging you to adopt the 

most health protective standards, the 11 microgram 

standard for the annual and the 25 micrograms standard for 

the 24-hour standard. And in addition to the individuals 

you've heard from, we have a dozen leaders and staff from 

our Lung Association offices around the state that are 

here today. Some folks are still here that want to raise 

their hands. We had a number of folks here. Some have 

left. We are here in force today because this is 

critically important to the health of Californians and the 

health of the people that we deal with on a daily basis. 

We've also been collecting postcards from 

citizens in Sacramento and other parts of the country 

also. We'll be mailing them in to you. We have hundreds 

of postcards just from California, just from this area, of 

people who want to speak out and tell you how important it 

is for the EPA to adopt the strongest and most health 

protective standard possible. 

This is because, of course, California does have 

the worst air quality in the country. As mentioned 

California Reporting, LLC

112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
earlier, but just -- I think this has an incredible impact 

to remind you over 75 percent of individuals in California 

live in areas with unhealthy soot levels. We have a 

serious problem. And this serious problem is causing 

health emergencies every day; over 9,000 premature deaths, 

hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, thousands of 

visits to the hospital. All of these health emergencies

add up to costs. And we have numbers from studies in 

California that demonstrate the huge public health cost of 

air pollution. 

We know that California studies show that 

residents in the San Joaquin Valley are bearing the burden 

of $5 billion in health costs every year. And residents 

in the South Coast area of our state have a price tag of 

$22 billion in health and economic costs. This includes 

all the costs of medications and hospital visits, of 

course, premature deaths and other economic costs. 

We are paying for dirty air now with our lives 

with these health emergencies and hospital visits. We're 

paying the costs. We need you to act to reduce these 

costs. This is not acceptable. The situation right now 

is not acceptable. California cannot afford to move 

forward without tighter standards, more protective 

standards for public health. 

I also wanted to urge you as a Sacramento 

California Reporting, LLC

113

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
resident and a mom to move forward quickly and adopt these 

tighter standards. I have two children, ages 11 and 13, 

who I'm very proud of. I'm pleased they don't have 

asthma. But 40,000 children in Sacramento do have asthma, 

and almost a million children statewide do have asthma. 

And they suffer on bad air days, as you've heard today. 

We need you to do the right thing, to protect 

children in California. My children play soccer almost 

every day. We don't want to see air alert days where 

they're required to reduce their activity levels or stay 

inside. Our bodies simply weren't made to breathe the 

high levels of pollution that we are breathing in 

California. The science is solid. You have the thousands 

of studies demonstrating the need to tighten our 

standards. 

We ask you to please adopt the tighter standards 

to save the lives of thousands of individuals in 

California and tens of thousands across the country. 

Please adopt tighter standards to help kids breathe easier 

and help families who are struggling with health care 

costs. 

We urge you again to adopt the most health 

protective standard for the annual standard of 11 

micrograms per cubic meter with the 24-hour standard of 25 

micrograms. And we urge you to move forward with 

California Reporting, LLC

114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
extensive near-roadway monitoring to make sure that we're 

getting the best possible data on exposure of our 

individuals to pollution. And we have had that big gap 

with the lack of near-roadway monitoring until now. 

Please move forward, adopt strong standards. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 

much both of you. And thanks to those who came today. We 

appreciated everyone taking the time to come and attend 

this hearing. 

Our next speakers are Dr. Kent Pinkerton and Dr. 

Deborah Drechsler. 

MR. PINKERTON: Good morning. My name is Kent 

Pinkerton. K-e-n-t. P-i-n-k-e-r-t-o-n. I'm a faculty 

member at the University of California Davis, and I 

conduct research on the health effects of air pollution. 

I'm speaking today on behalf of the American 

Thoracic Society, a medical professional organization of 

over 15,000 physicians, researchers, and allied health 

professionals dedicated to the prevention, detention, 

treatment, and cure of respiratory, sleep, and critical 

care illnesses through research, education, and advocacy. 

There is abundant research demonstrating that 

particulate matter air pollution is bad for your health. 

There are numerous chamber studies that have convincingly 

shown that exposure to particulate matter reduces 

California Reporting, LLC

115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
pulmonary function and promotes airway inflammation. 

These health effects have been demonstrated in healthy 

young adults at levels as low as 25 micrograms per cubic 

meter. Experience tells us that vulnerable populations 

including seniors and children are likely to exhibit much 

stronger reactions than healthy young adults at similar 

exposure levels. 

There are also epidemiological studies that have 

confirmed particulate matter air pollution to contribute 

to a whole host of adverse health consequences, including 

cardiac deaths, respiratory deaths, heart attacks, 

vascular remodeling, COPD, exacerbation, asthma 

exacerbations, and low birth weight. 

What is most comprehensive and most impressive 

about the scientific literature regarding air pollution is 

that it is shown through literally hundreds of studies 

that document particulate matter air pollution is bad for 

human health. 

The research is also consistent over decades. 

Researchers have been able to apply improved research 

technologies to document the health effects of air 

pollution at consistently smaller doses. 

So the American Lung Association and along with 

the American Thoracic Society strongly supports EPA's 

proposed rule to reduce air particulate matter, air 

California Reporting, LLC

116

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
pollution. We believe that the EPA should set a standard 

of 11 micrograms per cubic meter for the average annual 

standard, 25 micrograms per cubic meter for the 24-hour 

standard, and also include using the 99th percentile for 

data monitoring. 

I think it's equally compelling that research is 

showing when particulate matter pollution is reduced, 

human health improves. A three-year closure of a steel 

plant in Utah Valley where I grew up in the state of Utah 

significantly reduced particulate matter in the valley, 

leading to a statistically significant reduction in all 

cause mortality. 

In Atlanta, Georgia, particulate matter 

reductions associated with the 1996 Atlanta Olympics led 

to reductions in pediatric asthma, emergency room visits, 

asthma exacerbations, and asthma inhaler use. And similar 

health improvements were noted also in PM reductions 

related to the Beijing Olympics. 

In short, we know that exposure to particulate 

matter air pollution is bad for health. We also know that 

reducing particulate matter leads to real measurable 

improvements in health. 

In conclusion, the dangers due to exposure to 

particulate matter pollution are real. The science 

documenting the adverse health effects of air pollution is 

California Reporting, LLC

117

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
conclusive, and the technology required to reduce air 

pollution is readily available and in use today. And the 

benefits of the proposed rule are meaningful and 

significant. 

And I really would like to thank you for your 

time and be happy to answer any questions. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: Thank you, Dr. 

Pinkerton. 

I'm wondering if ATS has comments on the coarse 

particle standard as well.

DR. PINKERTON: Yes. We've also considered that 

as an important part of the regulation for the air quality 

standard that should not be ignored. 

In terms of the actual concentrations that we 

would advocate, I do not know those at the moment. But I 

know that we really do want to continue to encourage the 

EPA to consider the coarse particle standard is importance 

for us to continue to reduce those levels. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: All right. Thanks. 

Dr. Dreschler. 

DR. DRECHSLER: Good morning. My name is Deborah 

Drechsler. D-E-B-O-R-A-H. Drechsler, D-r-e-c-h-s-l-e-r. 

I'm speaking on behalf of the California Air 

Resources Board, CARB, on the recently proposed revisions 

California Reporting, LLC

118

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to the national ambient air quality standards for 

particulate matter. CARB is heartened to see that the US 

Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reducing the 

annual average standard for PM2.5 to between 12 and 13 

micrograms per cubic meter from the current level of 15. 

Although the scientific literature does not 

provide a bright line for a safe level, evaluation of the 

scientific literature leads to the inescapable conclusion 

that a level for the annual average PM2.5 standard, no 

high are than 12 micrograms per cubic meter is requisite 

to protect the health of all Americans, particularly 

children, the elderly, people who suffer from chronic 

diseases, and others who are at increased risk. 

California set its own annual average PM 2.5 

standard at 12 micrograms per cubic meter in 2002, 

primarily based on results from studies that investigated 

the relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure and 

premature mortality using the American Cancer Society and 

Six Cities Cohorts. 

We also considered evidence for hospitalizations 

and emergency room visits for exacerbation of chronic 

cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. 

Since our 2002 review, there have been several 

updates to both of the mortality studies just mentioned 

that extended the follow-up period. The results of the 

California Reporting, LLC

119

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
most recent updates to these studies confirm the findings 

of the original publications demonstrating the robustness 

over time of the relationship between long-term PM2.5 

exposure and mortality. 

In addition, several major studies using new 

cohorts have appeared that strengthen the conclusion that 

exposure to PM2.5 has significant effects on public 

health. 

In addition, the health science literature 

clearly demonstrates that PM2.5 exposure is associated 

with hospitalizations and emergency room visits for 

exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. 

There have also been new studies that have 

expanded our understanding of the biological mechanisms 

through which PM2.5 exposure influences morbidity and 

mortality. Collectively, these studies have confirmed the 

validity of California's annual average PM2.5 standard of 

12 micrograms per cubic meter. 

CARB urges U.S. EPA to act to provide the same 

level of public health protection to all Americans that is 

provided to Californians by reducing the level of the 

annual average PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per cubic 

meter. 

CARB supports U.S. EPA's proposal to retain the 

existing 24-hour average standards for PM2.5 and for PM10. 

California Reporting, LLC

120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Although the scientific literature on the health effects 

of PM10 is less consistent and has a greater degree of 

uncertainty than that related to PM2.5, we believe that it 

is sufficient to justify retaining the current 24-hour 

average PM10 standard to protect the public from exposure 

to coarse particles, thereby preventing adverse 

respiratory health effects. 

CARB supports EPA's proposal to add flexibility 

on the use of PM2.5 federal equivalent method data for 

comparison to the air quality standards. 

CARB also supports maintaining the existing 

approach for estimating the design value when PM2.5 air 

quality is monitored on a seasonal schedule. 

In conclusion, CARB supports U.S. EPA's proposals 

to retain the existing 24-hour average PM2.5 and PM10 

standards and to reduce the annual average PM2.5 standard 

to no higher than 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Our 

analysis shows that the proposed reduction in the level of 

the annual average PM2.5 standard would prevent thousands 

of premature deaths and hospitalizations in California 

alone and many more nationwide. 

Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER JORDAN: Good morning, Dr. 

Drechsler. We've heard a number of comments this morning 

about our proposed criteria for siting near-roadway 

California Reporting, LLC

121

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
monitors. And I'm wondering if, based on the Air 

Resources Board's extensive experience with air quality 

monitoring, you'll be providing input on that aspect as 

well. 

DR. DRECHSLER: Yes, we are. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Thank you, both, 

very much. 

Our next speakers are Robert Linkul and Robert 

McClerran. 

MR. LINKUL: Good morning. 

First, I want to say thank you for allowing me 

the opportunity to be here today. 

My name is Robert Linkul. Last name spelled 

L-i-n-k-u-l. I'm a certified personal trainer with the 

National Strength and Conditioning Association. And local 

here in Sacramento, 15 years. I work at Arden Hills 

Resort Club and Spa. Have contact with over 2600 members 

there. 

I'm here speaking on behalf of the American Lung 

Association, myself, my family, my friends, and all my 

clients that live in this area. And I'm a lung cancer 

survivor. 

Coming out of college in 2004, I was an NCAA 

All-American. Threw a hammer at Sacramento State. 

Represented our college at the national championships that 

California Reporting, LLC

122

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
year. And post-college, I threw for Rebook for two 

seasons, in which I ended my hammer throwing career with a 

back injury, rupturing a disc in my back. At that point, 

I changed my sport, my emphasis to the sport of 

mountaineering. Much more cardiovascular activity in 

which I climbed Mount Rainier up in Washington and was in 

the midst of training for climbing Mount Shasta and 

Whitney when I was diagnosed with a carcinogenic tumor in 

my left lung. Carcinoid tumor is a encapsulated cancer 

and progressively grows bigger, eventually would have 

taken over my lung and killed me at some point. 

For treatment for this, I had a massive surgery 

in which they removed a lower lobe of my left lung, 

removed one of my ribs, broke another, completely cut 

through all the musculature on the side of my torso, on 

which I had extensive physical therapy and unfortunately 

went into a pretty sever case of depression. 

Post-surgery, I discovered what it must have felt 

like for an asthma patient or someone that has a 

difficulty breathing based off air pollution. Having now 

experienced it myself, being a national level athlete, I 

never thought about that. And now been placed in the 

shoes of a lot of the clients I work with. Found myself 

being locked away indoors with local cities and such, 

having large amounts of air pollution coming in this 

California Reporting, LLC

123

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
direction based on the wind and also Sacramento just 

producing a lot of it itself. 

As a personal trainer, I encounter a lot of 

people. I encourage a lot of these people to go outdoors 

to experience the outdoors, and especially being in 

California, all the State Parks and the environments that 

we have. And due to poor qualities of the air, it is in 

my personal opinion not advise people to go out on these 

days. 

Unfortunately, my life is dictated by numbers. I 

do check these scales every day to see if it is a Spare 

the Air Day, so to speak, in which it's safe for me to go 

outside or not. I do have severe reactions to heat and 

pollution and have had personal stresses with that. 

Simply put, the air pollution interferes with my 

life and does not allow me to live the active lifestyle 

that I would like to. And my experience going into this 

has been a major wake-up call for me. That is one of the 

reasons that I joined the American Lung Association as a 

volunteer and have taken up this call to action. 

My request, of course, is higher cleaner 

standards and less air pollution. This will save lives. 

This will help me live a more enjoyable lifestyle and more 

comfortable lifestyle and allow my clients, their kids, my 

family, my kids, and all of us to enjoy the outdoors when 

California Reporting, LLC

124

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
we have, be able to participate in the athletic events 

that we like to participate in. 

And again, just thank you very much for hearing 

me speak. I really appreciate it. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much for 

sharing your experience with us. 

MR. MC CLERRAN: Good afternoon. My name is 

Robert McClerran. I'm here representing the California 

Construction Trucking Association. 

And I just want to comment that people from 

California are very healthy. Only three states have a 

lower death rate than California. The reality is that 

there are no statistical deaths from PM2.5 or ozone in 

California. 

No one is dying from air pollution in California 

to this day. They've never shown anybody the death 

certificate from any of these folks. Everybody in this 

state is subject to the natural air pollution that is 

here. 

The state has the most amount of dust flying when 

they talk about Sacramento Valley and whatnot. If you 

want to pave the whole state over with concrete, maybe you 

might have a chance of getting rid of the PM2.5. 

But my other comment here is about making data 

public. And this is an article that was by S. Stanley 

California Reporting, LLC

125

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Young National Institute of Statistical Science. 

"Openness and transparency are the core of 

scientific process. Science and technology have been a 

major driver for the social change, improvements in living 

standards, and improving health for humans over the last 

250 years. To support openness, data sets used in paper 

supporting the regulation by EPA should be publicly 

available as quickly as possible. It is just good science 

to have data used in public -- in papers made public. 

"Some might think that peer review is enough to 

ensure the validity of claims made in scientific papers. 

Peer review is not enough. Peer review only says that the 

work meets the common standards of discipline. And on the 

face of it, the claims are plausible. Scientists doing 

peer review essentially never ask for data sets and 

subject the paper to the level of examination that is 

possible by making data electronically available. 

"Also, the evidence is that many claims made in 

peer reviewed journals don't hold up. For medical 

observations studies, over 80 percent of initial claims 

filed to replicated environmental epidemiology studies are 

likely no better. The scientific process is back and 

forth. The process would be faster and more efficient 

with data sets publicly available. 

"Three things make sense. First, going back in 

California Reporting, LLC

126

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
time, key regulations in papers used to support them 

should be identified. EPA should secure copies of data 

used in those papers and make that data public. 

"For example, the number of papers on an air 

pollution and mortality used in the ACPS II database. The 

EPA should secure a copy of this data set and make it 

public. 

"The Harvard 6 studies data set is not public. 

It should be. Note that where data sets are not 

available, claims in those papers are essentially trust me 

science. The EPA should not be relying on trust me 

science. 

"Secondly, using taxpayer dollars, as in the 

American Heart Association benefiting from those tax 

dollars, EPA reports do not support such current research. 

As papers are published on this research, authors should 

provide at time of publication three things: The study 

protocol, the statistical analysis code, and the 

electronic copy of the data set used in the publication. 

"Basically, EPA funded authors should follow the 

guidelines for reproducible research enough that this pay 

to play bologna that we see going on today. 

"Third, going forward, the EPA should fund data 

collection and analysis separately. Data collection in 

staging the building of data sets is a distinct area 

California Reporting, LLC

127

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
requiring different skill sets from the data analysis. 

Each could be done more efficiently if done separately. 

If data building and analysis are done together, there 

would be a natural tendency. Authors do not share the 

data until the last ounce of information is extracted. It 

would be better to open the analysis to multiple teams of 

scientists. 

"The public, Congress, and EPA should all want an 

efficient science process to support sound regulation. 

Trust me science is not science at all. Making data 

available by implementing these three steps would be big 

steps towards improving the science process of the EPA." 

And on a personal note, I've been in the trucking 

business here in Sacramento all my life. I've seen the 

state go from, yes, I will agree to very bad pollution 

state to what it is today. I think the regulations that 

the EPA has done in the past have done a significant 

amount of improvement to the state. 

The problem that I've seen is this regulation has 

now gone so far that it's killed the people that I do 

business with that can't afford to buy health insurance 

for their families because the increased cost of all this 

bologna. And this has made the most unhealthy set of 

people in this state. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you, both. 

California Reporting, LLC

128

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Our next speakers are Betty Plowman and Rocio 

Martinez. 

Ms. PLOWMAN: Would you like me to begin? 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. Good afternoon, 

please. 

MS. PLOWMAN: I'm Betty Plowman. I'm speaking on 

behalf of Dr. John Dale DunnHe had sent these comments to 

Professor James Enstrom. 

But before I begin on that -- I can stay within 

my time limits -- I was impressed on the roadway -- I 

think the road site monitoring. It's been of great 

interest to me since the entire things came out on how 

healthy or unhealthy we are. I was particularly 

interested in the healthy counties you may be familiar 

with from the University of Wisconsin. And what 

especially that's every county in the nation, based on 

many, many different factors; poverty, healthy air, food, 

insurance, educational levels. 

Surprisingly to me, the second healthiest county 

in California this year is Santa Clara County. What 

struck me with that is this is a county with three 

interstate freeways, US 101, and eight expressways. Now, 

those roadside monitors, what makes it different, those 

folks have jobs. You take in and contrast to that Del 

Norte County, which three years ago was the unhealthiest 

California Reporting, LLC

129

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
with zero particulate matter days, but they have high 

unemployment and high poverty. And if we want to look at 

a killer, as the previous speaker said, when you can't 

afford insurance, you've got some big health problems. 

But consider that as we kill our jobs over these 

regulations, we also increase health effects as shown. 

And now to get on to what I'm supposed to be doing. 

U.S. EPA sponsored and funded researchers are 

renewed for producing findings supportive of the EPA 

regulatory agenda. EPA internal scientific and policy 

peer review is conflicted by political and monetary 

factors. For example, the CASAC members have received 

tens of millions in grants from the U.S. EPA. The 

cumulative effect is corruption. That corruption can lead 

to the criminality discussed below. 

The misconduct of the U.S. EPA researchers is 

immoral. U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified 

before Congress in September 2011 that small particle 2.5 

microns or less air pollution is lethal. Ms. Jackson said 

particulate matter causes premature death. It's directly 

causal to dying sooner than you should. 

"Further," she testified, "if we could reduce 

particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the 

same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country. 

Cancer kills half a million Americans annually, 25 percent 

California Reporting, LLC

130

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
of all deaths." 

September 2011, the Journal of Environmental 

Health prospectives published a case report of EPA 

research on a 58-year-old obese hypertensive lady with a 

family history of early heart disease. She was exposed to 

small particles in a chamber. At 111 micrograms per cubic 

meter, EPA says 35 micrograms per cubic meter is the safe 

upper limit. Forty other human subjects were exposed to 

as much as ten times the safe level in the experiment. 

The other subjects had no ill effects. 

The EPA follows the generally accepted common 

rule that prohibits harmful human experimentation. So 

what could have possessed these EPA researchers to do the 

experiments that violated ethical norms? The authors 

reveal the reasons in their journal report. To our 

knowledge, this is the first case/report of cardiovascular 

disease after exposure to elevated concentrations of any 

air pollutant. 

The only way out for the EPA in this episode is 

to admit they lied to Congress and the public about the 

toxicity of PM2.5 or the EPA and its researchers can hold 

to their claim that small particles are harmful and deadly 

and face charges of criminal conduct in accusations of 

tortious neglect. Small particle research is flawed and 

the U.S. EPA should withdraw its proposed reduction from 

California Reporting, LLC

131

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PM2.5 standard that has no reliable scientific 

justification. 

I have reported this matter to the North Carolina 

Medical Board and to the UNC Medical School IRB. 

John Dale Dunn, MD. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MR. MARTINEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Rocio 

Martinez, R-o-c-i-o, M-a-r-t-i-n-e-z. 

I'm a health promoter for the Yolo County 

Children's Alliance. I have four children, and I live in 

the west Sacramento area. 

Before anything, I would like to thank you for 

inviting me. For me, it is very difficult to witness the 

contamination in the air because two of my children have 

beginning stages of asthma. It is difficult for me to 

watch them not being able to breathe. They have a cough. 

It is hard for me to see that they cannot sleep at night. 

And of course, I can't sleep at night because I have to 

watch them. 

It is very difficult for me to see the air which 

is contaminated. I can also see it over the news where 

the environment is contaminated. It's difficult for my 

children not to be able to go outside and to play. It is 

difficult to talk to other families and to see other 

families where I see more and more of this problem, these 

California Reporting, LLC

132

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
respiratory problems, and more specifically these problems 

with asthma. It's difficult for them to breathe. 

If anything, I would like to plea to you if there 

is something that you can do in order to control this 

contamination problem in the Sacramento area. 

Thank you very much for everything. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 

much for coming. 

Our next speaker is Maria Melgoza. 

MS. MELGOZA: Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. 

My name is Maria Melgoza. And M-e-l-g-o-z-a is my last 

name. 

And I'm here to -- I got invited. And thanks 

everybody for inviting me here. I'm one of the victims of 

asthma. I've been suffering for the last 30 years with 

asthma, so I've been living with that. And it's very bad 

for an adult or for children that one of my childrens have 

also suffered from asthma. And it's something that we 

don't want for anybody. We live in like fish out of the 

water. The most beautiful time -- it's just we cannot go 

out because we can feel the contamination of the air. 

One of the -- I had like four years I had not 

asthma because I keep myself indoors certain season, like 

when they start blooming trees and that. So I stay 

indoors. 

California Reporting, LLC

133

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
But one of the -- this year, it was very 

beautiful day so I went out with my granddaughter, 

two-years-old. I went to the park here in Sacramento, 

Land Park. It's beautiful out there. So I went out. We 

could not stay for ten minutes when we started not 

breathing. We stopped -- we were wheezing so very bad. 

So I get back in the car, and she got sick for like two 

weeks indoors. We had to take her to the doctor and I 

ended up back on my inhaler. So it's very bad, the air. 

Once when we hit that, it's hard to get out of 

our system or our lungs. But I don't understand what is 

in the air, but I know it's something that it's making 

us -- a lot of people sick. I don't know how not 

everybody gets sick. 

But I remember one time I was very bad with 

allergies. We get a call. I'm from Mexico. I came here 

when I was 20 years old. So I've been living here for 

most of my life. And we can go from -- one of our 

families back there. I had to go to the emergency and I 

can't go because I was sick with asthma. I was really -- 

I ended up in the emergency room and I was on medication 

and all that. But I decide to go anyway so I -- well, I'm 

leaving anyway. So I went there. For my surprise, Mexico 

looks like a kind of poor country for me comparing with 

this country, very clean, very beautiful, everything. But 

California Reporting, LLC

134

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
over there, as soon I get off the plane, it's not asthma 

on my lungs no more. And for the week that I was there, I 

was able to breathe like normal. I was not sick at all. 

Even though it's so smoky in some cities, there's no 

control on the traffic and people smoke everywhere in and 

outdoor. I don't have no asthma at all. 

Once when I came back here, I get my asthma back. 

So there is something that we don't see it. I can tell 

that. I experience that. I live that. So to me, it will 

be very, very helpful for everybody, to the people who 

know what is it is try to help. Because I think that I 

can see now more and more kids are getting sick. Either 

asthma or any other respiratory problems, I can see that. 

So for the people who know how to fix this, if it 

is something that we're doing, we should do something. 

Very seriously. We don't want to -- our new generations 

living with inhalers or indoors. And live in the outside 

doors just for the birds or animals, which is very 

beautiful out there for everybody, especially this 

weather. But it's some -- even warm or cold, but we can 

enjoy more smart way to live here in California. I'm 

talking about California because that's what this I call 

my home. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Ms. Melgoza, your time is up 

now. 

California Reporting, LLC

135

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MS. MELGOZA: Thank you so much. Thanks 

everybody for inviting me and let me speak this. And I 

hope we do something all together we can do it. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you so much for 

coming. 

Our next speaker is Susan Wilkie. 

And I'll just note that we plan to take a lunch 

break at 12:30. And if there is any anybody else who 

wants to speak at this point before lunch, please sign up 

outside. And otherwise, we will be taking a lunch break 

from 12:30 to 2:00. We'll plan to start the hearing again 

at 2:00. 

MS. WILKIE: Thank you very much. I'm glad I had 

an opportunity to speak. I'm just a common citizen. I'm 

70 years old. I do have a chronic condition, chronic 

fatigue syndrome, but it's not directly affected by the 

air quality, that I know of. 

But I know from just living in the valley and 

when I listen to these people speak about their 

experiences I've heard about in mines, they used to use a 

bird -- they would send the bird or canary into the mine 

to see if there was enough oxygen. And then if they died 

or were struggling for air, they knew there was a problem. 

Well, these people are the birds into the mine. 

They're the ones telling you that there is -- yes, there 

California Reporting, LLC

136

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
is an issue. There is a problem. So if you want to 

continue sending people into the mines where they can't 

breathe, you're going to have some problems down the line. 

And you have them now. And I think especially 

when we look at the cost to the health system -- and I 

understand that air quality relates to other illnesses and 

brings -- and can effect cancer, heart problems, obviously 

asthma, and I'm sure there's other illnesses. We have so 

many chemicals to deal with now, thousands and thousands 

of chemicals. 

And then we're also now putting it -- you not 

only ingest it, you not only touch it, you're also 

breathing it. And those are -- as humans, we have air and 

water and the ground. That's what we exist from. And if 

we don't take care of our environment and we are as a 

species going to be affected. We don't know what that is. 

Financially, it might be good for some people if we don't 

do anything. 

But I do think we will pay for it in the long 

run, just as we are with our financial situation now. You 

can scrape the barrel. You can use the charge cards. But 

at some point, if there's not enough air to breathe, you 

are going to be affected. Maybe you can go to 

Switzerland. Maybe you can go to the top of maintains. 

But even the wealthiest are going to be have to deal with 

California Reporting, LLC

137

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
this. We don't want to be carrying around oxygen tanks at 

some point. 

I know, myself, when I watch the news and talk 

about the weather, talk about the heat, but I don't always 

hear about the air quality. And I know when they say it 

is a bad air day, then they tell you to stay inside. 

Well, not everybody can stay inside. You know, we drive 

our cars. We add to the pollution. So when are you going 

to start taking all this seriously? It's not just the 

air. It's the water as well. 

And because money isn't going to make it go away. 

You can spend money. But unless you do something about 

it, this money has to be used to change the way that we 

live in this environment. 

And health care is getting more and more 

expensive. And we don't have the best health care. 

That's what we're dealing with now on a national level. 

And since it effects so many different illnesses and it's 

exacerbating so many things, it's in our financial best 

interest. I feel, you know, we are worried about making 

money. It's in our own financial best interest to do 

something at a broader scale and even more than what this 

change that you're proposing, it should be even more 

extreme. 

And I guess that's about all I wanted to say. I 

California Reporting, LLC

138

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
just think we're being pragmatic. You have to watch your 

children and grandchildren to deal with. Are you going to 

do a bond issue and have them pay for it? 

But at some point, like everything, we're 

scraping the barrel with what we can do. And the birds 

are starting to die. And you don't want it to be your 

child or your grandchild or your sister's or your mother 

or your grandmother or the baby that you might be carrying 

yourself. Okay. Could affect them and how their brain 

develops and how they develop into adults. 

Basically all I wanted to say. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much for 

speaking with us today and sharing your views. 

At this point, I think we will take a lunch 

break. Thank you all. And we'll hope to see some of you 

after lunch. 

(Whereupon a lunch recess was taken 

at 12:05 p.m.) 

California Reporting, LLC

139

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
AFTERNOON SESSION

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Welcome to the afternoon 

session of our public hearing on EPA's proposal to revise 

the national ambient air quality standards for particulate 

matter. Thank you all very much for coming. I know that 

many of you have traveled quite some distance to 

participate in today's hearing. And we are very 

appreciative of the effort you've made to come and speak 

with us today. We very much appreciate it. 

My name is Lydia Wegman. I'm the Chair of the 

Panel. And we have four other panel members here. Kerry 

Drake and Qwen Yoshimura are from our San Francisco office 

in Region 9 office. John Hannon is in our Office of 

General Counsel. And Beth Hassett-Sipple and I both work 

in EPA's Office in Research Triangle Park, the Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards in North Carolina. 

I'm not going to read my opening statement, which 

I read this morning. But if you would like a copy, one is 

available outside. 

But I will just remind folks of the emergency 

procedures in case -- we hope there isn't. But if there 

were to be an emergency, there would be an alarm that 

would sound. strobe lights would indicate the need to 

evacuate the building. And we would exit down the stairs 

following staff and exit to the park across the street, 

California Reporting, LLC

140

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
which is Cesar Chavez Park and wait there until we were 

instructed to return to the building. 

And the restrooms are to the left, should you 

want the restrooms. 

Okay. So we will now proceed with our next 

speakers. And just a reminder for how this works. We 

called two people up at a time, and we ask that you both 

stay seated until you have both finished speaking. We on 

the Panel may ask clarifying questions. However, we are 

not here to discuss or debate the proposal. And if you do 

have any clarifying questions, we would be happy to try to 

answer those. 

You have a maximum of five minutes to speak. 

Beth has a timer. We'll start at green. It will go to 

yellow, and then it will go to red when the five minutes 

is up. And if for some reason you haven't completed your 

talk within about five minutes, I'll just remind you that 

time is up. So I think that's it. 

And we are grateful to Tiffany, our court 

reporter, who is here. She will be creating a transcript 

of this hearing, which will -- along with our prior 

hearing on Tuesday in Philadelphia -- the transcript of 

both hearings will be in the docket for this rulemaking, 

if you want to see them. 

The comment period closes on August 31st. So if 

California Reporting, LLC

141

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
you have written comments that you wish to submit, please 

do get them to us by August 31st. And there are 

instructions outside on how the submit comments to the 

record. And the record of this hearing will remain open 

for 30 days following the completion of the hearing. So 

if for any reason you want to submit a rebuttal or 

additional testimony specifically related to the hearing, 

you'll have 30 days to do that. 

I think we'll proceed then and our first speakers 

are Mike Wang and Jean Jackman. 

I should say you have to push the button on the 

mike until it lights up. It should be bright green. 

MR. WANG: Good afternoon. Thank you for giving 

me an opportunity to testify. 

My name is Mike Wang, and I'm with the Western 

States Petroleum Association. WSPA represents 27 

companies that explore, develop, refine, and market and 

transport petroleum and petroleum products in the western 

U.S. of California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, 

and Hawaii. So Region 9 folks, we are well aware of your 

expertise and your talents and the breadth of your power. 

Our total effort in the state in the western 

region represents nearly 15 percent of national refining 

capacity. And with respect to oil and gas activities, 

California produces about 218 million barrels of oil from 

California Reporting, LLC

142

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
50,000 wells. It's the third largest producing state in 

the U.S. 

On June 29th, EPA proposed new particulate matter 

standards -- air pollution standards for both coarse and 

fine particulates. 

Today, I'm commenting on the proposed fine 

particulate matter, or PM2.5 standards. As you well know, 

PM2.5 half was identified by EPA as an air constituent 

that required regulation in 1997. Both the daily and 

annual standard are in place. And included in EPA's 

recent proposal are options and reasons for potentially 

changing the PM2.5 standard. 

We understand this proposal is intended to 

represent the culmination of a multi-year process to look 

at science and determine if any compelling new science has 

been encumbered that warrants a change in the current 

standard. 

When PM standards were last reviewed in 2006, 

there was enough uncertainty in the science that EPA 

administrator decided not the change the annual PM2.5 

standard at that time. 

That brings us to the latest proposal. This 

time, EPA states in their review that new studies suggest 

that a revision to the PM standards is advised. 

You've heard from API, the American Petroleum 

California Reporting, LLC

143

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Institute, and others they feel there is not enough 

compelling evidence showing a need to further tighten the 

standard or, in other words, tighten standard beyond what 

it is now. 

We support the API testimony and their views on 

the science underlying the PM issue. 

Want to divert from this and tell you why WSPA 

and its predecessor pioneered the use of air quality 

models and air chemistry models since the late 1970s, 

early 1980s. We were one of the first organizations to 

support air quality modeling and computer modeling, 

permitting, and air quality planning. So from the late 

1970s to early 1980s, we've been actively involved in air 

quality issues. And Lydia knows, because I've been down 

to Research Triangle Park on several occasions. 

So there are times when we have to ask the 

question: Should the standard be based on health effects 

associated with the average population, or should EPA 

develop a standard that is health protective for the most 

sensitive and at-risk population? 

Given that ambient PM concentrations can result 

from vastly different pollutants and vastly different 

metrological conditions, it seems appropriate to look at 

different health effects under which conditions they may 

occur. In other words, can the form of the standard be 

California Reporting, LLC

144

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
developed that is both health protective and readily 

implemented. 

Let's look where we are and where we've been. 

First, as you heard from others, efforts to 

reduce PM2.5 under the current standards have been 

successful. The concentration of PM2.5 in the nation has 

declined 24 percent between 2001 and 2010. For those of 

us in the west, this improvement has been mirrored in even 

in the more problematic areas of southern California. 

For example, the South Coast air basin is 

expected to meet attainment of the PM2.5 standard in the 

next AQMP. So, too, has the San Joaquin Valley made 

similar progress to improving air quality. 

As another example, in California, this industry, 

the oil industry, has participated in three reformulations 

of on-road diesel, four reformulations of gasoline, and 

two reformulations of other distillate fuel. So these 

reformulations as well as elevated concentrations as well 

as improvements in air emissions -- in vehicle emissions 

will continue to result in improved air quality. 

If the administrator doesn't find compelling 

evidence to change an air quality standard based on this 

proposal -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Sorry, Mike. The five 

minutes is up. If you could wrap it up. 

California Reporting, LLC

145

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MR. WANG: Thank you. We'll state that we'll be 

happy to work with you in the future. I apologize if I 

ran long. And we'll continue to work with you in the 

future progress. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. I'm sorry. 

We've got a question. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: I have one question. In 

the beginning of your testimony, you talked about is there 

compelling evidence since the 2006 review. And I expect 

that will be -- 

MR. WANG: Currently. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Recurring theme in your 

written testimony. It will be helpful if you can put that 

in the context of the fact that the 2006 standard was 

remanded by the court for inadequate decision making. 

So if you want to use 2006 as a base line, which 

in many ways we do, we look at the science as changing. 

But as far as looking at 2006 as an adequate base line, it 

will be instructive to get your comments on how the court 

decision, the DC decision, about that 2006 standard, how 

you fold that into your reasoning. 

MR. WANG: Be happy to do that. Thank you. 

MS. JACKMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Jean 

Jackman. I'm a plain old citizen and grandma. I grew up 

in Minnesota. And in Minnesota, I only remember one 

California Reporting, LLC

146

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
friend ever who had asthma. And she lived in a small 

apartment with a smoking father and grandmother. 

I've lived in California for the last 42 years. 

I've raised two children who are adults now. They both 

had respiratory problems. But what really touches me now 

is grandchildren, 8, 10, and 12. 

Now, my grandchildren are very lucky in some 

ways, because they have an affluent existence. They live 

in Palo Alto around Stanford. Their doctors are the 

Stanford doctors. But what they didn't know when they 

moved into their house and made that investment in that 

very pricey house was what the air quality was in Palo 

Alto. They're three blocks from 101. All three children 

have had serious respiratory problems, one intubated. 

Now, this is an athletic family. Both my 

son-in-law and daughter were varsity athletes in the 

University of California system. They come from athletic 

parents, from Canada to Mexico. In the fall, I'm 69. The 

children are all athletic. They have good nutrition and 

good doctoring. But the horrible pain and near deaths 

they go through are appalling. 

And then over in east Palo Alto where people 

have -- where there is a poor area, I've read horrible 

statistics about the health of children over there who 

cannot afford the Stanford care. 

California Reporting, LLC

147

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
So there is no protection from the horrible air 

we're breathing in California. There is no protection. 

I came down with a lung mass last fall, and they 

first thought it was cancer. Then they thought it was 

tuberculosis. They didn't know what it was. I went 

through several school systems, including the UCD teaching 

hospitals. They threw up their hands. Lung problems are 

horrible. I'm really worried about -- I hear Mr. Wang 

talk about, look at the average and not the -- I can't 

remember the expression for people who are more sensitive. 

That's our children. And if you look at the studies of 

schools that are close to freeways -- well, I'm sure you 

know it all, don't you? And I hope you remember it. 

I love living in California. But when I look at 

California, I think, well, maybe I need to move to have a 

longer life because I live in the central valley. But 

I've seen the rice crop -- you know, no burning of the 

rice crop and improvement in gases. And I hope we can get 

public transportation going and more biking. 

Please do whatever you can do to increase the air 

quality. And I know you have tremendous pressure on you. 

I do feel like right now in our society we're getting the 

best government that money can buy, and all of the 

lobbyists with all of the petroleum industry, with all of 

the lobbyists and money and pressure, pressure, pressure 

California Reporting, LLC

148

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
on you. But think of your children. Think of your 

grandchildren and generations after that. And please do 

the courageous and right thing and do everything you can 

to increase our standards. 

Thank you so much for an opportunity to speak 

today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much for 

taking the time both of you to come and talk with us 

today. We appreciate it. Thank you. Good luck on that 

bike trip. That sounds exciting. 

Our next speakers are Michael Lewis and Sarah 

Sharpe. 

Mr. LEWIS: Good afternoon. My name is Michael 

Lewis. I'm the Senior Vice President of the Construction 

Industry Air Quality Coalition and have been for the last 

22 years. We have eight construction associations in 

California that make up our membership. We represent 

3,000 contractors, 450,000 construction employees in 

California, half of what it was in 2007. 

We've been doing our part to help clear the air. 

We helped to draft, with the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, the PM10 rule, control dust from 

construction, which is the most restrictive in the nation. 

And our members are spending billions of dollars complying 

with the off-road rule to reduce NOx and PM2.5. That rule 

California Reporting, LLC

149

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
has cost us the permanent loss of 40,000 high-paying 

construction jobs in California. Unfortunately, there is 

no environmental organization concerned about the health 

impacts of regulation related unemployment. 

We are deeply disturbed and seriously opposed to 

any change in the national ambient air quality standards 

for particulate matter. Since the 1990s, many credible 

health studies have raised serious doubts about the U.S. 

EPA's claim that PM2.5 causes premature death. This claim 

is critical because the primary justification for the 

PM2.5 regulation is based on the number of lives that will 

be saved, 230,000 by U.S. EPA's estimates. And thus, the 

trillions of dollars that will be saved on medical bills 

versus the paltry billions it will cost to comply with the 

regulations. 

Without the premature deaths, the cost of 

compliance far outweigh the public health benefits. U.S. 

EPA has employed some creative accounting and some loose 

definitions to buttress their contention. There have been 

ten separate analyses of five major groups of Californians 

representing hundreds of thousands of exposed subjects 

across the state, followed by health experts and 

epidemiologists for nearly 20 years. 

The California results are extensive and they're 

irrefutable. They're null. There is no impact. Some of 

California Reporting, LLC

150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the national studies have found statistically significant 

association between PM2.5 and premature death in eastern 

parts of the United States. However, none of those 

studies have been able to establish PM2.5 as the cause of 

death. That's an important distinction. And I would say, 

for example, during the winter, there is a strong 

correlation between the higher incidents of hypothermia 

and the purchase of heavy coats. That does not mean that 

heavy coats cause hypothermia. 

Likewise, nowhere does it appear the presence of 

PM2.5 causes premature death in California or in much of 

the rest of the nation. U.S. EPA has made some other 

jaw-dropping assumptions to justify this regulation, 

namely that deaths from every cause, but accidents, are 

somehow caused by 2.5, that no matter how long the PM2.5 

level -- how low it is, it still causes premature death, 

and that U.S. EPA is 100 percent certain of this, not just 

75 percent certain or 50 percent certain. I don't believe 

any reasonable person would believe those assumptions. 

The lack of a causal link to PM2.5 and premature 

death is very apparent in the California data. Even the 

researchers who conducted the PM2.5 research studies for 

CARB and EPA had to admit, when confronted two years ago 

in public by several of their research peers, that their 

data could not find a causal link, particularly in 

California Reporting, LLC

151

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
California. 

U.S. EPA's determination about PM risk is 

particularly disturbing in the face of California's 

current PM2.5 levels, which are the lowest ever recorded. 

And as of 2009, California has had the third lowest 

age-adjusted total death rate in the US. In actuality, 

PM2.5 has nothing to do with health in California. 

We have a number of recommendations that we'd 

like you to consider. One is that you stop and reassess 

your 2.5 strategy. There needs to be some change to the 

standard. No change at this time. If there is a 

premature death problem in the rust belt, as some studies 

might suggest, they should adopt a standard for that 

region only once they figure out the real cause. 

I think you need to restore the integrity to the 

scientific review process, having risk assessments peer 

reviewed by an independent body, not agency staff or 

researchers funded by U.S. EPA. 

Third, you need to consider variable standards 

only where real health impacts are identified in the 

special regions, such as the rust belt. 

Fourth, the cost benefit analysis process needs 

to be redone. Health benefits are always inflated and 

improperly calculated. And the compliance costs are 

always underestimated. 

California Reporting, LLC

152

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
An honest assessment by an independent source 

publicly reviewed and critiqued would restore credibility 

to this process. 

And finally, U.S. EPA should not accept studies 

where the underlying data is not available for independent 

review and confirmation. Drawing research conclusions and 

saying trust me, that's what the data shows, then refusing 

to make the data available should disqualify that research 

from being used for regulatory purposes. 

Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Just one question for you. You mentioned several 

California studies that you say showed null results. I 

don't know if you're planning to submit written comments. 

But if you are, I assume you'll identify those studies 

and -- 

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: And the peer reviewer and 

all that. 

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. 

MS. SHARPE: Good afternoon. 

MR. LEWIS: Let me just say those are actually 

analysis of EPA studies of the California data in EPA 

studies. They're not separate studies. It's an analysis 

California Reporting, LLC

153

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
of the California data. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: You'll be submitting those 

analyses to the docket. Thank you. 

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

MS. SHARPE: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah 

Sharpe. I'm with Fresno Metro Ministry. I'm the 

Environmental Health Director. 

Fresno Metro Ministry is a multi-cultural, 

multi-faith non-profit that promotes social and economic 

justice in order to create a more respectful, 

compassionate, and inconclusive community. 

I'm a San Joaquin Valley resident from Fresno. 

And I'm third generation from there, and now raising the 

fourth generation. I'm a mother of two young boys. 

And over the past -- I also recently in the past 

few years have been diagnosed with asthma. I guess it's 

been a while now, but I've been learning to deal with it. 

Over the past decade, I've been working in my community, 

learning about the multiple assaults on our health that we 

have experienced by living in the San Joaquin Valley due 

to having some of the worst air pollution, undrinkable 

contaminated drinking water, some of the highest levels of 

pesticides applied to our land in the state, and some of 

the poorest people in the country. 

Roughly 30 percent of our neighbors in Fresno 

California Reporting, LLC

154

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
County live below 100 percent of the federal poverty line. 

Just to put that in perspective, that would be families of 

four living on $28,000 per year or less. 

And the reason that I mention this today is that 

because we believe -- we know that poverty creates a 

social vulnerability, that makes it more difficult for 

people to cope with and protect themselves from air 

pollution and other environmental hazards. And for 

example, by getting preventative health care or having 

health insurance at all, et cetera. 

In our outreach efforts, we have found often that 

many people -- many more people suffer from asthma or 

symptoms and signs of asthma than are documented because 

they're not very familiar with it. And even people in my 

family I think are in denial about what the signs are. So 

even though we have some of the highest rates of asthma in 

the state in Fresno County, we believe those are 

underestimated as well. 

And the horror stories are numerous about the way 

that particulate matter and ozone affect our populations 

in Fresno, and I don't want to go into those. I have more 

people here with me that will talk about that. 

On behalf of all of the residents of the San 

Joaquin Valley who couldn't be here today, we're asking 

you to adopt a new PM2.5 standard that will protect as 

California Reporting, LLC

155

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
many people as possible. 

We count on this agency to protect our health. 

And I can speak over the years, as I go around small, tiny 

unincorporated areas, to schools throughout Fresno, 

everybody expects and thinks that the EPA protects them 

and is waiting for that to happen. And sometimes is 

disappointed when they find out it hasn't happened as much 

as we think it should. 

So we are here today to urge U.S. EPA to adopt an 

annual standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter and a 

24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. We 

urge you to listen to the medical professionals and 

scientists that have found these levels will save more 

lives and are the most protective of human health. 

Since Fresno and other cities in our region fill 

the top five most PM polluted cities in the nation, 

according to American Lung Association state of the air 

every year -- we look at the list, and lo and behold, 

there we are again. 

And we have large populations of people of color 

living in poverty, we believe it would be an environmental 

injustice to fail to lower the standards as low as they 

can possibly be in order to protect human health based on 

good science. 

We know it would be difficult. We currently have 

California Reporting, LLC

156

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
many days that we exceed the current standard in our 

region, and we realize that is very difficult on our 

industry. But we are willing to work together as people 

that all live in the valley that we need to find 

solutions, and we need to find a way to have clean air and 

have very prosperous economy and jobs, because we all want 

jobs. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Just need to see 

who's coming up next. 

Our next two speakers are Kevin Hall and Anne 

Mossgrove. 

MR. HAMILTON: My name is Kevin Hamilton. I'll 

be speaking for Anne Mossgrove. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER JORDAN: I thought maybe you had 

changed your name. 

MR. HAMILTON: No, but some people have felt we 

were married before. 

MR. HALL: Good afternoon. My name is Kevin 

Hall. I'm from Fresno. I'm the Director of the Central 

Valley Air Quality Coalition, and have been in that 

position since August of last year. 

I first began working on air pollution in the 

valley in 1999 alongside Kevin Hamilton and other key 

leaders, like Sarah Sharpe. 

California Reporting, LLC

157

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
And back then, I was a volunteer with the Sierra 

Club. And our first round of actions included lawsuits 

against the Federal EPA and the local air district which I 

refer to as the Valley Air Board, for failure to comply 

with non-discriminatory requirements, non-discretionary 

requirements under the Federal Clean Air Act. 

And I want to give you a quick response to 

comments made earlier -- actually, I wanted to also say 

that the Region 9 administrator and staff under the 

current administration have been among the most responsive 

in my experience. And it's been a real pleasure to see 

that direct involvement and that really deep outreach to 

work with us in the community. And I especially commend 

Mr. -- I'm going to say his name wrong -- Garrett 

Bloomfield. I always think of a friend of mine named 

similarly. 

That being said, a quick response to comments 

made earlier today by a representative of the Valley Air 

Board to suggest that the cost to millions of people would 

not be worth it. And obviously, I'm going to argue there 

is a greater, deeper cost of health impacts, lives 

shortened. And we'd rather spend some money now and get 

the air cleaned up. 

I should also quickly throw in that I'm 

definitely here to support the 1125 standards so that 

California Reporting, LLC

158

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
we're not going for a lower threshold. That's too often 

been the history in the San Joaquin Valley. 

The idea that monitoring or monitors -- sorry -- 

the roadside monitoring is actually in the Valley Air 

Board's adopted legislative agenda January of this year, 

that they are in support of more monitors, but they're in 

support of more federal funding. And the EPA this year 

moved $400,000 to the Valley Air Board to do that. So I 

think there is a bit of a conflict going on. I recognize 

those are for NO and maybe not roadside monitors. 

I really wanted to tell you just a little bit 

about the San Joaquin Valley in political terms. And the 

reason I want to speak in those terms is I think it's 

really important that people at the Federal EPA understand 

what we're really up against. And as a result, it's 

really incumbent upon you to push and push and push. And 

that's why we need the stricter standards. 

I don't know if any of you are from California or 

not, but just think of California as a city. 

Is that the one minute light? 

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: That's two. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Two minutes. 

MR. HALL: Think of California as a city and the 

San Joaquin Valley as the wrong side of the tracks; lower 

levels of education, income, shorter life spans. And 

California Reporting, LLC

159

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
where do you put the most heavily polluting industries? 

And where do you regulate them the less? That's on the 

wrong side of the tracks, and that's in the valley. 

Our Valley Air Board has 15 members. Out of that 

15, only one is a person of color. Only two are women. 

Thirteen of those are elected officials drawn from local 

City Councils and County Board of Supervisors. Two of 

them are democrats. The rest are republicans. We live in 

the red counties of California. 

And political terms are what is deciding how we 

move forward in the valley, political agendas. In that 

context, that representation on the Valley Air Board is 

not the face of the San Joaquin Valley. Those are not the 

demographics of the San Joaquin Valley. The demographics 

are the majority of minority population, low income, and 

the latest research only shows increasingly frighteningly 

impacts from fine particulates. 

So as you move forward in this process and you 

have to look at the science, please regard this science as 

seriously as possible and consider the political context 

in which our Valley Air Board operates. And do the utmost 

you can to justify pushing everybody forward, as Sarah 

Sharpe mentioned. The top five cities for particulate 

pollution in an entire United States are in the San 

Joaquin Valley. And had we drawn you just a little 

California Reporting, LLC

160

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
further south, starting in Modesto, you could have more 

folks who suffer those impacts. Thank you for your time. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Actually, I'm sorry. Just one thing. I just 

wanted to clarify one thing on the roadside monitors. The 

money going for the NO2 monitors will help set up roadside 

sites where the PM monitors would go. So that money is 

actually going to help contribute to establishing fine 

particle monitors near roadways as well. So I just wanted 

you to know it will help toward ultimately setting up PM 

monitors toward roads. 

MR. HALL: Then I encourage you to attach any 

requirements that you are legally allowed to attach. 

In southern Kern County, we have what I would 

call the diesel triangle of 99 going north/south, going 

over Tehachapi at 18,000 trucks a day and 58 heading out 

through Mojave and southeast Bakersfield, and a 

concentration, an explosion of warehouse distribution 

centers, plans for a coal-fired power plant. It's 

hydrogen, but we're going to get amazing NOx emissions 

from the trim loads of coal through southeast Bakersfield. 

Again, Bakersfield, the wrong side of the tracks where a 

lifespan for average residents is more than 20 years less 

than the north side of town. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thanks. 

California Reporting, LLC

161

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Go ahead. 

MR. HAMILTON: My name is Kevin Hamilton. I'm 

the Chief Program Officer for Clinica Sierra Vista. We're 

the third largest community health center in the 

United States, with 50 sites and over 135,000 patients in 

the San Joaquin Valley. 

All of our patients are under-served and 

under-insured. They are the poorest of the poor. And 

because of that, we see the health consequence of the 

environment they live in on a daily basis. 

On a regular basis, I've had various folks from 

the media wanting to come in and take pictures of our 

patients, which is always very challenging. But wanting 

to see our full waiting rooms that fill even further in 

the subsequent days to where the particulate matter 

threshold is exceeded or the ozone threshold is exceeded. 

In the three to five days immediately following those 

events, we see record-breaking groups of people in our 

waiting rooms all suffering from upper respiratory 

ailments, migraine headaches, itchy eyes. 

So if I wasn't bright enough to read the 

literature, I could look in my waiting rooms anecdotally 

and see those impacts. If there's something else out 

there that could be causing them, as has been suggested, 

I'd be interested to know what that thing is that is 

California Reporting, LLC

162

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
permeating the entire valley at the same time. That seems 

highly unlikely. 

In coming here today, I did do a review of the 

literature. And I'm always curious to see what new things 

have happened and why the decision that was made in 2006 

happened and what happened today. And it appeared to me 

that the decision in 2006, the recommendation of the 

science folks then was change the standard. And I'm here 

to support 1125, by the way. 

In fact, politically the decision was made 

essentially not to change the standard. So there has been 

even more compelling literature since then. 

Now we've seen the reports on a study that you 

probably have out of Stanford that shows us that children 

who are raised in East Palo Alto, a very poor community, 

as we watch their immune systems develop and children who 

are raised in Fresno both with and without asthma in both 

communities have poorer immune system responses. In fact, 

the children without asthma in the Fresno community had 

poorer immune system response than the children with 

asthma in East Palo Alto. 

This is a terrifying thing to find out, that the 

environment that you're living in where I have three 

children living now and eight grandchildren, this very 

much concerns me. 

California Reporting, LLC

163

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I feel very strongly that the environment that 

we're living in is killing us essentially and is damaging 

our children and that a lot of the pollution in that 

environment is in the air. So that needs to be dialed 

down. And all of the literature tells us that there is no 

good PM, okay. Anything small enough that is respirable 

is not good. There is no literature that suggests, that 

I've been able to find, that says this PM2.5 is worse than 

this PM2.5. It's all bad. There is nothing. 

Now, some is very bad and some is horrible. But 

there is nothing that's even moderate. It's all horrible. 

Anything that reaches into your blood streams ends up in 

your liver, your kidneys, ends up affecting your 

development in any way, shape, or form is going to have a 

negative impact. It's going to trigger an inflammatory 

response in the body. We all know that -- or those of us 

who work in that business. And it's going to hurt you. 

We know now that the size of the particles -- certainly, 

size does matter in this situation. So 11, fine. Ten, 

even better. I'm willing to accept what you're 

suggesting. 

Another comment I just want to make briefly, it's 

funny, I didn't go do college until I was 28. Until then, 

I was an air conditioning contractor. I worked in the 

construction industry. I saved more money laying -- and I 

California Reporting, LLC

164

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
had friend who worked in the logging industry. The 

spotted owl was the mythical thing that lost all the jobs. 

Anybody who in that business will tell you automation 

loses more jobs in those industries than anything else. 

My son is a contractor in Los Angeles, making 

more money than I'll ever make. And he is trumpeting the 

fact he's gaining new technology that allows him to use 

less people to accomplish the same job. 

So while I'm willing to agree that there may be 

some regulatory issues that may cause some job loss, I 

believe that is grossly exaggerated and used as a 

red-herring to convince people who are losing those jobs 

that this is the reason you're losing the jobs. So I'd be 

interested to see evidence that shows otherwise. 

At any rate, thank you very much for your time. 

I appreciate it. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both for coming. 

Very much appreciate your making an effort to come here 

today. 

Our next speakers are Roger Christy and Julia 

Burrows. 

MR. CHRISTY: Thank you very much. 

For the record, my name is Roger Christy. 

R-o-g-e-r, C-h-r-i-s-t-y. I'm the Environmental Issues 

Coordinator for Chevron based in San Ramon, California. 

California Reporting, LLC

165

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Previously, I worked in Bakersfield and handled a lot of 

our air quality permitting in my prior assignment. 

I'd like to speak on a little slightly different 

topic today. It's very relevant, but slightly different 

aspect about the particulate matter standards. Namely, 

there are some permitting and implementation issues that 

need to be addressed now so that whatever standard is 

selected, those issues can be resolved and the permitting 

process can still function. 

My concern is that the modeling necessary in 

attainment areas -- I'm talking about the areas that are 

clean -- that has to be considered because what happens 

and what has happened on past lowering of standards for 

the permitting under NOx and the attainment designations 

under SOX, the modeling hasn't been updated to reflect the 

lower standard. So you end up with projects that are 

clean, projects that have the emission controls. They 

don't effect attainment being delayed because you have to 

prove that they won't deteriorate the air quality, but the 

improvements in the modeling tend to lag. Because when 

the standards are implemented or promulgated, those PSD 

issues become into effect immediately. 

And so very soon all the -- and PM can be a 

little different. If you look at the projections you have 

for one of the levels, it was only having a handful of 

California Reporting, LLC

166

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
counties out of attainment in years 2020. That means the 

rest are going to be dealing -- the rest of the country is 

going to be dealing with the prevention of significant 

deterioration permitting. And if the modeling isn't 

addressed fairly quickly, there can be delays. And 

ironically, the delays are on projects that are in 

attainment and don't effect attainment. It's just the 

problem of demonstrating that. So I think that's 

something on the modeling that needs to be addressed 

concurrent with the review of the standards so that when 

whatever changes made are rolled out, they're included in 

there. And that was the specific area I would comment on. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Go ahead, John. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: I have a question on the 

modeling for NO2 and SO2. That was in the context where 

the standard changed not just in the level, but also in 

the averaging time and went to a one-hour peak average, 

all new standard. I know there were pretty significant 

modeling issues and are pretty significant modeling issues 

about that. Are you saying there's current modeling 

issues about annual PM? Are you talking about PM fine? 

MR. CHRISTY: No. I'm simply making the point 

that I don't know what those issues will be. But there 

has been -- the recent history as the standard gets lower 

and closer to the background levels that the modeling has 

California Reporting, LLC

167

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
a conservative nature in it, understandably. And it's too 

conservative as the standards gets very low. And it's a 

pragmatic application that needs to be verified and worked 

on. Because what will happen is when they're 

immediately -- when those PSD standards become 

promulgated, that's going to be an issue for those 

projects. And they can end up having year or multi-year 

delay to do monitoring systems for a project that if 

the -- and it's not about the project being not clean 

enough. It's just being able to show it because the model 

isn't accurate enough at the lower level. So I don't have 

a specific answer to that, but that's the concern. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Appreciate that. And you 

can flesh it out more in your comments. 

It might be instructive for you to focus on the 

secondary standard where there is specific proposals we're 

making about modeling for the PSD program for that new 

secondary standard. And any input on that would be 

useful. 

MR. CHRISTY: I'll check into that. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: And we are generally very 

interested in trying to better link the standard-setting 

process to the implementation process. We are aware of 

the problems that were encountered in trying to implement 

the NO2 and SO2 standard. If you have specific 

California Reporting, LLC

168

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
suggestions on what we can do on modeling -- and I can 

also give you some people in our office who are working on 

those kinds of issues. 

MR. CHRISTY: We'll include those in our 

comments. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Christy, you kindly reminded me it would be 

very helpful in everyone would spell their last name for 

our court reporter. I forgot to mention that when we 

started out. If you would spell at least your last name 

for her, we would appreciate it. Thank you. 

MR. CHRISTY: Thank you. 

MS. BURROWS: Good afternoon. I'm Julia Burrows. 

And Burrows is spelled B-u-r-r-o-w-s. I'm President and 

Executive Director of Greenwise Venture, a nonprofit here 

in the Sacramento region. I'm tasked with implementing a 

ten-year regional action plan to improve and diversify our 

economy, improve our environment, and engage the 

community. I'm senior policy advisor to Mayor Kevin 

Johnson. I'm here on his behalf. He's currently at the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors Conference in Philadelphia. You 

probably traded air space as you came from that hearing 

and he went that way. He sends his regrets, but has asked 

me to appear on his behalf. 

First, we want to thank you for having this 

California Reporting, LLC

169

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
hearing in California and in Sacramento. We're sitting in 

a building where much of the most progressive policy in 

the country has been promulgated and sent a few blocks 

that way to be adopted. So thank you for being here. 

Your thoughtful evaluation of the science as is 

your mission and your courage in promulgating rules is to 

be commended. And we thank you for being here. 

A year ago almost to the day, Administrator 

Jackson spoke to 400 Greenwise attendees in the room next 

door. And we were privileged to have her here. She 

reminded the audience that it is possible to address human 

health and environmental impacts at the same time that 

we're growing our green economy. And I think that's 

really the theme that the Mayor has continued to talk 

about in our region. 

If he were here, he would give his good 

environmental policy is also good economic policy speech. 

That's why he founded the Greenwise Initiative in 

Sacramento. 

On behalf of the Mayor, he supports the 

recommendations that Larry Greene spoke of this morning. 

We sit in the Sacramento Air Quality Management District. 

And so as Larry noted, based on currently available 

scientific information, we support the lowering of the 

annual standard to the range of 12 to 13 micrograms. If 

California Reporting, LLC

170

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
there is scientific research and through your due 

diligence, we can go to the 11 micrograms. That would be 

wonderful. 

Now on the 24-hour standard, we will follow also 

Larry's lead and not take a position as have many of the 

other organizations, but rely on the scientific evidence 

that is forthcoming. And we will absolutely leave the 

location of monitoring stations to the Ph.D.s and the very 

bright environmental scientists at the EPA to determine. 

So not comment on that. 

But I think one of the main themes that we want 

to talk about is, no matter what the standards are that 

you set in December, we will meet them. And there are 

many ways to do that through technology, education, and 

behavior change. 

We have some success stories here in Sacramento 

in our non-attainment area. For example, the wood stove 

policies where we publicize days in the winter where you 

should not burn. And that has allowed us to meet some of 

your standards already in the Sacramento region. 

We also know there is economic opportunity in new 

technologies. And one example that we have in the region 

is a very bright scientist at U.C. Davis that has figured 

out a new anaerobic digestion process for food waste for 

high solids. It's very low water. And she will be 

California Reporting, LLC

171

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
producing a renewable natural gas to power the garbage 

trucks that pick up the food waste. It's a net negative 

carbon fuel. So the garbage truck will be in the food 

waste. It will go through the anaerobic digester and 

create jobs. The fuel will go back into the garbage 

trucks. So no matter what the standard is, we will find 

ways through education, technology, behavior change to 

meet that here in our region. 

The Mayor ran on a campaign, he wants a city that 

works for everyone. And that means finding every way 

possible to reduce human health impacts from air quality. 

It was very compelling to listen to the testimony this 

morning. I must admit, I did not bring Kleenex because I 

did not anticipate the need for that at an EPA hearing and 

I wish I had. If there is any way to save one more child, 

I'm sure the Mayor will join you in doing that in every 

way possible. 

So in summary, we support the lowering of the 

standard to 12 to 13 microgram range; support the 

scientific evidence based on the others. And we look 

forward to continuing to partner with Region 9 and, of 

course, your office and the Federal U.S. EPA to work with 

your standards when they're adopted in December. 

Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Well, thank you for coming. 

California Reporting, LLC

172

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Thank you for speaking on behalf of the Mayor. Tell him 

that you did an excellent job. And we're sorry to miss 

him, but very grateful you're here. Thank you very much. 

Our next speakers are Socorro Gaeta and 

Hermalinda Chavez. 

MS. GAETA: Good afternoon. I'm Socorro Gaeta. 

I live in Fresno, California. My name is Socorro Gaeta. 

The reason I'm here is because I experience health 

problems. Why, because like Kevin and all them, they say 

its per community. And we always -- I work always in the 

field a lot. I've experienced several health problems. 

The very first problems that I experienced were heart 

problems. I underwent open heart surgery. Last year, 

they also found emphysema. And at home, no one has ever 

smoked. And I'm now found experiencing all of these 

problems. 

And that is another reason why I am here because 

now I'm having asthma attacks. When I find myself having 

an asthma attack, you have to run to the emergency clinic. 

However, when I go to an emergency clinic, I have to pay 

immediately. And it's so expensive. Just to take me over 

is 150 plus the machines to give me. The machine for the 

inhaler, then I would have to pay an additional 150. 

And that is the reason as to why I'm worried. 

I'm on my way out, but I'm thinking about my 

California Reporting, LLC

173

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
grandchildren. What is their situation? What is it going 

to be for them? I'm asking if you guys supporting the 

best thing you can do that for us, for everybody, because 

we have the worst air quality. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Gracias. 

PANEL MEMBER YOSHIMURA: Just for the record, I 

think you said you were from Fresno. 

MS. GAETA: Yes.

MS. CHAVEZ: Good afternoon. My name is 

Hermalinda Chavez. And I also come from Fresno, 

California. And I have asthma and I have one son with 

asthma and two children with going to special classes. 

And I'm here through the LOCA organization, 

United Latinos for the environment. Today, I'm here to 

plea on behalf of everyone who dies every year because of 

the environment and contamination, and especially the ones 

in our valley. The city of Fresno is on fifth place with 

pretty bad contamination. And that is -- the reason 

behind it is the PM. This dust is formed through powder, 

pollen, chemicals, and also motor vehicles. 

We know that the most danger one is PM2.5, which 

causes a lot of premature deaths. And it's also causing 

very serious illnesses, respiratory problems, such as 

asthma and heart attacks. It is why our children -- our 

children are not able to go and play outside when this air 

California Reporting, LLC

174

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
is elevated. It is why we are here for our children. 

Please, if you can help us to reduce to 11 

micrograms per cubic meter, we need this. Otherwise, this 

would avoid a lot of illnesses and premature deaths. And 

this is shortening the life in our country. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Gracias. Thank you both for 

coming. Thank you very much. And thank you to our 

translator. 

Our next two speakers are Mike Rogge and Socorro 

Hernandez.

MS. HERNANDEZ: Good afternoon. My name is 

Socorro Hernandez. S-o-c-o-r-r-o. H-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z. I 

came from the city of Fresno. I represent Deluca Group, 

which means United Latinos with the environment in mind. 

I'm the mother of a five-member family. I have 

two sons and one daughter. They all engage in sports. My 

oldest son, he's 16 years old. He plays football and he 

also plays soccer. And I also have ten-year-old twins. 

They also engage in soccer. 

My oldest son and I, we both suffer from 

allergies. Both my twins have suffered from asthma ever 

since they were one year old. And my children have to use 

a machine when they have severe asthma attacks. They have 

to carry with them the inhalers when they go to school or 

when they go out to play. The poor air quality restricts 

California Reporting, LLC

175

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
all of my children's activities out in the open air. 

And I notice that that has also contributed that 

our children in our community become obese, obesity. My 

biggest concern is wintertime because people, they turn on 

their chimneys, cars, agriculture. And also when there 

are fires, that causes small particles that our inversion 

layer traps. 

And my petition is for you to approve the 11 

microgram regulation for the particles cubic meters. 

And my petition is so our children, our elderly 

can have a healthy lifestyle and also function. Function 

as well. 

Thank you very much. And I would like for you to 

support us for the well-being of future generations. 

Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Muchas gracias. 

MR. ROGGE: I'm Mike Rogge with California 

Manufacturers and Technology Association. I'm Policy 

Director for Environmental Quality, and I'll refer to 

California Manufacturers as CMTA. 

CMTA is a trade association with the mission to 

improve and preserve a strong business climate for 

California's 25,000 small and large manufacturers, 

processors, and technology-based companies. California 

manufacturers employ 1.5 million Californians. CMTA 

California Reporting, LLC

176

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
membership includes over 750 businesses, representing 

chemical, aerospace, food processors, high tech, biotech, 

pulp, and paper, glass, oils, steel, and others. We 

appreciate the opportunity to provide comments at this 

public hearing. 

CMTA strongly supports efforts to improve air 

quality and protect public health. However, our members 

are deeply concerned about the Environmental Protection 

Agency's recently proposed rule to make fine particulate 

matter air standards more stringent. This proposal will 

unnecessarily burden the economy at a time when the 

country and California, in particular, are struggling to 

overcome the recession. These proposed standards will 

inhibit commercial and industrial activity, not only vital 

to creating jobs, but also necessary to provide tax 

revenue that will provide support to local services, like 

public safety and education. 

In the proposed rule itself, EPA acknowledges 

important uncertainties regarding the science behind 2.5 

health effects. Such uncertainties have grown since PM2.5 

standards were first established, raising questions about 

the impact of socioeconomic factors on public health in 

urban areas. Indeed, stringent 2.5 standards may sever 

unintended consequences for public health. 

Studies show that by increasing the costs of 

California Reporting, LLC

177

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
goods and services, such as energy and decreasing 

disposable incomes, regulation can inadvertently harm the 

socioeconomic status of individuals and thereby contribute 

to poor health and premature death. 

CMTA believes these scientific uncertainties 

should be better explored in order to best allocate 

resources in the manner that strengthens both the economy 

and the environment. The Clean Air Act imposes serious 

and immediate consequences for areas that do not attain 

PM2.5 air quality standards that are established by EPA. 

These non-attainment areas make it difficult to track and 

develop businesses in and around non-attainment areas. 

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to lower PM2.5 

standards to near natural background levels in some 

counties and within many forecasting models conservative 

margins of error. This will make it difficult for 

businesses to comply with EPA's prevention of significant 

deterioration permitting program, even for areas in 

attainment. 

Thus, stringent PM2.5 standards can have a 

far-reaching and severe effect on California's 

manufacturers. Non-attainment designation gives EPA the 

authority under the Clean Air Act to intervene in and 

revise any Clean Air Act permitting decision by the state 

effecting the non-attainment area. Increased costs 

California Reporting, LLC

178

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
associated with restrictive and excessive permit 

requirements will discourage and potentially prevent all 

together companies interested in building new facilities 

or expanding their operations in a non-attainment area or 

an area at the risk of being designated non-attainment. 

Companies building new facilities or performing 

major modifications to certain existing facilities in or 

near a non-attainment area will be required to install the 

most effective emissions reduction technology, regardless 

of cost. 

Moreover, California and other states are 

mandated to offset emissions from new projects or increase 

PM2.5 emissions from expansions in a non-attainment area. 

Such new projects or expansions must find offsets by 

reducing PM2.5 emissions from other existing local 

sources. No offsets can be found or purchased, and the 

project cannot go forward. 

Non-attainment designation also has profound 

impact on infrastructure development vital to the business 

community. Beginning one year from the date of 

non-attainment designation, federally supported highway 

and transit projects cannot proceed in a non-attainment 

area unless the State can demonstrate that the project 

will cause no increase in PM2.5 emissions. 

Non-attainment designations can have a long-term 

California Reporting, LLC

179

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
negative effect on the cost of doing business in an area, 

even long after the area goes through the difficult and 

expensive process of coming into attainment with a lower 

standard. When a non-attainment area does manage to 

eventually achieve attainment, the communities in that 

area still face long-term EPA regulatory oversight. 

Before a non-attainment area can be redesignated to 

attainment, the EPA must receive and approve an 

enforceable maintenance plan for the area that specifies 

measures providing continued maintenance of the PM2.5 

standard and contingency measures to be implemented 

promptly if a PM2.5 standard is violated. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Can you please wrap up? 

MR. ROGGE: Okay. In light of this unfair 

abbreviated rulemaking time line and the economic 

hardship, reduction in funding for crucial civic services 

and uncertain benefits all related to the proposed new 

PM2.5 standard, CMTA calls on the EPA to retain current 

PM2.5 standards in the final rule. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Our next two speakers are Jose Hernandez and 

Shelley Green. 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Jose 

Hernandez, and I'm from Fresno, California. 

I'm currently in high school right now. I'm a 

California Reporting, LLC

180

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
senior, class of 2013 at Roseville High School. I'm a 

varsity athlete for track and football, football player, 

too. I play soccer outside of school. And I've noticed 

current things. In summer, the air is not that bad. 

Like, I'll play through it. I'll work through it. It's 

not serious. When it gets towards the winter, that's like 

the time when the chimneys are lit, and I would train 

during that time. And we have to run, condition, a lot. 

And that's when the air kind of gets more dense and hard 

like take deep breaths. So we are out there dying more. 

And the past few years, I have strong allergies. 

And it gets to the point where I got bronchitis and 

something other -- sinus -- and it gets to that point and 

that takes me out of training. And I feel like the air is 

really affecting me when that happens. I have no control 

over it. I don't mind what the coaches tell us to do, 

practice, train hard. I'm committed. But I have no 

control over the air, so it's, like, really, I can't do 

nothing about it. It's all against me. And I'm 

supporting the 11 micrograms per cubic that one right 

there -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Cubic meter. 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Yeah. And along with being a 

varsity athlete and practicing training, I coach a little 

soccer team. And we're training during this time, 

California Reporting, LLC

181

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
preparing for this season, trying to get better, you know. 

And in the summertime, it's not really a big 

deal. They work through it. They push through it. 

They're committed to. But when they start getting to the 

winter league, I start noticing players going down. They 

start coming out with they can't breathe. Conditioning is 

harder. They have to go to the hospital for breathing, 

lung problems. It's more in the winter than summer. And 

I find that abnormal, because I thought it should be the 

other way around. It has to do with the winter and the 

chimneys and how the air can't escape our valley when 

we're in there. 

And as you probably know already, my mom spoke 

awhile ago. And I'm the oldest. Two kids. I'm the 

oldest. I have a brother and a sister, mom and dad, 

family of five. I was lucky enough not to be born with 

asthma. They weren't so lucky. And it gets me kind of 

sad that every athlete has a dream to be big to do 

whatever they want to do it. Hurts me that they can't. 

They have a disadvantage. They can't push hard enough 

because of the asthma. They have no control over that. 

All they can do is push and try. 

I don't want that to happen to my kids. I've 

been hearing about premature -- they can die with just the 

air. I don't want that to happen to my kids. I'm 

California Reporting, LLC

182

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
supporting the fact we're trying to make the air better 

because that's nothing we can control. One person can 

make a difference, but when everyone starts being 

together, they'll start hearing us. I'm trying to make 

the air better, not just for me. It might be too late for 

me. I lived here all my life, 16 years already. It might 

be too late. 

I don't want that to happen to my kid. My kids I 

want to have every advantage. I won't be able to live 

with myself if he or she cannot go to her fullest 

potential just because of the air. So I want to make it 

better. 

Thank you for your time. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much. We 

have one question. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Mr. Hernandez, everyone 

here is paying very close attention to air pollution and 

the air quality. That's why everyone is here. In the 

kids that you know in high school, you know, your friends, 

people you know, how much do the people your age talk 

about the air or whether it's a problem or not? Is it an 

issue kids are thinking about or not thinking about? 

Aware or not aware of? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Well, before this summer, I 

wasn't really aware of this pollution thing. But then the 

California Reporting, LLC

183

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
class came -- this leadership class came up, and they 

started talking about things we should make a difference 

in our community. And honestly, I didn't know anything 

about the air. I knew when it was red flagged, we 

couldn't practice. That's all I really now. 

As they started talking and telling us that the 

pollution is bad shortens life spans, asthma could happen 

quicker, we have bronchitis, all the bad stuff. And 

really at our school, that's really what we only know. 

When it's a red flag, it's not like that's just it. It's 

bad air. We can't practice. No one really knows what the 

air is like. The only time we know it's bad is looking at 

the Weather Channel to see green, orange, yellow, and red. 

That's how we tell. 

But of since I learned more about this, I start 

getting more of an interest about this because this is the 

future generation. This is the future of America. And we 

can't be picked off one by one like that. We have no 

control over that so -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: We're very glad you are 

interested in it. And the more you can educate your 

friends about it, the better it is. So thank you for 

getting engaged and coming to talk with us today. 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Really appreciate it. 

California Reporting, LLC

184

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MS. GREEN: Yes. My name is Shelley Green. 

G-r-e-e-n. And I'm a research scientist with the Office 

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, also called 

OEHHA. We're an office within the California EPA and 

responsible for making the health-based recommendations to 

the Air Resources Board for air quality standards in 

California. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

testify today in support of U.S. EPA's proposed 

reconsideration of the national ambient air quality 

standards for particulate matter. 

OEHHA is pleased that the EPA is taking a big 

step toward cleaner air by proposing to strengthen the 

national air quality standards for particulate matter. 

California, as we noted previously, has an annual 

average PM2.5 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, 

which is at the midpoint of the recommended range 

presented in the policy assessment. 

California's standard was set in 2002, through a 

public process that included peer review by an independent 

panel of scientific experts appointed by the Office of the 

President of the University of California. 

Similarly, EPA's own independent science 

reviewers, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, has 

expressed support for significant lowering of the current 

California Reporting, LLC

185

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
standard. When we enacted a new California standard of 12 

micrograms, an annual average in 2002, it was based on the 

scientific evidence available at that time. Since then, 

there have been many important published research papers 

supporting these earlier studies. I will highlight two 

very recent long-term exposure mortality studies. 

First, an extended follow-up of the Harvard Six 

Cities Study with 11 additional years of data was just 

published this month in the EHP, Environmental Health 

Perspectives. Joanna Lapully (phonetic) and colleagues at 

Harvard a found that for each ten micrograms per cubic 

meter increase of PM2.5, there was a 14 percent increase 

in all-cause mortality, a 26 percent increase in 

cardiovascular mortality, and a 37 percent increase in 

lung cancer mortality. The relationship was linear, down 

to PM2.5 concentrations of eight micrograms per cubic 

meter without a threshold. 

The authors stated that their estimated 

association between all-cause mortality and PM2.5 implies 

that just decreasing by one micrograms per cubic meter in 

the population average of PM2.5 this would result in 

approximately 34,000 fewer deaths per year. Therefore, 

further public policy efforts that reduce fine particulate 

matter air pollution are likely to have significant public 

health effects, benefits. 

California Reporting, LLC

186

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The EPA has also estimated that the current value 

of the monetized net benefit after costs are two to six 

billion dollars, based on an alternative standard of 12 

micrograms per cubic meter based on the annual average and 

35 for the 24-hour. The reduction in premature death 

accounts for 90 percent of this benefit. 

We would also expect significant reductions in 

hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma 

attacks, and other adverse effects associated with PM2.5. 

Second, a national level study of cardiovascular 

disease, mortality, and long-term premature to PM2.5 was 

recently conducted in Canada by Dan Krousse and 

colleagues. This study identified deaths between 1991 and 

2001 for a representative sample of non-immigrant Canadian 

citizens. So it was a nation-wide study. PM2.5 levels 

for this study period were determined by satellite derived 

estimates and ground based measurements with similar 

results. The study found a ten microgram increase in 

PM2.5 was associated with 15 percent increase in all-cause 

mortality and a 31 percent increase in the ischemic heart 

disease. 

Among all subjects in the study, the mean PM2.5 

concentration was only 8.7 micrograms per cubic meter. 

The study further illustrates the adverse effects of PM2.5 

at levels lower than the current U.S. standard. We agree 

California Reporting, LLC

187

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
there's less data available clearly supporting the need 

for an annual average PM10 standard, and we support a 

continued use of a 24-hour PM10 standard to protect 

against the effects related to coarse particles. 

When limited to the specific coarse particles 

studies presented in the policy assessment, we believe 

that the lower end of the recommended range, 65 to 85 

micrograms, is more appropriate. In fact, California has 

a more stringent 24-hour PM10 standard and form which is 

50 micrograms, with no exceedances, that was adopted using 

information from PM10 studies and vetted using the public 

process that I just described. We believe that the 

evidence from both the PM10 and PM10 coarse particle 

studies could justify the adoption of a federal 24-hour 

PM10 standard closer to the California standard. 

We think it's essential that the EPA follow the 

overwhelming scientific evidence of the affects of fine 

and coarse particles and protect the public health of our 

citizens. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Thank you very much. 

And I assume you'll be submitting some comments for the 

record

MS. GREEN: Yes, we will. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both very much. I 

want to especially thank the folks from Fresno who have 

California Reporting, LLC

188

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
made the effort to come here today. We really appreciate 

that a lot. 

We're going to have one more speaker and then 

we're going to take a short break. So the next speaker is 

Brian Bateman. And then we'll take a ten-minute break. 

Mr. BATEMAN: Good afternoon. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Good afternoon. 

MR. BATEMAN: My name is Brian Bateman. Spelling 

of the last name is B-a-t-e-m-a-n. And I'm the Health and 

Science Officer at the Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District. Our air district covers the San Francisco Bay 

Area, which has a population of about seven million 

residents. And we recognize PM as the most important air 

pollutant in terms of health risks to Bay Area residents. 

Fortunately, ambient PM levels in the Bay Area 

have been trending downward due to air pollution control 

programs. And we believe these air quality improvements 

have resulted in significant health benefits. For 

example, we've estimated that premature mortality 

attributable to exposure to fine PM in the Bay Area has 

been reduced from about 6500 cases per year to 2800 per 

year due to reductions in air concentrations occurring 

over the last 20 years. This is really substantial 

progress, but more is clearly needed. 

We support EPA in your proposal to strengthen the 

California Reporting, LLC

189

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
primary NAAQS for PM2.5. We agree there is now clear 

scientific evidence that the existing suite of fine PM 

standard is not adequately health protective. 

EPA's policy assessment concludes that the 

available scientific evidence can support combinations of 

24-hour annual fine PM standards that will range from 35 

and 13 micrograms per cubic meter on the high side down to 

30 and 11 micrograms per cubic meter on the low side. 

For several reasons, we favor the most health 

protective option. That being a 30 micrograms per cubic 

meter 24-hour standard, along with an 11 microgram per 

cubic meter annual standard. 

First, as is stated in CASAC's comments on the 

policy assessment, this most health protective option 

would provide significant additional public health 

benefits to a larger part of the U.S. population in 

comparison to the current standard and any of the 

intermediate options. 

Second, the most health protective option 

provides a more adequate margin of safety, given there is 

no evidence of a threshold level for fine PM below which 

there is no risk of adverse health effects. Given the 

current understanding of dose/response relationships, even 

the most stringent option being considered would not 

prevent at least some adverse health effects to the most 

California Reporting, LLC

190

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
susceptible segments of the population. 

And finally, we believe that recent health 

studies that were not necessarily considered in the policy 

assessment support the most health protective option. 

There have been a couple of studies mentioned already. I 

won't repeat those, but a couple others. 

One is a study published by Harvard researchers 

earlier this year that linked long-term exposure to PM2.5 

throughout New England at levels well below the existing 

annual standard with increased hospital admissions for 

respiratory effects, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and 

diabetes. The authors of that study were Cluge, et al. 

Another study published this year found a 

significant increase in the incidents of ischemic stroke 

in the Boston area when short-term PM2.5 levels were 

elevated, but still below the existing 24-hour standard. 

And the authors of that study were Ralenious, et al. 

In conclusion, we support EPA in your proposal to 

strengthen the PM NAAQS reducing exposure to PM will 

result in significant health and economic benefits. This 

is particularly true, given the manner in which the U.S. 

population will be aging over the next decades. Of the 

options being considered by EPA for fine PM, we believe 

that the most appropriate combination is, again, a 30 

micrograms per cubic meter 24-hour standard along with 11 

California Reporting, LLC

191

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
microgram per cubic meter annual standard. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. I just wondered 

if you have any recommendation on the coarse particle 

standard or the visibility standard. 

MR. BATEMAN: Well, as was mentioned by the 

speaker from OEHHA, we have a more stringent standard in 

California for PM10 already. That's been in effect as 

long as I can remember. And that's 15 micrograms per 

cubic meter. The form of the standard is not to be 

exceeded as well. We think that EPA probably should take 

a look at that. It is quite stringent. And in fact, the 

entire state is non-attainment, except for one county. So 

it is a very stringent standard. We recognize that. 

PANEL MEMBER JORDAN: Brian, you had mentioned 

some estimates that you guys had made on improvements in 

public health due over the last 20 years of air pollution 

improvements. Is that a study you're going to submit? 

MR. BATEMAN: In our comments, we'll refer to our 

2010 Clean Air Plan, which is our State plan, which has 

reference to how those figures were derived in terms of 

the decreases in mortality due to the improvements in fine 

PM levels. 

PANEL MEMBER JORDAN: Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: Mr. Bateman, in the 

preamble, you specifically requested comment on the 

California Reporting, LLC

192

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
translation of the scientific information into alternative 

levels. In support of 11/30, as much specificity if you 

could provide to support those alternative levels would be 

very helpful. 

MR. BATEMAN: I'll try to do that in our written 

comments.

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: That would be very 

helpful. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. 

Why don't we say we'll take a break until 3:45. 

(Whereupon a recess was taken.) 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: I think we'll start up again 

now, if folks could take your seats or your place against 

the wall, whatever you're doing. 

Thank you again for being here and we'll 

continue. Our next speaker is Tammy Luo. I see several 

other folks with her, which is great. 

MS. LOU: My name is Tammy Luo. T-a-m-m-y, 

L-u-o. 

MS. SINGH: I'm Gurleen, G-u-r-l-e-e-n. Singh, 

S-i-n-g-h. 

MR. FIDANQUE: My name is Matt Fidanque. And 

that's F-i-d-a-n-q-u-e. 

MS. HUI: My name is Jennifer Hui. And it's 

H-u-i. 

California Reporting, LLC

193

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MS. BARTON: My name is Katie Barton, K-a-t-i-e, 

B-a-r-t-o-n. 

MS. SILVERMAN: My name is Rebecca Silverman. 

Last name is S-i-l-v-e-r-m-a-n. 

MS. LOU: We are here on behalf of the 

San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club and the West 

Oakland Environmental Indicators Project to urge the EPA 

to adopt stricter soot standards. 

Exposure to soot can cause a range of health 

problems from worsened asthma and lung inflammation to 

cancer and premature death. Those at highest risk are 

children, the elderly, and people living near areas of 

high traffic and industrial activity. 

MS. SINGH: The San Francisco Bay is one such 

area of high traffic and industrial activity. This is due 

to the huge freeway network that weaves throughout 

neighborhoods and the ships and trucks that serve the port 

of Oakland which unloads 99 percent of containerized goods 

in northern California. Areas of Oakland, Berkeley, and 

Richmond are some of the hardest hit by this toxic air. 

As residents of these areas, we are deeply concerned. 

MR. FIDANQUE: I work in west Oakland, which is 

surrounded by freeways on all sides and borders on the 

Port of Oakland. So particulate matter there is a daily 

occurrence. It collects on our windowsills. It stains 

California Reporting, LLC

194

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
our clothes. And it gets in our children's mouths. You 

can't walk around the neighborhood without seeing young 

people carrying their asthma inhalers. 

The West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project 

measures particulate matter every day. And about half of 

the time, fine particulate matter, PM2.5, is above the 

current standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. 

As a member of this vulnerable community, I ask 

you to adopt a tougher standard of 11 micrograms per cubic 

meter and also to establish stronger monitoring and 

enforcement to ensure these standards are followed. 

MS. HUI: Research has shown there are 

unnaturally high rates of asthma, cancer, and premature 

death in West Oakland. West Oakland, children ages five 

and under visit the emergency room for asthma nearly three 

times more often than children in the county as a whole. 

Furthermore, those living near the Port of Oakland live a 

decade less than people who live further away in Oakland 

Hills. 

MS. BARTON: Since 2006, the San Francisco Bay 

Chapter of the Sierra Club has worked to promote cleaner 

air at the Port of Oakland. We have been urging the port 

to enforce clean air standards for shipping companies and 

invest in pollution reducing technologies. 

MS. SILVERMAN: But more needs to be done. Not 

California Reporting, LLC

195

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
just at the port, but with all sources of air pollution. 

And not just here, but across the country, which is why we 

implore you to enact the more stringent annual set 

standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter and a daily 

standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. You guys are great. 

Thank you so much for coming. Appreciate all the work 

you're doing. I'm so glad you're involved in the work you 

are doing in West Oakland. Appreciate you bringing 

everybody, Ms. Lou. Thank you so much. Thank you for 

making the effort to come today. 

Next we have John and Marcia Rasmussen. 

MS. RASMUSSEN: Good afternoon. My name is 

Marcia Rasmussen. Rasmussen spelled R-a-s-m-u-s-s-e-n. 

And I have to say that just coming into the city 

gives me a headache from the -- mostly from the diesel 

fumes on the highway. 

And that's what I want to talk about. I'm here 

because I have a serious medical condition that's known as 

complicated migraines. It's a notch above a regular 

migraine headache. What happens in addition to the 

regular headache and nausea that people get with 

migraines, I also have neurological symptoms that mimic a 

stroke. Just extremely scary. I lose my speech. I 

lose -- sometimes I lose use of temporary use of one side 

California Reporting, LLC

196

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
of my body. So I end up in these situations where I go to 

the hospital, you know, pretty much unable to move, unable 

to tell anybody what's going on. I'm so sensitive to 

light I can't open my eyes. It's just really frightening. 

And this happens several times a year. 

The thing is that I have no doubt that this is 

directly related to primarily diesel emissions. What 

happens is if we are driving on the freeway, we get behind 

a diesel truck. I get a whiff of it. And almost 

immediately, I have sharp pain on one side of my head. 

And sometimes it takes it several hours to 

develop. But if it develops, I end up in the emergency 

room getting medical help for severe pain and sometimes 

the neurological symptoms. 

So what we end up doing is when we get on the 

road, we're always on the watch for diesel trucks. You 

know, if we see one, we have to slow down, pass it real 

quick, pull over, go a different way. 

It's not just diesel. For a while, I lived in 

the neighborhood that had a small coal fired power plant. 

And I had to walk by that every day on my way to school. 

And that did the same thing to me. So I've pretty much 

come to the conclusion it's the small particulate matter, 

the soot, and the emissions from this type of combustion. 

I'm most sensitive when I get a high dose of it, 

California Reporting, LLC

197

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
like in a point source situation. But I'm convinced that 

the ambient levels must cause a problem also. I'm more 

susceptible to headaches on bad air days. 

Under the current level of air quality 

regulation, I require emergency medical treatment several 

times a year. Ambulance transport has been necessary on 

two occasions. I've been admitted to the hospital as long 

as nine days at a time. Each episode lasts only a few 

days, but I have lingering damage that makes it difficult 

to remember simple words. It effects my speech, as you 

can see. 

I take daily medication to help prevent acute 

episodes, but the effectiveness is limited. The only real 

way that I can prevent this is to avoid the triggers 

entirely, which in everyday life is not possible. 

So I believe that if we reduce the ambient levels 

of soot as well as point source emissions, my health and 

quality of life would be greatly improved. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. We are sorry for 

all you have to cope with. 

MR. RASMUSSEN: My name is John Rasmussen. I 

live at 35680 Ennis Road in Squaw Valley, California and 

in Fresno County. 

Last night, I was in Mineral King in southern 

Sequoia National Park at over 10,000 feet of elevation. I 

California Reporting, LLC

198

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
decided not to take a number of pictures up there because 

the haze out over the Central Valley was obscuring the 

view. From my experience, last night was one of the 

better nights in the summer in the Central Valley. 

I'm afraid that people that have -- that come to 

Sequoia National Park are losing out, especially the ones 

that come for a one-time visit. They can't see the 

grandeur of the Sierra Nevada anymore. That's different 

than how it was when I was a child. 

I'm concerned also that about fires in the Sierra 

Nevada. And this may seem contradictory. I'm a supporter 

of natural fire in the Sierra Nevada. Overall, I firmly 

believe that allowing natural fire, especially when you 

manage it correctly, in the long run will reduce the 

particulate matter generated from the Sierra Nevada and 

generate a healthier Sierra Nevada that more people will 

be able to enjoy. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both very much for 

taking the time to come today. Our next two speakers are 

Greg Peterson and Sofia Parino. 

MR. PETERSON: Hello. My name is Greg Peterson, 

P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n. Thank you for allowing public testimony 

and thank you for your time today, too. 

I'm a concerned citizen from Fairfield, also a 

member of the Sierra Club. And I'm dedicating my 

California Reporting, LLC

199

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
testimony to my late father, Clifford Peterson. 

I'm for tighter regulation and here's partly why. 

My father recently passed away from a pulmonary fibrosis. 

It's a terrible disease that's actually similar to 

emphysema. Takes away your capacity to breathe. He had a 

hard time breathing towards the end. And I know for a 

fact that because he lived near Highway 50 in Sacramento, 

actually in the Folsom area. And looking up the rating 

for particle pollution in the last 24 hours, both Solano 

County where I live and Sacramento County got Fs. F for 

ozone. F for particle matter. And I do know that the 

reality is part of the reason that he had such a 

difficulty at the end was from particulate particle 

pollution. 

Almost daily in the summer months in Solano 

County, we do get an F for particle pollution. I live 

downwind from a couple of oil refineries. They're not too 

far away, Pennzoil and also one in Benecia. Interstate 80 

is ever-present. I also lived at the Junction between 

Interstate 80, Highway 12, and 680. A lot of trucks pass 

by those areas every day. And also we have, of course, 

the refineries. 

So I'm very concerned. I'm concerned for my 

friends, my family, and everybody I know in that area. 

And so here's the point. And we all breathe the 

California Reporting, LLC

200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
same air. This is about all of us. This is not about a 

particular group of people. This is everybody. Everybody 

breathes the same air. There is no rich man's air. 

There's no poor man's air. There's just air. 

We all have a right to clean air. And it's too 

bad in some especially media categories you'll find that 

it's become an economic issue. We can't afford to clean 

the air. We can't afford this or that. Well, that's 

pretty much nonsense. You know, can we afford higher 

health bills? Can we afford the loss of life? And I say 

no. 

Each of us is someone's mother or father, son, 

daughter, uncle or friend. And each of us is important. 

So I urge you to help us all live healthier lives. And 

please consider the tighter standards of 11 micrograms per 

cubic meter annually. 

And I do remind you again that we're all in this 

together. Thank you again for your time. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you for your time. 

Thank you for your explanation about the situation that 

you faced. 

Is this Stephanie Safdi? 

MS. SAFDI: Yes. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: If you can spell your name 

for the court reporter. 

California Reporting, LLC

201

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MS. PARINO: Good afternoon. My name is Sofia 

Parino. It's S-o-f-i-a. Last name, P-a-r-i-n-o. 

MS. SAFDI: My name is Stephanie Safdi. Last 

name is S-a-f, as in Frank, d, as in David, i. 

We're here speaking for the Center on Race 

Poverty and the Environment where an environmental justice 

organization that addresses the disproportionate impact of 

health and environmental harms on low income community and 

communities of color principally located in the central 

valley of California. 

We are here first to make the case that you've 

heard before for tighter and more health protective 

standards of 11 micrograms per cubic meter annually and 25 

micrograms per cubic meter as a daily standard. We 

believe that those are based on the weight of scientific 

evidence. And it's ordered by court are the standards 

that are required as health protective standards, not 

taking into account economic factors with an adequate 

margin of safety. 

Without going into the details on that, we just 

want to speak about the communities that we represent 

because this issue is particularly important to them. The 

communities that we're speaking on behalf of couldn't be 

here today. Many of them are agricultural or industrial 

workers who aren't able to come to events such as this. 

California Reporting, LLC

202

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
But because of the types of activities that they 

do and the places that they live, they're 

disproportionately exposed to the sorts of harms we're 

talking about today. Many of them and their children 

suffer from asthma, heart disease, various types of lung 

cancer. All of this is on top of all of the other health 

problems that they're affected by because of the 

compounded environmental stressors in their communities. 

So for these groups of people who we care greatly 

about, we're concerned that the EPA is missing a really 

terrific and rare opportunity to do something for them and 

their health and their children's future by failing to 

pass environmental standards that are as health protective 

as possible. So on behalf of these communities, we urge 

you to pay particular attention to the most susceptible 

and the most vulnerable who face these compounded terms. 

MS. PARINO: I thought Stephanie did a great job 

of explaining why our communities care so much about what 

these standards are. We actually do talk with them. And 

they are very much aware of what PM2.5 is and what it does 

to their health. And so they while there is only two of 

us, there are many behind us back in the Central Valley 

who would be echoing what we are saying here to you today. 

And you know, it's especially important for them 

not only because of these compounded environmental 

California Reporting, LLC

203

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
stressors they have, but they are in communities and 

cities and counties that are regularly in the top five of 

the most PM and ozone polluted city and counties in the 

entire United States. So it's very important for them to 

have as health protective standards as they can. 

And on a personal note, I live here in 

Sacramento, which you know, can be a little bit cleaner 

than the air in the Central Valley. But we're still in 

the top 25 cities for daily I think PM2.5. 

So the concern I have is for my son. He's 

nine-and-a-half-months old. He's just starting to crawl 

and going to be walking soon. And he's very active. And 

I know that this is a critical time. And his lungs are 

developing. And you know, as he goes through childhood, 

he'll be more exposed than us as adults, just because he's 

much more active than I am and then many adults. 

And I fear for his future and growing up and the 

possibility that he could develop asthma just by playing 

in sports and being outdoors and doing that through his 

lifetime just because of the PM pollution at this point. 

So, to me, personally, it's very important that 

we have as health protective standards as we can so I 

don't have to monitor and keep him inside when pollution 

is high. And I don't have to worry as much about when 

he's running around and learning how to walk and taking 

California Reporting, LLC

204

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
those deep breaths what's going in. So as professionally 

as well as personally, it's very important for me that EPA 

listens to the science and to the American Lung 

Association and goes for those more stricter standards. 

Thank you. 

MS. SAFDI: Just one thing to add to that. On a 

personal note as well, our principle office is in Delano, 

which is consistently rated as by the American Lung 

Association as the area in the United States with the 

highest PM2.5 pollution. We've spent a lot of time down 

there. 

I don't know that I could actually live there 

because of my lifestyle. I'm a competitive runner and an 

athlete. And it's the only place that I've ever spent 

time where I can't actually train outdoors. I have the 

luxury of not having to spend all of my time there. But 

the clients that we represent do not. And I'm concerned 

that on top of everything else that they have to deal with 

because the environment they live in, we're denying them 

the benefit of a healthy lifestyle and the luxury of air 

that allows them to be outside in a safe way. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both for coming 

today, for speaking on behalf of your communities. Thank 

you very much. 

Our next speaker is Andy Katz. I don't see Mr. 

California Reporting, LLC

205

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Katz here. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: New Voices are Rising Summer 

Program. Jill Ratner and Myesha Williams, come forward 

with a group. Great. Thank you all for coming today. 

MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My name is Myesha 

Williams, W-i-l-l-i-a-m-s. I'm the New Voices are Rising 

Program Associate. And this is our group of summer 

students that have been learning about the connection 

between health and the environment. And they prepared 

something to speak to you today. And thank you so much 

for having us. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Thank you for 

coming. 

MS. LEM: Hi. Sorry I'm a little nervous. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Well, just relax. We are 

really delighted to have you here and just do your thing. 

Don't worry about it. 

MS. LEM: Okay. Hello. My name is Laura, 

L-a-u-r-a, Lem, L-e-m. And I'm a senior at Fremont High 

School. As you know, we are a part of New Voices are 

Rising. We are a diverse group of high school students 

that represent different parts of Oakland. New Voices are 

Rising is a program that teaches my fellow students and I 

about the community empowerment, environmental justice, 

and what it really means to have our voices to be heard. 

California Reporting, LLC

206

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
This year, we represent four different high 

schools in Oakland: McClymonds High School in Oakland, 

Oakland High, Fremont High, and Street Academy. 

Out of nine of us in the program, two of us have 

asthma and five of us have family with asthma. Two of our 

schools are also close to truck routes. McClymonds High 

School is very close to the Oakland port and the 880 

freeway. Fremont High School is close to the 880 freeway 

as well. 

We are here to state our concerns about soot. 

Soot is a mixture of dangerous metals, chemicals, and acid 

gasses that form tiny particles and droplets in our air 

and contributes to haze. Soot particles are 1/30th width 

of human hair. They can bypass the body's natural ability 

to expel larger particles with a cough or sneeze. 

According to EPA, exposure to soot can cause 

heart attacks, strokes, worsened asthma, lung 

inflammation, cancer, developmental and reproductive harm 

and even premature death. 

MR. NGUYEN: Hello. My name is John Nguyen. I'm 

a senior at Oakland High School. 

We want stricter standards that will help 

distribute to healthier communities. As of now, our 

current standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter. 

Strengthening the standards from 15 micrograms per cubic 

California Reporting, LLC

207

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
meter to between 13 and 11 micrograms per cubic meter will 

help accomplish our goal of creating healthier 

communities. 

With these stricter standards, fewer toxic 

chemicals would pollute the air. The EPA's own statistic 

states that thousands of lives can be saved, anywhere from 

six to 1,000 children under the age of 18 from having to 

go to the emergency room because of asthma. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Sorry you're squeezed in 

there. 

MR. COOPER: Good afternoon, EPA members. My 

name is William Cooper. I'm a senior at Fremont High 

School. 

I'm here today to ask you to approve stricter 

standards for particulate pollution, which leads to 

asthma. The city of Oakland has higher rates of asthma 

than other cities. 

According to Alameda 1998 to 2000 Census, area 

with the highest hospitalization rates in Oakland are 

downtown Oakland, northwest Oakland, and west Oakland. 

These areas have some of the deadliest air because they 

are near sources of diesel pollution, such as trucking 

routes that go through the neighborhoods. 

Although I don't have asthma myself, my sister 

has asthma. And I don't want her to be exposed to the 

California Reporting, LLC

208

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
type of air. I don't want to see her being forced to use 

an inhaler more than just because where she lives. 

Thank you for your time. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MR. RUNNELS: Good afternoon, EPA members. My 

name is Kelton Runnels. I'm a sophomore at McClymonds 

High School. I'm here to tell you about my experience 

with asthma and how it affects my life. 

My cousin and I have asthma. My cousin has 

asthma his whole life. As a little kid, he couldn't go 

outside for a long time without having asthma-like 

symptoms. When he was younger, he was sent home with a 

breathing machine. He had to use it of day. 

I have lived next to the Port of Oakland and the 

rail yard my whole life. I live four blocks away from a 

rail yard, and it's empty dirty and grey. When the train 

goes through the area, it affects my breathing. 

And I want stricter regulations so I can live 

happier in the environment I live in. Thank you for your 

time and hearing what I have to say. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MS. EVANS: Good afternoon. My name is Ranisha 

Evans, R-a-n-i-s-h-a, E-v-a-n-s. I'm a junior at Fremont 

High School. 

On July 10, 2012, we went on a ferry ride to 

California Reporting, LLC

209

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
San Francisco so we can view the port of Oakland. Within 

25 minutes, we saw diesel trucks, Amtrak freight trucks, 

and freeways. These are all sources of soot pollution. 

We also saw huge piles of metal trash. Having 

that trash sit there, uncovered pollution pollutes the air 

even more because metal dust can blow into the air. We 

should have the port cleaner because a cleaner port means 

less pollution. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MR. FUIAVA: Good afternoon, ladies and 

gentlemen. My name is Mei Fuiava. I'm a sophomore at 

McClymonds High School. 

MR. VO: My name is Johnson Vo. I'm a junior at 

Fremont High School. 

The New Voices are Rising Program is here to urge 

you to Adopt stronger soot standards. You hear from our 

group about asthma hospitalization rates being higher at 

the port of Oakland anywhere else in Oakland. We don't 

want our family members to breathe in soot. We don't want 

our family members to get sick and use inhalers for 

asthma. We don't want communities around our area to 

breathe in soot and have risk of breathing asthma. 

MR. FUIAVA: We don't want anybody in the world 

to face that risk. The EPA may not be able to reduce that 

risk for everybody in the world, but the EPA can reduce 

California Reporting, LLC

210

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
that risk for everybody in USA. By strengthening the soot 

standards, we would be able to have a healthier community 

and nation. 

MR. VO: In conclusion, we urge that you think 

about this so everyone can be healthy. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you all for coming. 

We very much appreciate your taking the time to comment to 

us and to express your support for the work we're doing. 

We are trying to work on behalf of everybody, including 

all of you. And it's very important to have people like 

you engaged as you are. It's great you're part of this 

program. And we hope you'll be able to continue and to 

bring others in and educate others the way you've come to 

talk to us today. So thank you very, very much. Very 

well done. You all spoke very well. Thank you. 

Next speakers are Brandon Kitagawa and Teresa 

Maxwell. 

Mr. KITAGAWA: Good afternoon. My name is 

Brandon Kitagawa. K-i-t-a-g-a-w-a. I'm a Policy 

Associate with an organization called Regional Asthma 

Management and Prevention. 

RAMP, we've been designated as a Center for 

Excellence in elimination of disparities by the Centers 

for Disease Control for our work addressing asthma 

disparities in the African American and Latino 

California Reporting, LLC

211

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
communities. 

As part of our work, we help coordinate a 

statewide network of asthma coalitions called Community 

Action to Fight Asthma. It's through that network that 

allows them to collectively address policies at the state 

and beyond their local county work. 

This was sort of nice coming up after the 

students from Oakland. I think what they talked about is 

really indicative of some of the macro issues that I'm 

going to quickly cover around asthma. 

What they've talked about is very common across 

the country, that asthma is a significant health concern, 

effecting over 25 million Americans. We've seen the rate 

climb over the last decade and reach an all-time high of 

2010. Today, in California specifically, we have one in 

six children that have been diagnosed with asthma, which 

is much higher than the nation as a whole. 

But we also know that some communities bear an 

unequal burden of the disease. African Americans, for 

example, suffer higher rates of asthma and tend to have 

poorer health outcomes. 

In California, this disparity is particularly 

striking. For African American children, they're more 

than twice as likely to have asthma at 24.7 percent 

compared to 12.1 percent for white children. 

California Reporting, LLC

212

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
And African Americans are three times more likely 

to have to visit a hospital or emergency department due to 

uncontrolled asthma than white children in California. So 

while the degrees of these disparities might vary, it's 

fairly consistent across the country. 

I think the good news is that asthma can be 

controlled with proper clinical care and minimizing 

exposure to environmental triggers, people with asthma can 

lead normal productive lives. 

However, the best clinical care cannot compensate 

for excessive exposure to environmental triggers. And we 

know that particulate matter and soot is one of the -- is 

a major asthma trigger that is faced in many communities. 

And this is a particular concern to us because we know air 

pollution is not evenly distributed. Recent research 

compared particulate matter and ozone readings from 

monitoring stations with Census data and found that 

African Americans and Latinos are overly represented in 

areas with the most unhealthy air quality. 

So this inequitable exposure to unhealthy air 

must be addressed to effectively address some of the 

disparities we see with asthma. So this is why we're 

pleased to see the EPA taking steps to align particulate 

matter standards with more recent health evidence to 

suggest it's the health impacts at lower levels than 

California Reporting, LLC

213

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
previously thought. 

So these standards are important tools to 

establish the right incentive structure for improving air 

quality, particularly where air quality is the worst. 

While the proposed standard is a step in the right 

direction, I think we want to join others and say I think 

it falls a little short and really want to encourage 

pushing the standards to 11 micrograms and the 25 

micrograms that others have talked about earlier. 

Our local asthma coalitions, they deal with the 

effects of air pollution every day. They see kids forced 

indoors for recess. They see kids in the school, parents 

and adults miss work because of asthma. And they see the 

sort of economic burden families face, especially when 

it's families with kids with asthma. So they develop lots 

of ways to try to help address that locally, but they are 

still fairly limited on some of these environmental 

triggers in terms of the impact they can have. 

This is a really good opportunity, the fact that 

EPA is looking at adjusting the federal PM standard, a 

good opportunity to help address asthma from a perspective 

that they aren't able to sort of through their daily work. 

They feel that the strong federal standard 

represents a great opportunity for California to improve 

some of the dirtiest air in the nation and reverse trends 

California Reporting, LLC

214

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
that have seen asthma prevalence in the state rise by 25 

percent between '95 and 2005. 

So I want to thank you for your efforts and 

encourage you to be as health protective as possible. 

Thanks. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MS. MAXWELL: My name is Theresa Maxwell. 

That's T-h-e-r-e-s-a, M-a-x-w-e-l-l. I'm a third 

generation Californian, and I have lived in northern 

California and southern California. I have driven on 

California's freeways for more than 55 years. I have seen 

smog come and go and we've tried things and to repair bad 

air and it has worked and then it has not worked. 

But I do strongly support your proposed efforts 

on the measurements and things that you are -- that 11 

number instead of the -- I think what was in the proposal. 

You're now talking about the 11. I think that's great. 

I support any standards that will yield cleaner 

air and healthier lungs. So what I'm going to focus on a 

little bit is trying to relate just as air, water, and 

land must be able to relate in natural ways to be 

beneficial, so also must the government work with human 

behavioral solutions of the people. 

We are already as a society on the brink of 

having what I call TDD, and it's technology dependence 

California Reporting, LLC

215

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
disorder. It's great that we have technology, but we 

really shouldn't depend on it to solve our problems. It 

can be complimented by the ordinary common sense solutions 

that we have had through the years and have for economic 

reasons often or budgetary reasons are sometimes taken 

away. 

So what I would like to do is move right into 

these two categories for remedies to help children in 

particular have healthier lungs. And I speak from the 

importance of how that is because of my husband who 

learned to sing when he was nine. Now he's almost 80, and 

he was diagnosed with very severe emphysema. But they 

took all the numbers and the doctor said, "And you're 

still singing?" He has sung from age nine. So he gave it 

up for a few years, did all the medicine. And he is 

starting to sing again this next September, bearing that 

he can. 

I say hire nurses for all public schools. They 

could monitor and assist children who already have 

respiratory problems. And then simply bring back the band

and the music teachers for all schools, particularly here 

in Sacramento County. We are off the charts with the 

numbers. I think our numbers are, like, four digits and 

some of the others are three for non-attainment category. 

Provide children with saxophones, trumpets, wind 

California Reporting, LLC

216

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
instruments, clarinets, flutes. Return singing to the 

daily school schedule. Help children develop healthy and 

expansive lungs. 

What the doctor figured out with my husband's 

lungs was because they had expanded so much with his 

experience of singing, he had a much better surface area 

to deal with the exchange when you breathe. So I mean, 

this is a little bit of why I'm basing that on a personal 

experience. 

However, the other category that definitely needs 

remedy are the automobiles. We have to face the problem 

that we have too many cars on our freeways. Sacramento is 

surrounded by freeways going around, through, everywhere. 

And just yesterday, I was on -- I went down to 

San Francisco. Highway 80 is full of cars, full of 

trucks. A lot of the cars have license plates of other 

states. Perhaps they don't have all the smog stuff or 

whatever or know the rules. But the idea with this is 

that we provide public buses and shuttles to keep cars off 

the freeways and help local people have their mobility be 

handled by public transportation that is local. Get them 

off the freeways. 

We have two groups on the freeways: The 

through-fare and then the people who live here. So 

because Sacramento has very, very bad transportation. 

California Reporting, LLC

217

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Reduce the automobile and truck sources of fine particle 

emissions by reducing the level of fuel emissions. And in 

the 1970s -- okay. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Why don't you finish your 

thought, if you could wrap it up. 

MS. MAXWELL: What I was going to say is the 

national limit in the 1970s went from 65 to 55 because we 

were having an oil shortage. And it was used to save oil. 

You know, to spend -- use less oil. But it also 

reduced -- I'm told -- reduces the fuel emissions when you 

do drive slower. 

And all I'm saying is do that in the urban areas, 

like when they get to this network of freeways like in 

west Oakland that they talk about or in Sacramento or 

other areas where there are these heavy networks, put up a 

sign. 55 is the limit. We just don't do that in 

California. 

And then the only other thing I was going to 

mention is that Sacramento County for one in California in 

general doesn't have any money to do this. So we suggest, 

okay, the EPA go work with the Department of 

Transportation, the Department of Education, do 

fund-raising. Get us involved. Do a 50/50. Maybe you 

have some kind of funds that could help with some of these 

ideas. So thank you very much for listening. 

California Reporting, LLC

218

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. And thank you 

for your ideas. We appreciate it. Thank you, both. 

Our next two speakers are Andy Katz and Mary 

Elizabeth. 

MS. ELIZABETH: My name is Mary Elizabeth. 

E-l-i-z-a-b-e-t-h. And I live here in Sacramento. 

Air quality limits are established to protect the 

health of all citizens. Everybody should be able to take 

a deep breath of clean air. If a project will cause an 

increase in particulate pollution, it should not be 

constructed. Lower limits will improve outdoor exercise 

opportunities. We must learn to live within boundaries, 

one of which is particulate matter 2.5. 

In addition to supporting EPA's more stringent 

particulate matter limits, I urge EPA to consider 

standards to address nanoparticle exposure. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MR. KATZ: Good afternoon to the panel from EPA. 

My name is Andy Katz. I'm the Government Relations 

Director for Breathe California. 

Breathe California is an affiliation of five 

local organizations dedicated to lung health and clean 

air. And we are very much in support of the proposed 

rule, although I think we feel like it doesn't go far 

enough, that the rule -- as you can see, the health 

California Reporting, LLC

219

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
benefits going from just 13 to 12, there is much greater 

health benefits as you look at the lower more health 

protective standard. 

And when you look at 12 on an annual average, you 

can see that the health benefits are in the billions, 

whereas, at 13 micrograms per cubic meter, it's in the 

tens of millions. So think about the premature deaths 

that are saved. Think about the asthma attacks that are 

prevented, the cardiac impacts that are prevented by just 

one microgram. It doesn't look like much on paper, but 

when you look at the health data, it goes so much further 

in saving lives. 

And I strongly urge the EPA to in addition to 

look at the science behind going to 11 micrograms. So we 

are in agreement with other national groups that have 

supported the other stringent 11 micrograms. 

But I implore the EPA to elect the more stringent 

and to choose those over the 13. I think that when you 

look at the health data, it is very clear that that's when 

you see the real health benefits. And I think EPA would 

be doing a disservice to your statutory duty to not look 

at the clear evidence about health benefits. 

So that said, I think that coming from the 

California perspective and I live in the bay area, the 

health benefits when we look at ambient air quality 

California Reporting, LLC

220

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
standards that we really do need a more stringent 24-hour 

standard. And I'm disappointed to see not a 

recommendation at this time to reduce the 35 micrograms 

24-hour standard. So we're in agreement with lowering 

that standard to 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 

I would also like to encourage the EPA to do 

further examination into ultra fine particles and do 

additional research that would allow the EPA to consider 

the health effects of ultra fine particles and adopt a 

separate UFP ambient air quality standard, if warranted. 

This is a recommendation in your report on 

Page 2-56 of the policy assessment. And I would strongly 

urge the EPA to do so. Ultra fine particles are a very 

serious health concern, especially near roadways. And 

it's important to get a stronger basis in science to 

understand what should be done under the Clean Air Act. 

Just to comment directly on some of the other 

requests for comment, I notice that -- and I'm still 

working my way through the proposal and hope to call for 

questions and comment. I see some nodding. So appreciate 

that. 

I'm looking at the proposed grandfathering 

provision for pending PSD permit applications. And I 

think that it would be very problematic to do so without a 

sunset clause. And you're back with one hand to make the 

California Reporting, LLC

221

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
air cleaner and with another to say we didn't really mean 

it. And then everything that's there is grandfathered in. 

And the new rules help a region that didn't have a permit 

already moving through. 

So I would strongly urge a sunset clause. I 

would recommend five years akin to the five years for 

regions to come into compliance after non-attainment. 

There may be other bases for sunset clauses, but I think 

five years would seem appropriate to me. 

And as you're looking for further examination at 

the designation process and SIP submittal, I would urge 

the EPA to consider the real life science around 

particulate matter. Particulate matter is local. So 

unlike ozone, it's not a regional pollutant typically. 

There can be regions where you see large spread effects, 

but for the most part, PM is a local pollutant, and to 

take that into consideration when looking at designation 

areas. 

But also when setting standards and considering 

the strategies and the great advances in technology, 

consider the real opportunity for the standards to cause 

states to implement policies that can clean up the air and 

save lives. That's already taking place in California, 

but has actually not been in large part due to the PM 

designations but more from the ozone. So I think that 

California Reporting, LLC

222

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
means that the PM designations aren't really doing their 

job to clean up particulate matter. However, that is 

helping California incrementally move towards attainment. 

So those are some general thoughts. And I hope 

that -- I do encourage the EPA to take a broader look at 

how to strengthen public health protections in the 

designation process and in the infrastructure SIPs. 

And thank you for coming here to California 

today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much for 

taking the time to read through the proposal. I assume 

you're going to submit written comments. If you are, if 

you could express your thinking on why 12 or 11 is better 

than 13 in light of the health data and your review of it, 

that would be helpful as well as covering the other issues 

that you addressed. Thank you. 

Our next speaker is Steve Douglas. 

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you very much. Appreciate 

the opportunity to be here. 

I'm Steve Douglas with the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers. The Alliance is a trade association 

representing 12 car and light truck manufacturers, 

including BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar, 

Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porche, 

Volkswagon, Volvo. 

California Reporting, LLC

223

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The Alliance -- we recognize the importance of 

clean air and setting air quality standards that protect 

public health. Our air today is cleaner than it was a 

generation ago. And air quality continues to improve as 

our economy has grown and the number of vehicle miles 

traveled has increased. In fact, according to the EPA's 

most recent area quality trends, since 1990, nationwide 

air quality has improved significantly for six of the 

common pollutants, including particulate matter. 

Nationally, over this time, PM10 has declined 

about 38 percent, while annual PM2.5 declined by 24 

percent and 24-hour PM2.5 by 28 percent. And those are 

compared to 2001. 

Investments and improvements in the vehicle 

technology are a major part of this success story. In 

fact, according to the Air Resources Board, today's 

vehicles are 99.7 percent cleaner than those in the late 

1960s. And in fact, looking at the national PM2.5 

inventory, the PM2.5 from light-duty vehicles represents 

only about two percent of the total inventory. And 

looking only at California, which tends to have more 

vehicles and less industry, light-duty vehicles account 

for less than 1.7 percent of PM10 and less than 3.5 

percent of PM2.5 inventory. 

In fact, California cooking accounts for -- 

California Reporting, LLC

224

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
produces more particulate matter than all the cars, 

trucks, SUVs, mini-vans combined. 

None the less, manufacturers are committed to 

further reductions in criteria emissions, including 

particulate matter. Significant reductions will occur as 

a result of the Low Emission Vehicle III Program that the 

Alliance supported and the Air Resources Board adopted 

earlier this year. 

LEV III regulations require a reduction in PM 

standards of 70 percent from light-duty vehicles. And we 

understand that EPA is evaluating the LEV III program and 

looking at towards their Tier 3 program. 

So these standards will help reduce criteria 

emissions across country while improvements to air quality 

and fuel economy and reductions in greenhouse gases will 

continue to occur. 

So today's proposal on particulate matter, we 

have three comments on three portions of the proposal: 

Revising the annual PM2.5 standard, eliminating the 

spacial averaging and requiring monitoring in near-road 

environment. 

First, EPA proposes to lower the level of annual 

PM2.5 standard to a range of 12 to 13 micrograms per Cubic 

meter. We do not support that change for the following 

reasons. 

California Reporting, LLC

225

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
First, the revision are based on selective 

epidemiologic associations and is not supported by 

evidence from either controlled human exposures or animal 

toxicology. 

Second, cardiovascular health risk assumed by EPA 

is not consistent with the fine particle risk from other 

PM exposure situations, including indoor pollution in 

developed countries and pollution in undeveloped 

countries, smoking or occupation exposure. 

Third, the PM risk assessment in the proposal is 

based on assumptions that are known to be wrong, such as 

all fine particle is equally toxic or unverifiable, such 

as the dose response is linear with no threshold. Based 

on these issues, little or no weight should be afforded to 

the results of the risk assessment. 

There are spacial differences and inconsistencies 

in the chronic mortality studies. For example, there is 

no cardiovascular mortality signal in a large setting in 

the Netherlands and there's no chronic mortality signal in 

several studies in the western U.S. 

This leads to the conclusion that to the extent 

there are positive PM2.5 chronic mortality associations, 

they're caused either by unidentified covarients that may 

or may not be pollution-related by components of PM or 

that are not PM mass or by historically high exposure 

California Reporting, LLC

226

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
sources unique to the eastern U.S. Again, that's looking 

at the eastern and western. 

Given the many limitations and uncertainties in 

interpreting the acute and chronic epidemiological 

studies, we recommend retaining the current annual 

standards. We think it's prudent and health protective as 

well. 

The second area that we want to comment on is the 

eliminating spacial averaging. We support that to avoid 

disproportionate impacts on at-risk population with one 

qualification. The key here is that monitoring siting 

should represent community-wide exposure as currently 

required by EPA. The current regulation allow micro or 

middle scale PM2.5 -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: If you could try to wrap up, 

please. Thanks. 

MR. DOUGLAS: So we support this as long as the 

requirements are retained for community assessments. 

Finally, with PM2.5 monitors collocated with 

measurements of other pollutants, we don't support this. 

Our major concern there is that this collocation is going 

to result in being out of compliance with an annual or 

24-hour standard where nobody is exposed at that level. 

If you put it near road sides, people don't live beside 

the roadway where the monitors will be put. That's our 

California Reporting, LLC

227

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
concern there. We do plan to submit written comments and 

again appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

So I'm sorry just one question. On the 

near-road, you are saying you would support near-road 

monitoring as long as it's population-oriented. Am I 

reading this correctly? 

MR. DOUGLAS: Well, we support near road or 

collocation, provided it's for research only. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Oh, I see. Okay. I'm 

sorry. I missed that. Thank you for clarifying that. 

PANEL MEMBER DRAKE: I just wanted to also 

clarify you said that cooking in California produces more 

particulate matter than mobile sources essentially. Is 

that -- you meant directly emitted PM? 

MR. DOUGLAS: That's correct. Just to clarify 

when you say mobile sources, that that includes trains, 

buses, heavy-duty vehicles, big trucks, so on, so forth, 

airplanes and such. 

PANEL MEMBER DRAKE: You were referring to 

directly emitted PM? 

MR. DOUGLAS: I was referring to light-duty 

vehicles so cars, trucks, mini advance, SUV so on, so 

forth. And all that's taken from the Air Resources Board 

Almanac of Emissions. So -- 

California Reporting, LLC

228

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: Just one comment. 

You made a point here about the dose response relationship 

being linear with no threshold. I encourage you in your 

comments to specifically address where the specific 

studies that are relied on in integrated science address 

this issue and there is no evidence the ISA concluded for 

discernable threshold and that the available studies 

indicate a linear dose response relationship. 

So I would encourage you to specifically speak to 

those studies. And if you believe in a different 

conclusion, the more specificity you can provide to that 

would be very helpful 

MR. DOUGLAS: Okay. We'll certainly do that. 

Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much. At 

this point, we don't have any other speakers scheduled 

until 5:00. Oh, sir. 

MS. KLINGER: I filled out -- so maybe she set me 

up for afterward. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: If you're ready to speak 

now, please come on forward. 

MS. KLINGER: My name is Karen Klinger. 

K-l-i-n-g-e-r. First name Karen, K-a-r-e-n. 

Someone from the public and somebody who lives in 

Sacramento, I have a huge concern with more and more 

California Reporting, LLC

229

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
regulations. I realize that asthma is a huge problem, and 

I wish the students were still here. I would have liked 

to have asked them how many smokers live in their home or 

did their mother smoke prior to them being born. 

I think that's very important to know where 

students live or where people live. If they live in an 

environment that is not healthy, how can they be healthy? 

If they live in an environment like I have throughout my 

lifetime, in more like a Suburban neighborhood or a small 

little town when I was born, it makes a huge difference. 

I currently now live in a neighborhood that's 

suburban but now is classified urban which I highly 

disapprove of. And this is so the County of Sacramento 

through the General Plan update and Regional Land Use 

Planning Association and the federal government can 

continue to build or can build, stack-em and pack-em 

housing, which they're called, that these students live 

more in a community where it's stack-em and pack-em 

housing. Rather than my neighborhood where I live where 

we don't have sidewalks, which is wonderful. We have what 

I call normal traffic, and it makes it much simpler when 

you have sidewalks. People park on the street, making it 

almost more dangerous for people to walk, ride their 

bicycles. 

Not in my neighborhood. Mothers walk with 

California Reporting, LLC

230

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
buggies or with strollers. And we have all kinds of 

activity, which to me is the ideal type of community. You 

start building stack-em and pack-em and all of the density 

which the federal government and regional -- the local 

agencies want to do now, you are building unhealthy 

neighborhoods. You are building where the people can't 

get out. They can't get away from particulate. They 

can't get away from whatever the bad air is. 

What is asthma? Is asthma allergies? Trees, 

grass, pets, there are many things that can cause people 

to have an inability to breathe. 

And I find in many ways that these regulations 

for California, we are loaded with many, many regulations. 

We don't need any more. And I'm not a scientist. But I 

know that many times when there are scientists, you have a 

broad range of opinions. So what are they? Is this to 

benefit government? Is this to benefit the people? 

I know that your intentions are probably good. 

But sometimes good intentions do not make for a good or 

common rules for those who live in communities, because 

you have broad diversities within different states, within 

different neighborhoods. And I'm very concerned with what 

might be going on today because I'm not sure what these 

will be used for and if it will be to better to people or 

if it's going to be for more rules and regulations that 

California Reporting, LLC

231

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
will go towards sustainable communities. In other words, 

more Strategic Growth Councils and more agencies and 

departments that are going to change the existing 

communities that we have now, like suburban neighborhoods 

into the stack-em and pack-em, which is what's happening 

around my neighborhood. And I'm very opposed to unhealthy 

neighborhoods. But I know I have a healthy one. 

I want to thank you. But I would hope that you 

would give -- the EPA does not have a good name right now. 

You have been in lawsuits. Your ability to have such 

control over the people where you are not elected, where 

the people don't have the ability -- if they need to 

fight, they have to spend their hard-earned money in order 

to prove their point and to prove they aren't in 

wetlands -- I'm sure you know which case I'm referring to, 

Idaho. 

This is not the only one. We have in northern 

California Siskiyou County, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Fish and Game, they are -- the people are 

struggling to survive there where their communities are 

they're actually being forced off their land. This is 

very frightening to somebody who has friends and family in 

areas where this is happening. 

I see government agencies where they have become 

the problem and have created a very uncomfortable for the 

California Reporting, LLC

232

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
very lives of people that lived very comfortably and very 

nicely before these organizations tried to come in to 

force them off their land. 

I want to again thank you. And again, my 

concern, as I've mentioned a couple of different times, is 

all of these regulations. And we have too many now. Just 

with our General Plan update, which is now linked to a 

regional land use planning association -- where I realize 

my time is up. I saw the color change -- thank you -- 

where we have the Regional Land Use Planning Association, 

which now has control over our local representation. And 

now they take orders from the federal government. And now 

we have all these others -- I mean, the complexity of this 

is terrifying and changing the line of America as we know 

it. Thank you very much. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

MS. KLINGER: And I just hope more people get 

involved so they know how America is changing, not for the 

better. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Is there anyone else who wants to speak right 

now? 

If not, I think we will take a recess and do we 

have a schedule at 5:00? We'll take a five-minute recess. 

(Whereupon a recess was taken.) 

California Reporting, LLC

233

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Our next speakers are Robin 

Kristufek and Michael Monasky. 

Is Ms. Kristufek here? The way we're doing this, 

just so you know, we are asking when I call two names if 

you can both come up together, as you have just done, and 

then just stay there until you're both done speaking. And 

it's five minutes each. And we have a timer. And could 

you please spell your name for the reporter? Thank you. 

MS. KRISTUFEK: My name is Robin Kristufek. 

R-o-b-i-n. K-r-i-s-t-u-f-e-k. 

I'm a registered nurse, a public health nurse. I 

work for Sacramento County in a program called Nurse 

Family Partnership, which is a evidence-based program 

serving low-income families who have children under the 

age of two. I do home visits for those families living in 

poverty. 

And first of all, I'd like to thank you for all 

that you have done for the environment. The Clean Air Act 

of 1970, as we all know, has done great things. Our air 

is much better to breathe and we appreciate that. So 

thank you. 

So I would like to demonstrate what it's like 

when I see some of my families who have children who have 

respiratory problems. Especially, these are families, 

like I said, who are living in poverty, living by 

California Reporting, LLC

234

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
freeways, that kind of thing. 

So a little baby if you can't breathe he's -- 

(indicating). A little baby's nasal will have nasal 

flaring because it can't get enough air. They're 

struggling for air. And then they have what we call 

grunting retractions where their stomach goes in, 

(indicating). It's a very frightening thing to see. And 

I've seen this in two-month-olds, in six-month-olds. It's 

a very scary thing. 

What's going on? Why is this happening? Turns 

out the babies who live in poverty, you know, have higher 

rates of respiratory distress than do the rest of the 

general population. Some people say, oh, well, that's 

just genetic. Some people have asthma and bronchitis, but 

that's not true. Lots of studies have been done. And 

you've been presented with lots of testimony you heard 

that people who live by freeways, people who are outdoors, 

homeless people who sleep under freeways, people that live 

in industrial areas tend to have when they're breathing 

much higher levels of particulate matter. And they have 

higher rates of respiratory problems than the average 

person. 

So one of the reasons is this: People who are 

poor, who work at minimum-wage jobs, a lot of them can't 

afford a car. It's just a simple fact. They have to take 

California Reporting, LLC

235

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the bus everywhere they go or they walk. Here in 

Sacramento -- and I know in lots of cities like 

Sacramento, the bus system is abysmal. It's just 

horrible. The lines are several miles apart. So if 

you're in the middle between two bus lines, you have to 

walk a mile to get to the bus. They have to wait. They 

usually run once an hour. Sometimes in Sacramento they're 

every two hours. You sit sometimes even an hour at a bus 

stop. On a busy street, fumes are constantly being spewed 

in your face as the buses and trucks are whizzing by. 

So the babies who are going to day care on the 

bus, they're breathing this in. As we know, babies have 

undeveloped lungs and it's -- they get respiratory 

distress much easier than we do. That's one of the 

reasons. Just not having a car and having to be on the 

bus system. 

The other thing, of course, is where people who 

live in poverty have to live. A lot of times they live in 

apartments that are right on busy streets or homes or 

apartments right by the freeway, not where we would 

probably chose to live. And usually they don't have trees 

or other greenery that filters. There's some -- not all, 

but some trees actually filter the particulates out. And 

a lot of people in poverty don't have the fortune to live 

like that. So all day long, all night long when they're 

California Reporting, LLC

236

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
at home, they're breathing in much more particulate matter 

than you and I do. 

It's just a physical reality that people in 

poverty live and travel in the areas of our cities that 

are most highly concentrated with the particulate matter. 

And they don't have the means to protect themselves like 

we do. We drive around in air-conditioned cars. We don't 

have to be on the streets all the time. And then our 

workplaces generally are cleaner. 

And as you know, the cost of taking care of 

little babies or anyone who has a lot of respiratory 

problems is very high. I'm sure a lot of people have 

presented the costs, so I'm not going to do that. But 

it's very expensive. 

So what can be done? I agree with the 

recommendations put forth by the American Lung Association 

for the annual particulate matter limit of 11 micrograms 

per cubic meter and the daily limit of 25 micrograms. I 

agree with those. Though, actually, I think they could be 

even stronger. As maybe you know, there is no level of 

particulate matter that's safe. So really the level 

should be zero, if we really want people to be healthy. 

So the 11 and 25 is actually a compromise. It could be 

even stronger. 

And what I think that will do, it will force the 

California Reporting, LLC

237

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
states to be creative and the localities that have to 

conform to the regulations. Maybe they would decide to 

triple the amount of public transportation. So if we have 

every five minutes the light rail goes and every five 

blocks, then people won't have to be waiting. And 

obviously, there will be cars off the road. Like New York 

City, middle class people even ride the subways because 

it's so convenient. And that would be great if we could 

force the states to do that. 

Of course, then there's solar energy and wind 

energy. You know -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: I need to ask you to wrap 

up. I'm sorry. 

MS. KRISTUFEK: All right. So thank you for the 

opportunity to talk to you. I think it boils down to 

really a morale issue. Does the government protect all of 

our citizens or does it protect the companies that are 

making a profit? Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much, 

especially for the explanation of what happens to babies. 

That was very helpful. 

MR. MONASKY: Hi. My name is Michael Monasky. 

I've submitted a copy of my remarks to the 

transcriptionist. 

I share something in common with Robin. I happen 

California Reporting, LLC

238

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to be on the Public Health Advisory Board of Sacramento 

County and appointed by the Board of Supervisors. And 

recently, we saw the funding from First 5 cut to the Nurse 

Family Partnership because of fears of creating a 

condition of supplantation of funding. But fortunately 

Nurse Family Partnership was able to get some money from 

the Feds through the State. 

My final remarks I'll start with. Kind of like 

desert. The reason why we're here is because of the US 

Supreme Court Decision Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations. Surprisingly, it was Antonin Scalia who 

said -- who wrote and he lead the decision "Section 109(B) 

of the Act does not permit the administrator, EPA, to 

consider implementation costs in setting NAAQS, the 

initial ambient air quality standards. Despite this, 

EPA's confidential business information accommodation 

allows those illegal considerations to be made. And yet, 

front end public health preventatives are far more 

successful and so much more cost effective than back-end 

curatives from my own personal and professional 

experience, much of which fail." 

As a joke about the EPA goes, a life is worth 

about a million dollars less now than it was in 2001. 

Full funding of front-end public health efforts is the 

solution to the conundrum of costs. Here, in the last 

California Reporting, LLC

239

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
four years, while I've been on the Public Health Advisory 

Board for about two and a half, almost three years now, 

we've seen nothing but cuts to public health nurses. We 

no longer have field nurses in public health. We have 

virtually no disease investigators. We have a few 

epidemiologists. 

Why is there then an emphasis on protection of 

trade secrets and CBIs -- confidential business 

information -- in the information gathering process? The 

Declaration of Independence was not written and signed by 

anonymous. Transparency in our economy and our science is 

critical to successfully tackling human health problems 

associated with inhaled airborne pollutants and should 

start with the protection of public health through our own 

EPA. 

Now I was going to originally start out my 

remarks by asking you if I'm your first respiratory 

therapist. 

PANEL MEMBER HASSETT-SIPPLE: We had one in 

Philadelphia. 

MR. MONASKY: Good.

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: You are our first one here. 

MR. MONASKY: And so then my next question is: 

Do you know -- I'm glad we're represented there. And I 

notice someone has a nebulizer here. 

California Reporting, LLC

240

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
So anyway, I'm kind of wondering if you know what 

respiratory care is about. It's having these gasping 

newborns handed to you who have to have surfactants 

instilled into their lungs quite literally. 

I see my time is running out. But I want to give 

you some facts.

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: You still have two minutes. 

MR. MONASKY: Okay. Good. The average person 

takes in 13 cubic meters of air per day. That's 

calculation based on 3,000 gallons of air dry volume from 

the EPA site. 

The EPA PM standards allow 15 micrograms of 

pollutant per cubic meter of air. When you multiple that 

that 13 times 15, you end up about almost 200 micrograms 

per day at the low end of. 

At the high end, for the coarser standard, it's 

150. So 150 times 13, gives you 1950 almost 2,000 mics of 

toxic load per day. 

An Albuterol rescue inhaler puts out 90 mics per 

puff, and its typical use is one to two puffs per use. If 

you use it twice a day, two puffs, you use 360 micrograms. 

The anticholinergic bronchodilator ipratropium is 

effective at one to three puffs with 18 -- 18 micrograms 

per puff. Long acting Clenbuterol -- that's what's in 

Advair -- is usually prescribed for one to two puffs at 21 

California Reporting, LLC

241

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
micrograms per puff -- 21. So we're talking about, you 

know, tens of micrograms. 

Please note that the EPA's proposed toxic load 

exceeds that of therapeutic dosing recommendations. We're 

breathing more poison than medicine. 

Still, studies abound with convincing empirical 

evidence that PM pollutants contribute to chronic 

cardiopulmonary diseases in all populations. 

This is a quotation from the abstract of very 

fine and ultra-fine metals in ischemic heart disease in 

California Central Valley, which by the way, in Fresno 

Bakersfield, that area, is second worst in the nation. 

"Very fine and ultra fine iron, nickle, copper, 

and zinc were identified as vehicular sources -- mobile 

sources -- with the most probable source being brake drums 

and pads and the lubrication oil additive zinc 

thiophosphates. High correlations, many with R-squared 

greater than .9 and correlations go up to one. So it's 

very high correlation between data sets and predictability 

were found between these vehicular metals and mortality 

due to ischemic heart disease. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Mr. Monasky, your time is 

up. So if you could maybe make a couple of key points and 

close

MR. MONASKY: Okay. I'll summarize there is more 

California Reporting, LLC

242

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
here. 

You're hunting in the wrong forest. Simply 

lowering the PM2.5 mass standard is a classic case of 

looking for your car keys under a convenient street light 

when they were lost on a dark alley. What we really need 

is a revision of the Clean Air Act that addresses directly 

those parts of the PM aerosol that are harmful, most of 

which are finer than 2.5 micrometers. Carcinogenics from 

diesel, heart disease from break pads, drums, and lube oil 

metals, children's lung capacity from submicron iron and 

copper, asthma from coarser particles, none of which are 

separated out in a PM2.5 mass standard. If you're going 

to continue to use mass -- that is the mass -- the actual 

mass of a particle, as antiquated and ineffective 

surrogate standard or regulation for the health effects of 

aerosols, once you craft a new mass standard PM0.25 since 

almost everything below .25 micrometers in diameter 

deposits deep in the lung and is most often toxic. 

Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Great. Thank you both very 

much. Thanks for taking the time to come. 

And our next speaker is Dr. Harry Wang.

DR. WANG: Thank you for the opportunity to be 

able to speak. We really appreciate that you came to 

Sacramento. We assume there is a reason for that, because 

California Reporting, LLC

243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
we're in California where we have the top five soot 

polluted cities in all of the United States. So thank you 

for coming here and giving us an opportunity to speak. 

I'm the President of the Sacramento Chapter of 

the Physicians for Social Responsibility. We have 700 

members here locally. And I also represent National 

Physicians for Social Responsibility. And we have about 

50,000 members nationally. 

My daughter was six months old when she first 

began wheezing. And by the age of five, she had learned 

how to set up her own breathing treatment. She could add 

the medication, dilute it with the normal saline and 

basically set up her treatment. 

And I have to tell you, when I near this sound, 

both my wife and I, we think about a lot of sleepiness 

nights when our daughter was waking up wheezing. And I 

would go in typically and get her on the machine and she 

would take the treatment for about 30 minutes. The 

wheezing would retreat a little bit, and she would be able 

to go back to sleep. But in about another four hours, I 

might be in there and get her another treatment. 

And this is, by the way, the same nebulizer my 

daughter used. She's now 32. She still has asthma. But 

this is the same machine she used when she was five and 

six years of age. 

California Reporting, LLC

244

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
When she was eight, she was hospitalized because 

of severe attack that did not respond to these treatments. 

My wife and I will never forget how terrified we were when 

she was being hospitalized, admitted to the hospital, and 

she was unable to catch her breathe and she needed extra 

oxygen. 

Air pollution had long been a professional 

concern for me. I had been a pediatrician and treated 

many asthmatic children, but this experience with my 

daughter elevated the issue to a highly personal and a 

very frightening level. 

Although the quality of the air that we breathe 

has improved significantly since the Clean Air Act in 

1970, as you know, millions of Americans are still 

experiencing for themselves variations of my family's 

story, but not always with a happy ending. And this is 

why I'm here at today's hearing, to urge the EPA to set 

the highest standard for the air that we breathe. 

Living in California essentially all of my life, 

I'm personally aware of the poor air quality in the 

Central Valley, in southern California, and in Sacramento. 

Sacramento always rates high for ozone, and it did improve 

somewhat. But still ranks 21st for short-term particle 

pollution. 

The annual current standard for particulate 

California Reporting, LLC

245

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
matter has been unchanged since it was first set in 1997. 

Since then, as you know, there have been numerous peer 

reviewed scientific articles which have shown links 

between soot and many, many health concerns. And these 

concerns include the four top leading causes of death: 

Heart disease, lung disease, strokes, and cancer. 

In fact, we now know that previous studies may 

have actually underestimated the health risks. Scientists 

now question whether there is any "safe" level of exposure 

to fine particle pollution. And scientists believe that 

even transient peeks of exposure, especially to the ultra 

fine particles as mentioned earlier, that this can 

seriously effect our health. 

So here's what I feel is needed. I'm joining 

many public health professionals and calling for an annual 

limit of 11 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic 

meter and a daily limit of 25 micrograms. We need to 

address both short- and long-term exposure because they 

can both lead to the lung and heart problems, strokes, 

cancer, and associated premature death. 

And we especially owe it to vulnerable 

populations, such as what Robin mentioned earlier, 

children, those who live in poorer areas, as well as to 

our seniors and those with chronic lung and heart 

problems. 

California Reporting, LLC

246

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I enjoy the great outdoors. My family and I 

travel to the Sierra Nevada every year. In fact, we'll be 

going to Yosemite in August. But even these places are 

marred by pollution. And repeated exposure to such dirty 

air is a danger to everyone. 

In medicine, we value prevention as the best 

treatment and that is much preferable than treating 

illness. If the EPA chooses the stronger soot standards, 

lives and money will be saved and there will be less 

illness. 

And how many lives are we talking about? A 

recent study found that stronger limits on soot pollution 

would prevent nearly 36,000 premature deaths nationwide 

each year. In addition to dramatically cutting these air 

pollution induced deaths, stronger soot limits would also 

prevent more than 23,000 trips to the hospital emergency 

rooms, 1.4 cases of aggregated asthma, and 2.7 million 

days of missed work for school every year. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Could I ask you to wrap up, 

please? 

DR. WANG: Sure. And the health benefits would 

also create financial savings of $281 billion each and 

every year. And you know the cost studies show that it 

would save at least 30 to perhaps $90 for every dollar 

spent. 

California Reporting, LLC

247

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
So, to conclude, I urge the EPA to fulfill your 

mission to protect human health as you set the new 

standard. You have all the scientific studies at hand. 

Do not allow industry or politics to influence your 

decision, and do not allow corporate interests to outweigh 

the health and welfare of the American people. 

Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much. And 

thank you for bringing a nebulizer to demonstrate how it 

works. Thank you. 

And our next speaker is John Moore. If he is 

here? 

MR. MOORE: I'm John Moore, a resident of 

Sacramento. 

These comments on particulate air pollution 

standards are informed by the knowledge of that I acquired 

during 20 years as a statistician at the California Air 

Resources Board. I became officially elderly and a member 

of the group especially sensitive to air pollution before 

I retired. 

No one doubts that PM2.5 is a dangerous air 

pollutant. PM2.5 particles potentially containing soot, 

toxic chemicals, metals, and acid gases are inhaled deep 

into the lungs. The EPA and its Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee, CASAC, have reviewed a vast body of 

California Reporting, LLC

248

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
consistent research on the adverse health effects of both 

long-term and short-term exposure to current 

concentrations of PM2.5. Their reviews verified that 

current exposures to PM2.5 in many regions of the U.S. are 

causing premature mortality and numerous adverse 

cardiovascular and respiratory health effects. 

Researchers have not detected any threshold 

concentrations below which adverse effects do not occur. 

My work at the ARB included attending meetings at which 

CASAC members participated. I was exceedingly impressed 

by their knowledge. CASAC provides advice that society 

can rely on. 

The EPA and CASAC have concluded that present 

PM2.5 standards do not protect public health well enough 

and should be lower. I agree that the evidence of health 

effects supporting lower standards is very convincing. 

Considering the substantial evidence of adverse health 

effects of short-term exposures, EPA's preference for 

retaining the 24-hour standard of 35 micrograms per cubic 

meter is very difficult to justify. 

Unfortunately, the EPA's choices, alternative 

standards, and justifications of these choices for the 

alternative standards are expressed in some of the 

convoluted pros I have ever encountered. The 

justifications for not changing 24-hour standard is 

California Reporting, LLC

249

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
especially obscure. And the justification of the choice 

of recommended combinations of 24-hour annual standard is 

not much clearer. 

The justifications of the need for one standard 

to be the controlling standard or neither clear nor 

convincing. Both annual and 24-hour standards are needed 

to protect against adverse effects of their respective 

time scales. The standards are expected to be the 

controlling standard everywhere. The level of each 

standard should be chosen to protect against the adverse 

health effects at its time scale. The ratio of the 

standards is not relevant. 

Environmental organizations are supporting an 

annual standard of 11 micrograms per cubic meter and a 

24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 

Roll-back calculations predict these standards 

could have health benefits significantly greater than the 

benefits of the standards proposed in the rule. I urge 

the EPA to carefully evaluate the research supporting the 

11/25 primary standards and the benefits of these 

standards. 

I also support the proposed strengthened 

secondary standards to protect visibility in urban areas 

in vistas and wildlife areas at National Parks. And I 

would like to thank you all for listening patiently all 

California Reporting, LLC

250

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
day. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: We have a couple of 

questions, but let me thank you for coming in at the end 

of the day. We very much appreciate your taking the time 

to come. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Two questions. 

One is on your comment on the -- that each 

standard should be focused on the studies that are aimed 

at that same time period, like the chronic studies for the 

annual standard, I assume, and the short-term studies for 

the short-term standard. 

The Agency spent a lot of time discussing and 

getting advise from CASAC on what suite of standards, what 

combination of standards would be effective at reducing 

both risk from long-term exposure and risk from short-term 

exposure. And there is a large part of EPA's rational is 

that an annual standard actually gives significant 

protection from both long- and short-term exposures. That 

the most effective way, the most efficient way to get the 

most protection from short-term exposures is to lower the 

annual average, which then lowers the whole distribution 

typically of the days. 

Given your background as a statistician, do you 

have -- it sounds like you disagree with that approach. 

Do you have more thoughts on that? 

California Reporting, LLC

251

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
MR. MOORE: Well, it seems to me that the 

short-term standard needs to be low enough that it 

protects against short-term effects in areas where there 

are periodic spikes. I shouldn't say periodic. 

Occasional spikes. And if these spikes are at levels 

which cause short-term adverse effects and these -- and 

they would not be guarded against by a 98th percentile 

short-term standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter, then 

the standard should be lowered. I remember the call at 

EPA talked and proposed a combination of 13 and 30 in the 

proposed rule. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: We invite comment on that 

certainly. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Not on 30 specifically. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Not on 30 specifically. It 

was discussed in a policy assessment. We invited comment 

in general on any variation. 

The other question I had is in the -- in our 

discussion of the long-term studies, there was a lot of 

time spent on the statistics of the distribution of data 

and whether -- to what extent should we be looking below 

the mean of the long-term standards, you know, lower than 

somewhat below down to a 10 to 25 percentile range of 

distribution of the data based on strength of data. And 

that is a new approach in this review compared to the last 

California Reporting, LLC

252

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
review. And it's driven by the additional data, the large 

amount of additional data. Again, given your background 

as a statistician, do you have any thoughts on that? 

MR. MOORE: Well, let's see. The idea that 

the -- that given a particular study, the concentration 

near the long-term mean are the most informative of the 

about the distribution, which is an idea I've not really 

thought about before, except evening out the extremes. 

I don't know what -- I just urge the EPA to 

carefully evaluate the research supporting an 11 microgram 

per cubic meter long-term standard and recognizing it 

might be somewhat less convincing than research 

supporting, say, a 12 -- long-term 12 micrograms per cubic 

meter standard. I'm urging another look at this 

combination. And I don't know what you see. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Okay. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you again for coming 

in and for your testimony. 

MR. MOORE: To lighten your day, I might point 

out the second sentence of my testimony before I corrected 

it and the "member of a group of special sensitive air 

before I retired" -- fortunately, I caught the omission of 

pollution. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Well, at this point we are 

California Reporting, LLC

253

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
going to adjourn the hearing until this evening. We'll be 

taking an hour-and-a-half break and plan to be back at 

7:30. For anybody else who can come back, we welcome you 

all back at 7:30 and plan to be here until 9:00. So thank 

you all. 

(Whereupon the hearing recessed at 5:57 PM.)

California Reporting, LLC

254

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
EVENING SESSION

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Welcome to the evening 

session of our hearing on the EPA's proposal to revise our 

particulate matter national ambient air quality standard. 

Thank you all for coming. I very much appreciate 

your taking the time out of your schedule to come and 

speak with us today about the proposal. 

The comment period on this proposal is open until 

August 31st. So if you want to submit written comments on 

the proposal in addition to your testimony today, you have 

until August 31st to do that. And there is information 

outside about submitting comments, if you want to do that. 

We will be preparing a transcript of today's 

hearing, and that will be entered into the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

And this is the second hearing we've had. We had 

one in Philadelphia on Tuesday. The way it works is that 

I will invite -- if there are enough people -- two people 

at a time to come forward. And I would appreciate if you 

both come forward together and stay at the speakers's 

table until you're each done speaking. 

And you have five minutes to speak. And we have 

a green, yellow, and red system. And when it gets to 

read, your five minutes are up. And we would ask you to 

try to wrap up your testimony at that point. 

California Reporting, LLC

255

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I think that's it. So why don't we go ahead. 

And I'll just say we can answer clarifying 

questions, if you have any. But we're not here to debate 

or discuss the proposal. And we may ask you a clarifying 

question, if we have one. 

So our next speakers are Bradley Chipps and 

Katherine Thompson. 

And I'm sorry. I should introduce myself. I'm 

Lydia Wegman. And I'm the Chair of the Panel. And with 

me is Kerry Drake from our Region 9 office; John Hannon 

from our Office of General Counsel; Beth Hassett-Sipple. 

And she and I both work in the Office of Air and Radiation 

in North Carolina. 

And Mr. Chipps.

MR. CHIPPS: Hi. I'm Brad Chipps. I'm a 

pediatric pulmonologist and allergist. I've been in 

practice in Sacramento for 33 years. And I've had about 

40 years of experience in respiratory medicine. I came 

here after I left the faculty at Johns Hopkins in 1979. 

I'm not going to bore you with a lot of odds 

ratios and things you already know, but just to give you a 

few minutes of my understanding about what's really 

happened to children and adolescents with asthma, both the 

instant asthma that is the onset of new asthma associated 

with environmental air pollution and also exacerbations of 

California Reporting, LLC

256

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
asthma that have occurred. 

When I first started practicing here in August 

23rd, 1979, we still had rice burning that occurred in the 

Sacramento Valley. And I can remember quite clearly 

admitting some days two, three, five children with acute 

respiratory events, either de nova events or exacerbations 

of previously diagnosed asthma because of significant 

particulate matter in the air that has in the main abated 

in the last decades and a half, almost two decades now 

that's not such a problem. 

But we still see significant concerns associated 

with both the things you know, nitrogen dioxide -- sulfur 

dioxide not so much here in ozone. And it is a real 

problem. 

And as you know, the Southern California studies 

that were done by the US with ozone and children with more 

than three team sports have shown a significant increase 

in significant exacerbation with exercise and bronchial 

spasm, although asthma from other causes has not been 

particularly affected. 

Also, we see the data that was published from the 

Atlanta Olympics from Jerry Tigs' (phonetic) group. Jerry 

is at University of Virginia. He was in Emery then. And 

showing a significant drop in ED visits when vehicle 

traffic was truncated in Atlanta during the Olympic games. 

California Reporting, LLC

257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I was at a meeting earlier this week in Munich 

with Neil Barns who is a respiratory physician in UK and 

London. And they're planning a similar surveillance with 

the onslaught of people and truncation of vehicular 

traffic in central London. And hopefully we'll be able to 

show similar data that Jerry Tigs' group showed with the 

Atlanta Olympics that there is a real signal here. And I 

think all of us that do respiratory medicine, especially 

children and young adults, see that very clearly being 

associated and a significant problem. 

I'm not here to tell you what levels you need to 

deal with. That's for more scientifically-oriented folks 

than me. But I can tell you that as the PSI goes up, 

people get sicker. There's just no two ways about it. 

I'm just a county doctor and I go to the office every day 

and take care of patients. But it happens and it happens 

every day, especially as it gets hot in the summer. And 

it happens, you know, when we get temperature rises and at 

source of other reasons. 

So my point is that both instant asthma and 

exacerbations of previously diagnosed asthma are 

significant concerns associated with air pollution. And 

anything that you can do to help children and actually 

patients of all ages to minimize the burden of 

environmental air pollution, of course, would be a 

California Reporting, LLC

258

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
significant goal to be achieved and something I would 

100 percent support. 

ETS, of course, being the major indoor problem -- 

I guess we're not in that today. We're talking about 

outside things. 

So again, I prepared a bunch of odds ratios and 

studies. We're not going to do that. But also I think 

this whole notion of diesel exhaust and the effect it has 

on IGE productions. Andy Saxen, now retired, but at UCLA 

first described in the early 80s is also a significant 

problem. And we have data published now that children 

living within 50 meters and surely within 400 meters of a 

heavily-traveled road, which is loosely defined as 4,000 

vehicles per day have a significant increase in both 

instant asthma and exacerbations of asthma. So there are 

a lot of moving parts, as you well know. 

And I guess my plea is to do everything you can 

to tighten things down as much as you can, because it's I 

think very important to the health and welfare of our 

whole population, no matter, from cradle to grave 

basically. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much. 

I know you're not a scientist for these purposes, 

but are you able to tell at all what kind of pollution it 

is? Whether ozone or PM? The standards we're proposing 

California Reporting, LLC

259

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
today relate to particulate matter. And I just wondered 

if you had any way of telling based on what you know about 

air quality when you're seeing in these cases, other than 

the rice burning which I understand. 

MR. CHIPPS: That's the obvious. But I think if 

you look at where they're living and in proximity to 

freeways or heavily-traveled roads, that's one thing to 

conclude. And obviously, the heat is a major thing with 

the ozone layers. 

So I think that in a practice -- my research is 

primarily asthma and cystic fibrosis, but I don't do 

environmental research. I just don't do it. 

But I can -- that's, I guess, the best way I can 

answer is just trying to understand what the media reports 

is particularly prevalent in the environment on that day. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Let me ask a similar 

question. Several witnesses earlier today talked about 

wintertime problems with wood smoke basically. Does that 

show up in your practice in any sense? 

MR. CHIPPS: It does, in fact. And we've had at 

least in the last few years, especially years when there 

was less rain many days where at least in Sacramento 

County wood burning fireplaces have been banned. You 

can't do it. And I think that is something that in areas 

where folks are not completely dependent upon wood source 

California Reporting, LLC

260

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
for heat for economic reasons is something to be seriously 

considered as a value-added part of this whole equation. 

And yes, I do see that. Can I, in an individual 

case, apportion causality? Of course not. But you know, 

patients tell me enough about neighbors on both sides and 

across the street are using their fireplace and my asthma 

is worse, so I have to believe them that's probably true. 

But can I give you a level of anything? No, I can't do 

that. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

MS. THOMPSON: My name is Katherine Thompson. 

And I support your measures of soot without understanding 

fully what they are. But I came here just to voice my 

strong support for measures on air quality. 

I was the Advocacy Chair for the United Nations 

Association Sacramento Chapter, just for identification. 

In 1973, I was the Executive Director of the League of 

Women Voters unit on Air Quality, Sacramentans for Cleaner 

Air Now, SCAN. And we were funded by Region 9 to educate 

this constituency on the need to support the current EPA 

measures, then current, on smog. 

My first script called "Choosing Which Way To Go" 

emphasized the fact point out by the National Geographic 

Society and by Professor Homer Gibson of CSUS Sac State, 

Sacramento, that the Central Vallies are the most 

California Reporting, LLC

261

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
vulnerable to air pollution than any area of the 

United States. 

Since the 70s, I have served and advocated on 

several agency boards and on major issues such as halting 

the Collinsville industrial development on Rancho Seco 

nuclear power plant. I found and promoted the funding for 

Sacramento's light rail starter project by securing 

support for the first transfer of interstate dollars to 

rail transit in California. 

I live ten houses from the 48th Street light rail 

station and therefore Highway 50. Simply controlling soot 

from stationary sources, which I know is more manageable, 

will not suffice. The main resort to reducing soot from 

motor vehicles has to be to increase the taxes. Yes, the 

gasoline taxes are included on all fossil fuels. 

The soot from Highway 50 vehicles coats my 

backyard on 47th Street daily, including my solar oven. 

Congressman Pete Stark and Bob Filner are supporting HR 

3242, legislation that they have prepared to tax fossil 

fuels. I know that EPA and any other group -- I urge EPA 

and every other group and individual to support these 

measures just as soon as feasible. 

Transportation creates about one-half of our 

greenhouse and other gases. And with the attention being 

given now to climate change, I think we may find more 

California Reporting, LLC

262

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
people open to listening. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you both very much for 

coming this evening. 

And if you have odds ratios that you want to 

submit -- excellent. Thank you. 

Our next two speakers are Rich Pettis and Ann 

Regan. Sorry. This says Ann, but perhaps it's Sue. 

MR. BETTIS: Yes, thank you. My name is Rick 

Bettis. I'm a retired civil engineer living here in 

Sacramento. So in my day job career, I contributed to 

this problem. So I'm trying to atone for that a little 

bit. 

I was born and grew up in the valley just south 

of here where the problem is probably as severe as it is 

anywhere in the nation. And during my retirement, I've 

sort of taken on a full-time volunteer roll for 

organizations like Breathe California and the League of 

Women Voters and the Sierra Club and the United Nations 

Association, that Katherine works for. These are issues 

that are quite important to me. 

At the Breathe California, actually I serve on 

what they call their Health Effects Taskforce. And it's 

chaired by Jan Sharpless the former Chair of the Air 

Resource Board. And we have such team as Dr. Tom Kahill 

from U.C. Davis and the Delta group as a think tank and 

California Reporting, LLC

263

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the former County Health Director Dr. Tuchi. 

And this issue of particulates are of special 

importance and the special expertise of Dr. Kahill. He's 

done studies actually throughout the world, including 

overseas on particulate pollution. And he was 

instrumental. And the work done on Mono Lake and the dust 

problem from there. And his studies again show just, you 

know, the very severe problem. And he goes into great 

depth and talking not only from emissions, but from brakes

wearing the brakes contributed to the problem and the 

health effects are quite severe. 

We work with the local air quality management 

district in developing a wood burning regulatory rule 

which they're implementing now and I think has done a 

significant amount of good. 

And so -- and again, just very concerned and 

certainly support what you're doing. I think it's a good 

step. I think as you learn more, I think you'll be able 

to justify even making these regulations even stronger 

than what you are now. 

Might mention on a personal level growing up in 

the valley, I did lose my father to lung cancer, which I 

think is associated with air quality down there. So it's 

not only a professional and advocacy roll, but it is a 

personal thing for myself. 

California Reporting, LLC

264

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
So again, I urge you to go forth with the 

regulations as you now have them. But I would continue to 

do your studies to even strengthen them further. Thank 

you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much for your 

statement. 

MS. REGAN: Hi. My name is Sue Regan. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Could you spell your name 

for the court reporter, please? 

MS. REGAN: Right. Regan, R-e-g-a-n. And I'm 

here to support beefing up your regulation, making them 

more stringent. 

I'm here in two capacities. One as a concerned 

private citizen who has a husband who has Sarcoidosis, 

which is restrictive lung disease. And the second reason 

I'm here is as a member of Physicians for Social 

Responsibility. And I've been a member of that 

organization since the early 80s. And I'm very concerned 

about people being able to breathe. 

My husband -- let me go to the first point. My 

husband has been diagnosed with sarcoidosis. He was on 

high doses of Prednisone for a couple of years. Finally 

was able to wean off of it, but because of being on 

Prednisone he developed cataracts in both eyes. Had to 

have surgery and subsequently developed a complication 

California Reporting, LLC

265

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
from that surgery and just within the last month had 

another surgery. He has been in remission from his 

sarcoidosis, but I'm here to -- and he's not here. He's 

out of town with a friend. 

But I'm here to support improved regulations and 

improved air quality because I don't want him to have 

another exacerbation because of worsened air quality. 

He's now healthy. And he loves to walk every single day. 

So that means that he is exposed more than a lot of people 

who don't exercise as regularly. He is exposed every day 

to the quality of the air. So therefore, I think it's 

even more important that the air quality be good. 

The second thing that goes along with that is 

that we live in a large valley, which in some ways is 

similar to where I grew up, which was in Fairbanks, 

Alaska, which was in a valley. And because when it got to 

be very, very cold in the wintertime, we could get what 

was called, you know, fog or ice fog, not just smog. But 

the particles would condense, the air would condense 

around the particulate matter in the air. So it was so 

cold that people had to keep their cars running when they 

went in to do an errand or something. So you had even 

more particulate matter and more condensation. 

Well, when I came here in the early 70s to go to 

school, I went to school in Stockton and there was tule 

California Reporting, LLC

266

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
fog. I looked out. I thought it was 50 below zero 

because it looked just like ice fog. 

And in the wintertime, it looks like that. It 

doesn't feel as cold certainly, but there is a quality of 

that. And it's a little bit harder to breathe sometimes 

if there is a lot of particulate matter in the air. 

So that's all about myself and my husband and my 

circumstances as a citizen. The second one is a 

Physicians for Social Responsibility. I'm trained as a -- 

I all be fast. I'm trained as a physician. I'm now a 

psychiatrist. And I have worked as a consultant in the 

hospital seeing people who have lung disease. There is 

nothing more horrible than to see somebody dying, gasping. 

And one of the reasons I was called was because they had 

such terrible anxiety. I had to figure out how to 

medicate them with enough medicine to keep the anxiety 

down, but at the same time not too much so that it would 

decrease their respiratory reflex. 

So you know -- and the thing that I do now is I 

work for Social Security disability. I was private 

practice for many years, and now I've been at 

Social Security disability for twelve years. And I see 

these kind of cases on paper where people have terrible 

lung disease and they have terrible anxiety at the same 

time. 

California Reporting, LLC

267

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I'm always wondering as I look at these case how 

much is caused by their lung disease and the natural fact 

that they have less oxygenation of their tissues that's 

causing the anxiety. And how much is it because they have 

truly an underlying primary anxiety disorder. So a lot of 

times I'll never know. 

But I think that that is a significant factor, 

especially with people that have very, very serious 

restrictive lung disease that it's a factor to their 

anxiety. So I just urge you to strengthen the regulations 

so we can all breathe cleaner air. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you very much thank 

you for coming. 

And our next two speakers are Linda Copeland and 

Wally Albers. 

DR. COPELAND: Hi. I'm Dr. Linda Copeland. I'm 

a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility and I'm 

here in that capacity, and also having worked as a primary 

care pediatrician and as a developmental pediatric 

specialist. So I definitely concur with the comments of 

Dr. Brad Chipps. 

I've had to refer my asthma patients to him as 

they're getting more complex for his pulmonology 

expertise. I've certainly seen the same things that he 

has seen. 

California Reporting, LLC

268

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
So I urge you to remember that children are not 

young adults. We all have different genetic capacities 

and susceptibilities too. So there are vulnerable 

populations, children certainly being one of them. And 

other people for genetic reasons may have more 

vulnerabilities to certain environmental toxins. 

So it's not enough to come up with a regulation 

that would protect Mr. Joe Smith average person, because a 

lot of us are not average. And really, we need more 

stringent regulations at the 11 micrograms per cubic 

millimeter to protect those more vulnerable populations 

epidemiologically. 

The other fact I wanted to mention is I 

participated in writing a grant looking at the autism 

epidemic. This is unproven. But I'm concerned as a 

developmental pediatrician and scientist that air 

pollution is a potential risk factor in genetically 

susceptible maternal/fetal dyad. And, indeed, there are 

studies, one that Dr. Hertz-Picciotto from the U.C. Davis 

Institute showing that living close to a freeway is a 

definite risk factor for autism in the offspring of a 

woman's pregnancy if she's lived close to the freeway for 

that child in the first year or two they are alive. Of 

course, living close to a freeway is a proxy for air 

pollution. 

California Reporting, LLC

269

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
And I wrote a grant with Irva Hertz-Picciotto to 

the National Institute of Health and was rated fairly high 

scientifically but not funded, specifically looking at the 

nitrogen oxides and nitrogen dioxides, which could be very 

disruptive of nitric oxide metabolism, which is important 

in fetal brain development. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. 

Mr. Albers. 

MR. ALBERS: Thank you. My name is Wally Albers. 

And I'm here on behalf of the company I represent, CVC 

America. And we actually are probably considered one of 

the bad guys. We import a solvent from Japan made by a 

manufacturer by the name of Kuraray. The solvent is 

called three methoxy, three methyl. 

We are here today because Dr. Bill Carter from 

U.C. Riverside has done a couple of studies on our solvent 

with regard to particulate matter. And what we want to do 

is -- I've got a couple of excerpts from a paper that he 

has written that I'd like to read. And I want to tell you 

we are in complete agreement with the new recommended 

standard. We have no issues with that at all. 

We, as a company, produce a solvent and sell a 

solvent that produces no measurable particulate matter in 

the atmosphere. Okay. It's been proven in Dr. Carter's 

chamber tests. So we would like -- I would like to read a 

California Reporting, LLC

270

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
couple of his comments and then submit two of his 

documents for the record so hopefully the EPA -- Dr. 

Carter does say that different standards should probably 

be implemented for particulate matter products that 

produce particulate matter versus product that don't 

produce particulate matter. 

Currently, our product is not an exempt VOC. We 

have lost millions of dollars worth of business to other 

products in the market that do produce particulate matter 

and are more harmful for the environment simply because of 

the current VOC standards that are in place. And so, you 

know, based upon science, we would like to have the EPA 

visit what we have to offer and just open up their minds 

to the thinking that, you know, there may be a better way 

to go over some of these things. 

And I don't know how much time I have left but -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: You have about a little over 

two-and-a-half minutes. 

MR. ALBERS: Well, I'll read as fast as I can 

here. I had surgery on my tongue not too long ago, so 

it's hard for me to say things. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Well, just take your time. 

MR. ALBERS: Dr. Carter in his paper has written: 

"To my knowledge, current emissions regulations 

for non-toxic VOCs are based primarily on their expected 

California Reporting, LLC

271

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
ozone impacts, not their impacts on PM formation. 

However, regulators in the scientific community are aware 

of the fact that SOA is an important part of the PM 

problem and VOC regulations based on PM impacts may be 

developed in the future. 

"Volatility has sometimes been used as a means 

for estimating whether an organic compound has a 

significant impact on ozone because the compound must 

exist in gas phase to react to promote ozone formation. 

The same argument can be made with respect to the role of 

volatility on SOA formation, because the compound also 

needs to be in the gas phase to react to form lower 

volatility oxidation products that become SOA." 

Dr. Carter also says that "formation of 

particulate matter in the atmosphere is a significant air 

quality concern because of significant health impacts of 

PM and its impact on visibility, smog, for instance. 

"Emissions of organic compounds can contribute to 

PM in two ways. If the compound is sufficiently low in 

volatility, then the compound itself can be emitted in a 

particle form or condensed into the particulate phase once 

it reaches ambient temperature. In this case, the 

compound can be considered a form of primary PM and can be 

regulated on this basis, along with other forms of primary 

PM such as dust, smoke, et cetera. 

California Reporting, LLC

272

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
"In addition, if the compound is volatile enough 

to exist in the vapor phase and undergo reaction such as 

those involved in ozone formation, the compound may react 

in the atmosphere to form low vapor pressure oxidation 

products or condense onto particles and become secondary 

organic aerosol. 

"SOA is only part of the total PM problem, but 

SOA trends to contribute more to the formation of the 

smaller sized particles that may have more health impacts 

on a per mass basis. 

"Unlike the role on ozone formation where VOCs 

play a critical role, VOCs are only part of the PM 

problem. And reducing VOC emissions will probably not, by 

itself, be sufficient to attain ambient standards for 

particulate matter. However, reducing VOCs that 

contribute to primary PM and SOA may still be part of the 

solution." 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Okay. All right. Well, 

thank you. You can certainly leave that for the record if 

you want to. Well, thank you very much for coming. 

MR. ALBERS: You're welcome. Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: And if you -- 

PANEL MEMBER JORDAN: I actually did have a 

clarifying question for you. So I guess what you were -- 

your point was is that your solvent is actually a highly 

California Reporting, LLC

273

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
volatile VOC and the Dr. Carter was saying that it was the 

lower volatile VOC that might contribute to PM formation? 

MR. ALBERS: What his premise is that -- and our 

solvent is .5 millimeters of mercury, the vapor pressure 

at 20C. So it's not a high VOC. It's not highly 

volatile, the standard being .1. 

What Dr. Carter is saying is that solvents that 

have an extremely low vapor pressure could have more of a 

tendency to produce higher levels of particulate matter 

because it takes longer for those solvents to evaporate. 

And so what he is saying is that he thinks that a 

new standard should be developed that takes into account 

just what that solvent does. 

Right now, we're thrown into a category of bad 

solvents. And we're really not a bad solvent. We are a 

very safe environmentally-friendly solvent. We actually 

have -- we are one of I think six solvents that have 

achieved the EPA's GFE clean ingredient status. So we 

pass biodegradability. We've passed LG50. We passed the 

aquatic test. We passed all of that. And yet, you know, 

I've lost millions of dollars worth of business in 

California alone. We've had to reduce our workforce in 

our Torrance, California, facility because of downturns in 

business. Six people in California have lost jobs because 

of that. And you know it's just -- 

California Reporting, LLC

274

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL MEMBER JORDAN: Well, thank you for 

clarifying. I just want to make sure that your point was 

clearly made. 

MR. ALBERS: Thank you very much. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone 

else here who would like to speak at this point? I think 

we'll take a recess then because we don't have any other 

speakers that I'm aware of. So thank you all very much 

for coming. Appreciate your time. 

(Whereupon a recess was taken.)

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: All right. Mr. Peters, if 

you would like to come forward. So our next witness is 

Charlie Peters. 

MR. PETERS: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is 

Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals. And 

we're a coalition of motorists that most of which drive 

cars. 

And we thought that the subject of your hearing 

today that I heard about yesterday -- and I really didn't 

decide to come until this delightful lady called me about 

two hours ago in Hayward and said, "How come you're not at 

this fancy meeting in Sacramento?" And I said, "Well, 

because I'm here." 

But anyway, I have had the pleasure of 

interfacing with EPA oftentimes in the past over issues of 

California Reporting, LLC

275

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I&M, smog check. As a matter of fact, I noted that Mr. 

Chaney just left here, employed very recently. And I've 

had that pleasure of meeting with you folks in meetings. 

I went to the I&M hearing in Washington, D.C. in '92 and 

that was very exciting. Got to meet with the nice folks 

in your big building at that time, which I'm sure is not 

near as nice as where you're at today. 

But I'm finding this subject very interesting and 

pertinent to things that are happening right now. I noted 

in the press just quite recently an article in the 

Sacramento Bee indicating that Fed EPA had taken against a 

bakery in Lodi to the tune of $625,000, having to do with 

lack of permit and allowing ethanol to get in the air. So 

apparently, ethanol in the air is not something that you 

like, and I would agree with that. 

And I really would like to see the possibility of 

California being able to reduce their PM2.5 and emissions 

by the possibility of making ethanol voluntary in 

California's gasoline. Just doesn't make sense that you 

want to impact a bakery because they may be in the baking 

process letting off some ethanol. And we're mandating the 

use of ethanol in our gasoline at hundreds or thousands of 

tons a day or whatever it is. It's a lot of it. 

And we have on our ballot here in California an 

issue with whether or not we ought to have genetically 

California Reporting, LLC

276

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
modified foods without putting a label on them, which is 

certainly where we get the ethanol -- the corn ethanol 

that we put in our gasoline. 

However, right now, in California, where you're 

apparently getting ethanol from Brazil that apparently the 

Fed and California disagree on. So we're shipping sugar 

cane ethanol from Brazil and putting it in our gasoline 

here, costing us an reportedly an additional 16 cents per 

gallon at the fuel pump. And I think that's both gasoline 

and diesel. While at the same time, we're shipping corn 

ethanol to Brazil to incorporate in their fuel system 

there, while we have a very significant problem with even 

getting products up and down the Mississippi because we're 

running out of water. 

So I'm very strongly in support of the 

possibility of EPA allowing California to have a waiver. 

Of course, California has to apply for that in order for 

you to help respond to that. But in the past on many 

occasions, California has requested a waiver on the issue 

of mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. 

I'm sure you're quite well aware that as of 

January 1st the subsidy of ethanol to the refiners stopped 

and we thought that was good. What we're talking about 

now is the mandate, and we're not trying to say what they 

can't use it. We just like to make it voluntary so that 

California Reporting, LLC

277

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
like people with weed-whackers and old cars, et cetera, 

can have an option of being able to purchase gasoline that 

doesn't have the ethanol. 

And there are people who think that it's having 

an effect on the price of food. It's having an effect on 

air quality. It's having an effect on our water supply. 

And it reportedly takes about 2,000 gallons of water to 

generate enough corn to generate a gallon of ethanol with 

our water conditions continuously. Here in California, 

that's not necessarily good policy issues for us. 

So you folks have taken a very strong stance in 

the past and have made huge improvements in our 

performance here in California. And we'd like to see you 

be supportive of and help California to consider and 

create some conversation about this possibility. 

Another thing is we'd like to see smog check get 

an audit process to see what's broken gets fixed. We 

think the combination of those two can provide in excess 

of 2,000 tons a day in emissions reduction that we think 

could have a significant -- make a significant improvement 

in California's economy and California's air quality. And 

we think that EPA would be very supportive of that. 

So we would encourage your conversation with the 

California legislators and bureaucrats and people in this 

building to consider whether or not that is an appropriate 

California Reporting, LLC

278

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
thing to do. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Just one clarification. Is 

what you're concerned about with the ethanol in California 

is the California greenhouse gas requirements, greenhouse 

gas standards, the low carbon fuel standard, which some 

domestic ethanol doesn't get because of the life cycle 

emissions doesn't satisfy the low carbon fuel standard the 

way sugar cane ethanol imported from Brazil does. 

I think my guess -- and I'm guessing -- but I'm 

guessing that that's what's leading to the importation of 

sugar cane ethanol from Brazil into California to meet, 

not a federal requirement, but to meet a State requirement 

for the low carbon fuel standard. 

MR. PETERS: I would indicate that you probably 

are right. However, probably be more fun to also identify 

who the primary support for that might be. And it's more 

than likely Shell, who's advertised on national television 

right now about their efforts on cellulosic and sugar cane 

ethanol, as well as British Petroleum, who are both major 

players in the Brazilian market. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: I don't have any reason to 

disagree with that. 

MR. PETERS: So what my personal experience in 

dealing with the California Air Resources Board, et 

cetera, particularly prior to Arnold Schwarzenegger taking 

California Reporting, LLC

279

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
over as governor, there was significant support for relief 

in the ethanol. As a matter of fact, Gary Condit put in a 

bill just before '91, the start of that year, to provide 

relief from the requirements for ethanol in California to 

make it flexible so we could use it or not use it as we 

saw fit. 

I thought I was bringing a document with me that 

had an awful lot of that. It was about 150 pages, but 

unfortunately I left the house rather quickly and did not 

bring that with me. 

But I think you could do the country and the 

state of California a great service by opening up and 

continuing those conversations to see what is the best 

policy, both federally and for California, to create the 

best outcome for the air as well as the economy. 

And we even -- such things as I went to -- I was 

quite involved in Lake Tahoe. Was very concerned about 

MTBE. So the Governor took action and gave them special 

consideration and got it done there sooner to make the 

transition to ethanol. 

And so they went back to check and see how it was 

working. And they found that, yes, in fact, they still 

had MTBE in the gasoline, had not gotten the transition. 

So they went back again just to make sure because it had 

been a significantly high media profile issue in 

California Reporting, LLC

280

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
California. So going back to check. And what they had 

had up there previous to when the MTBE was a part of their 

fuel, was they had an impact on the water table 

immediately in the vicinity of service stations somewhere 

in the three to five parts per million. 

After the transition to the ethanol -- and by the 

way, the MTBE was never rated as a carcinogen, never. 

When they made the transition to the ethanol, they found 

two to three -- two to 500,000 parts per million of 

ethanol, and ethanol is rated as a carcinogen. 

And you ask Water Board, the water purveyors in 

California, have you looked to see if we got ethanol in 

our water? And they go, "No, we never checked for that." 

So there's a little interesting little tidbit for you that 

could be important to our health and our water and our 

ecosystem in the state of California. 

PANEL MEMBER HANNON: Thank you. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you for taking the 

time to come. 

MR. PETERS: My pleasure. When important people 

are in town, that's a great honor to be able to show up. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: If you have anything else 

you want us to put in the record, you can submit that 

after the hearing is over. 

MR. PETERS: Now did I get you a copy of that? 

California Reporting, LLC

281

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: I think you got a copy to 

our court reporter. 

MR. PETERS: Here's my card, if anybody wants 

one. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Good. Thank you. 

MR. PETERS: No. Thank you. Appreciate you 

staying. I would have laid -- I would have had heavy duty 

money that you wouldn't -- would have been here. You'd 

have been gone.

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: We said we'd be here until 

9:00 and we will be here. 

MR. PETERS: In the past, I've tried to 

participate in a process like this, in this building 

actually, and unless you had prior approval, you couldn't 

testify. And I salute you for -- or the Administration or 

whoever for the marvelous change and ability of the public 

to be able to participate. That's marvelous. That's 

appreciated big time. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Well, as you know, we're 

with the federal government. And the State government has 

very kindly allowed us to use the building for this 

hearing. But we do have open hearings with the EPA. 

MR. PETERS: The previous time -- it's been 

probably two or three years ago -- that the EPA came 

here -- and it may have been at the same time -- at that 

California Reporting, LLC

282

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
time -- may have been a little longer ago -- because I 

think Mary Nichols was at EPA. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: That would be a little 

longer than that. 

MR. PETERS: If I'm not mistaken. Came here and 

you had to have a previously approved person to be able to 

testify in the hearing. And I thought that's an 

interesting way to do things. And to find out that you 

even wait for some nobody like myself to show up -- 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Hardly. Everybody counts. 

MR. PETERS: That's very much appreciated. I 

feel very honored to be here. 

PANEL CHAIR WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you for 

taking the time. 

(Whereupon the public hearing adjourned 

at 9:40 PM)

California Reporting, LLC

283

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 

Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 

Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 

foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 

Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 

State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 

typewriting.

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 

attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 

way interested in the outcome of said hearing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

this 7th day of August, 2012.

 

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR

Certified Shorthand Reporter

License No. 12277 

California Reporting, LLC

284

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25