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) 457-4417APPEARANCES

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, CARBAPPEARANCES 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 ResponsibilityAPPEARANCES 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, NRDCAPPEARANCES 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 VillegasAPPEARANCES 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 WoodwardINDEX PAGE

Introduction 1 Ms. Griffin 8 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 162INDEX 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 284PROCEEDINGS 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 25the 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 25we 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 25in 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 25standard 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 25Our 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 25outside, 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 25will 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 25My 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 25school. 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 25air. 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 25already 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 25If 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 25associated 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 25threshold 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 25traffic-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 25versus 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 25essential. 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 25of 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 25to 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 25shorten 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 25the 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 25behalf 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 25of 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 25my 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 25taken 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 25NACAA 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 25to 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 25with 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 25work 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 25Our 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 25pollution. 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 25from 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 25regional 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 25Changes 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 25being 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 25MR. 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 25small 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 25many 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 25range 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 25According 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 25The 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 25In 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 25micrograms 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 25others. Thank you very much, both. I just want to mention if you areregistered 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 25The 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 25That'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 25Colorado, 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 25wellness 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 rationalbehind 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 25MS. 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 25Too 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 25the 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 25at 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 25MS. 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 25things 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 25Ms. 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 25visibility 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 25communities 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 25birth 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 25birth 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 25And 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 25PANEL 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 25areas. 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 25treatment 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 25and 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 bannedwith 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 25Today, 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 25The 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 25Health 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 25hospitalized 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 25centers, 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 25Thank 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 25we 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 25age 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 agreedto 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 25His 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 25I 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 25perspective 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 25We 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 25currently 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 25discussed 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 25exactly 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 25be 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 25testifying 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 25degree 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 25For 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 25is 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 25relocation 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 oughtto 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 25location 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 25near-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 25the 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 25judgments 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 25changes 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 25different 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 25PANEL 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 rationalfor 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 25would -- 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 25EPA, 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 25illness. 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 25to 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 25Thank 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 25PANEL 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 25saved 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 25above 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 25California 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 25PANEL 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 rationalfor 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 25respiratory 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 25indicate 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 25linked 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 25PANEL 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 25evidence 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 25founded.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 25California, 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 25lifetime 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 25to 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 25earlier, 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 emergenciesevery 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 25resident 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 25extensive 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 25pulmonary 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 25pollution. 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 25conclusive, 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 25to 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 25most 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 25Although 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 25monitors. 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 25year. 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 growsbigger, 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 25direction 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 25we 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 25Young 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 25time, 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 25requiring 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 25Our 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 25with 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 towhat 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 25of 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 25PM2.5 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 25respiratory 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 25But 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 25over 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 25MS. 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 25is 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 25this. 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 25just 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 25AFTERNOON 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 25which 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 25you 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 2550,000 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 25Institute, 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 25developed 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 25MR. 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: Recurringtheme 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 25friend 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 25So 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 25on 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 25has 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 25the 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 25California. 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 25An 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 25of 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 25County 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 25many 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 25many 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 25And 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 25we'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 25where 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 25further 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 25Go 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-breakinggroups 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 25permeating 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 25I 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 25had 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 25Previously, 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 25counties 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 25a 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 25suggestions 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 25hearing 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 25there 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 25producing 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 25Thank 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 25grandchildren. 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 25is 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 25all 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 25membership 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 25goods 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 25associated 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 25negative 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 25senior, 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 25preparing 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 25supporting 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 25class 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 25MS. 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 25standard. 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 25The 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 25there'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 25made 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 25primary 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 25susceptible 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 25microgram 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 25translation 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 25MS. 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 borderson 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 25our 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 25just 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 25of 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 25like 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 25decided 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 25testimony 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 25same 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 25MS. 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 25But 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 25stressors 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 25those 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 25Katz 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 25This 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 25meter 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 25type 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 25San 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 25that 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 25communities. 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 bearan 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 25And 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 25previously 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 25that 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 25disorder. 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 25instruments, 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 25Reduce 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 25PANEL 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 25benefits 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 25standards 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 25air 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 25means 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 25The 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 25produces 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 25First, the revision are based on selective

epidemiologic associations and is not supported by evidence from eithercontrolled 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 25sources 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 25concern 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 25PANEL 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 25regulations. 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 25buggies 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 25will 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 25very 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 25PANEL 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 25freeways, 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 25the 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 25at 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 25states 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 25to 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 25four 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 25So 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 25micrograms 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 25here. 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 25we'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 25When 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 25matter 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 25I 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 25So, 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 25consistent 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 25especially 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 25day. 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 rationalis 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 25MR. 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 25review. 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 25going 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 25EVENING 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 25I 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 25asthma 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 25I 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 25significant 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 25today 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 25for 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 25vulnerable 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 25people 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 25the 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 25So 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 25from 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 25fog. 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 25I'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 25So 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 25And 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 25couple 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 25ozone 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 ontoparticles 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 25volatile 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 25PANEL 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 25I&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 oughtto 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 25modified 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 25like 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 25thing 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 25over 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 25California. 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 25PANEL 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 25time -- 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 25CERTIFICATE 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