### Michelle Garcia 

## PM 2.5 Hearing January 2013

Air QualityDirector Fresno-Madera Medical Society
Thankyou for this opportunityto provideinputon the PM 2.5 Plan. We have been following the plan andtheplan before itandhave agreatappreciationfor the amountofworkthathas gone into developing such a complex and importantplan. The San JoaquinValleyAir District should be commended for theirhardworkand dedicationto protectingpublichealth. Iam heretodayrepresentingtheFresno-Madera Medical Society'sAir Qualfty Committee. The following comments arebased on informationwe'vereceived from the districtas well as otherinterested stakeholders. · The Fresno-Madera Medical Societyrepresentstheviews ofover 1000 physicians in the Fresno and Madera area. As physicianswe are deeplyconcerned aboutthe health impacts thatairpollution has on Valley residents and strivetobecomepartof the solution. As expressed duringthe Districts boardmeeting, we would like to express our supportfor theproposedplan and also propose afew modifications thatmayhelp strengthenthe plan. Firstlythe: · · • Fireplace Rule-We believe theproposedmodifications to the rule are a good start. Fireplace sootisveryharmful and should be controlled. Accordingthe the districtfireplaces aretheValley's largest source ofdirectly-emitted PM2.5 in thewinter. The proposed curtailmentis absolutelyneeded. • Forthis reasonwepropose a few modifications to strengthenthe rule even further. o Push up implementation date of2017. For arulethat such as this which will have significantreductions and public healthbenefits it shouldbeimplanted as soonerratherthanlater. o Consider modeling Sacramento's tiered system with an addedtierthat would eventuallyleadto banning all together. o Expanding seasonto cover October and March o Couple with a public awareness campaign

### • Lawn care rule-We a·re extremelypleased to see thatthe districtis taking actionto addressthe emissions thatcome from lawn care equipmentwhich is veryharmful to theworkers andthe public. o Worktowardturningthe incentive programinto an actual rule completewith fines and enforcement o Couple with an educational/trainingcomponentfor large businesses o Continue to secure funding that canbe made available to lawn care businesses thatwantto trade in their old equipmentfor cleaner equipment. o Investin research to identifyemergingtechnologies o Banning leafblowers mayalso provenecessaryatsome point • Charbroiling Rule-We believe this rule to beveryimportantfor public health concerns and are glad to seethe districtis addressingit. o Accordingto the plan the Districtplans to include controls for underfired charbroilers in a future iteration ofthis rule, and is workingwith · SCAQMD to develop newtechnologies thatwill make itpossible for the regulated communityto complywith the newregulations. These efforts are importantandnecessary. o Forthis reasonthe implementation dates should be further evaluated to assessweatherimplementation can be pushed up to getreductions soonerratherthanlater. o Banning ofcharbroiling onbad air days should be considered o In addition, the District could implementcontrols on under-fired charbroilers nowthatwould provide additional emission reductions. The BayArea Air Quality ManagementDistrict (BAAQMD) has implemented controls on newunder-fired charbroilers, and controls on existingunder-fired charbroilers, this could be mimicked in the Valleyto achieve additional reductions. We urgeyou to considerand supportthesereccomendationsensuringthe plan is as health protective as possible. Again; we'd like to thankthe district staffand board members for theirhardwork and dedicationto cleaning.up the air andwethankyou for this opportunity.

### Page 1 of2

**~1--l&miE!Ia** California Environmental Protection Agency 

## 9 Air Resources Board A IA I

### A Searcll ARB 

# rs:> (P.' Google (_1 Advanced 

# Comment Log 

# Display

BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY. COMMENT 

### 1 FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM2.5 SIP (SJVSIP)- NON-REG.

First Name: David Last Name: Kelly Email Address: dkelly@fmiproducts.com Phone Number: 951-264-8725 Affiliation: Green Fireplace Builders Coalition ·Subject: Technology Intervention for Reducing PM2.5 Comment: A recent newspaper article confirmed that wood burning fireplaces in the San

**J~aquin** Valley are the source of 17 tons of PM a day, the largest contributor to the worst air quality in the country. PM non-attainment areas in States like Oregon and Utah are requiring EPA Phase II Qualified wood burning fireplaces and retro-fit devices to meet there obligation under the Clean Air Act. Even though new wood burning fireplaces have been banned within the SJVAQMD PM non-attainment area, EPA Phase II Qualified wood burning fireplace retro-fit devices should at least be included as-a contingency measure in the SIP. These technologies are considered by Oregon and Utah to be "Beast Available Control Measures" BACM for wood smoke from fireplaces. Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sjvsip/2-new_epa_retro-fit_letter_to_fmi_w_hangtag.pdf Original File Name: New EPA

**Retro~Fit** Letter to FMI w HangTag.pdf Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-01-21 06:38:04

Ifyou have any questions or comments please contact Clerk ofthe Board at (916) 322-5594.
Board Comments Home

Back to Top I All ARB Contacts I A-Z Index

Decisions Pending and Opportunities for Public Participation Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy I Accessibility Howto Request Pllblic Records


### http

### :1lwww.arb.ca.gov /lispub/cornmlbccomdisp.php?listname=sjvsip&comment_ num=2&... 2/11/2013UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 December 20, 2012 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING FMI Products, LLC 2701 South Harbor Boulevard Santa Ana, CA 92704 Dear Mr. Klein: AND STANDARDS

We are pleased to acknowledge that the FMI Products fireplace retrofit device, PureFireTM Catalytic Control System, as tested intheFMI Craftsman 36 fireplace, meets the Phase .2 qualifying emissions level under the EPA Wood-burning Fireplace Program. The FMI Craftsman 36 firebox meets the equivalency criteria in the Program Partnership Agreement. This acknowledgement is based on: our review of the test report from Myren Consulting Test Laboratories dated March 5, 201 0; your submittal of an appropriate Owner's Manual that covers proper operation of this retrofit oevice;.

·· the equivalency of the Craftsman 36 firebox to the Heatilator E36 firebox as

demonstrated in the FMI Products document provided to EPA on August 7, 2012; and the !SO-accredited lab certification letter from PFS Corporation, dated November 6, 2012. The retrofit device, as tested in the FMI Craftsman 36 fireplace (width: 28.25 inches; height: 21 inches; depth: 16 inches), resulted in an average emissions of4.8 grams of fine particles (PM2.s) per kilogram ofwood burned. This PM2. 5 emission level is below the EPA qualifying Phase 2 emission level of 5.1 g/kg. It represents a 60 percent emission reduction from a baseline of 12 grams/kg (assumed average emissions for existing fireplaces). Emission reductions for this retrofit device may vary in other fireplaces. You may use the qualifying labels and hangtags in accordance with the Partnership Agreement Guidelines. Information regarding this retrofit device will be posted on the EPA Burn Wise website: http:l/www .epa .qov/burnwise/fireplacelist.html#retrofits. Thank you for your participation in EPA's Wood-burning Fireplace Program and your interest in improving air quality. We.recommend that EPA Phase 2 qualified cleaner fireplace models be considered over other fireplaces and that Phase 2 retrofit devices Qe considered for reducing wood smoke pollutionfrom ·existing fireplaces. The template for the Phase 2 qualified fireplace retrofit hangtag has been forwarded to you by separate e-mail. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 541- 5383. Sincerely,



# ~l.·~ Thomas N. Braverman EPA Wood-Burning Fireplace Program Liaison Innovative Programs and Outreach

Internet Address (URL) " http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)Figure: (1) 

## Approved EPA Hangtag PureFire Wood Burning Fireplace Retro-Fit Device 

# 0 

# u ' w 

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wood-burning Fireplace Program Phase 2 Qualified retrofit devices installed in fireplaces can reduce smoke. Exposure to smoke has been associated with respiratory illness and other health problems. Fireplaces that have lower smoke emissions may reduce your risk. · 

### RETROFIT DEVICE SMOKE EMISSIONS RANGE Lower Emissions

0

4-!Bl

**'ii'IHl~:!li** IMI©©jgll, Higher Emissions 12.0

EPA PHASE 2 EMISSIONS LEVEL

Fireplaces with lower emissions produce less smoke when installed and operated properly. MANUFACTURER: FMI MODEL NAME: Pure Firen 1Control System SMOKE (PARTICLE EMISSIONS): 4.8 GRAMS/KG OF WOOD BURNED 60% REDUCTION (as compared to an existing fireplace that emits 12 grams/kg) As tested on the Craftsman 36 (28.25" x 21"x 16"), results may vary for other fireplaces. EPA has determined, based on testing by an accredited independent laboratory, that this retrofit device qualifies at the Phase 2 emissions level for U.S. EPA's Voluntary Fireplace Program.



### 2
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (MinimLim 25% Postconsumer)

### Page 1of 1

California Environmental Protection Agency 

# a Air Resources Board **~~~~--~~** A IA I

### A SearcllARB 

# ro.:; @-· Google ()Advanced 

# Comment Log 

# Display

BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY. COMMENT 2 FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM2.5 SIP (SJVSIP) -NON-REG. ··-··-----------------------------------------------··---------------·-----------------------------------· First Name: James Last Name: Enstrom Email Address: jenstrom@ucla.edu Phone Number: Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles Subject: "Time to Revamp the Clean Air Act" Comment: · The attached December 2, 2012 Bakersfield California Editorial "Time to Revamp the Clean Air Act" is highly relevant to the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan. Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sjvsip/4- bakersfield_californian_editorial_time_to_revamp_clean_air_act_120212.pdf Original File Name: Bakersfield Californian Editorial Time to Revamp Clean AirAct 120212.pdf Date and Time CommentWas Submitted: 2013-01-23 09:23:10

Ifyou have any questions or comments please contact Clerk ofthe Board at (916) 322-5594.
Board Comments Home

Back to Top 1 All ARB Contacts 1 A-Z Index

Decisions Pending and Opportunities for Public Participation Conditions of Usc I Privacy Policy 1 Accessibility Howto Request Public Reco\ds Tl1e Board is one or five boards 1 departments, and offices under the umbrell;l of the California EnvirOnmental Protection Agency. Cai/EPA I ARB IDPR I DTSC I OEHHA I SWRCB C3S11areThls



### http://www.arb.ca.gov /lispub/comm/bccomdisp.php?listname=sjvsip&comment_ num=4&... 2/11/2013

### http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/our-view/x1801510372/Time-to-revamp-theClean-Air-Act 

# TheBakersfield Californian Editorial: Our View Home > 

### Opinion > 

### OurView Saturday, Dec 01 2012 11:00 PM 

### Time to revampthe Clean AirAct ByTheBakersfield Californian 

# December2, 2012

Canyou imaginebanning all vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley? Or how about an all out prohibition on combustion offossil fuels in the region? Is it fair to require valley companies to pay millions in air pollutionpenalties when their operations account for 20 percent ofair · pollutionbutvehicles and other mobile sources pump outthe other 80 percent? What would happen ifLos Angeles hadto prohibit a quarter ofits population from driving each day? These are some ofthe more draconianrequirements thatwouldhaveto be imposed in order for the SanJoaquin Valley and otherregions ofCalifornia andthe country to meetthe goals ofthe federal CleanAir Act as a result ofantiquated provisions and various courtrulings. The act, which is 40 years old, has done tremendous good andis one ofthe nation's most successful environmental achievements. Andthere's no doubt ithas made ourregion a healthier, saferplace to live. Butthe act also is in desperate need ofsome fixes, a pointthat was effectively made by Seyed Sadredin, the San Joaquin Valley's regional air pollution chief, before a congressional subcommittee last week. As well-intentioned as the Clean AirActis, we simply can't imagine that Congress, which approved the original 1970 CleanAirAct withjusta single no vote inbothhouses, and which gave overwhelmingbipartisan approval to majorupdates to the act in 1990, ever.intended some ofthe consequences the lawhas created today. A case inpointis the multimillion-dollar fine imposed onthe San JoaquinValley despite the enormous progress that's beenmade cleaningthe air and the ongoing obstacles that prevent itfrom meetingthe goals for which it's being penalized. As Sadredin laid out in his testimony, it's not for lack oftrying thatthe San Joaquin Valley hasn't met the increasingly stringent air quality standards oftoday. Theproblem has more to do with: 

# *The teclmology needed to meet stricter and stricter attainment goals is simply not available. Curr-ently, the actallows for increasingly stringent air quality standards to be adopted bythe federal government, and which localjurisdictions must meetwithin a set deadline, without regard for cost ofmeeting the standard orwhetherthe technology to do so even exists. Cun·ently, the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency is considering anew air quality standard that is nearly equivalent to the naturally occurring levels ofair pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, according to Sadredin. To reach it, the valley wouldhave to ban the combustion ofall fossil fuels.

1

### *Themajor sources ofair pollutionbeing outside an air district1 S 

### control. The main issue here is emissions from mobile sources, over whichregional air districts have no direct authority. Currently, 80 percent ofemissions that significantly contribute to the valley's airpollution come from mobile sources. Onlythe state or federal government can act to bring down those emissions, yetregional air districts are held accountable when those sources contribute to our failure to meet air quality standards. * Court cases that create complications and lack ofclarity. For example, the valley is currently being penalized with millions in fines because a court ruled it must still complywith an air quality standardthat was revoked in 2005. These arejusta few ofthe more blatant examples ofhowunwieldy certain aspects ofthe Clean Air Act have become. Sadredin1

### s testimony also included a number ofexamples ofbureaucratic redtape thathas piledup overthe years, whichhas relatively little to no impact on improved air quality but creates heavy and costly administrative burdens for the private sector and local and regional governments. And it1S 

### notjust Sadredinmaking the case. The head ofthe Los Angeles air district and many otherregional and state air quality managers from around the nations have given similar· testimonyto the subcommittee. The San Joaquin Valley has a huge stake in the continued success ofthe Clean AirAct, butthat success will require reforms andupdates. The situationfaced by air districts like the valley's and the numerous comtrulings thathave complicated implementation ofthe act warrant serious and prompt attention from federal lawmakers. We urge them to worked toward bipartisan consensus on sensible ways to improve this historic and beneficial law.

2 I I

### Page 1of 1

lla:ll!!IBII!IIIiiiiEI!iiBBIIIIIIIIIIID California Environmental Protection Agency 

# e Air Resources Board A IA I

## A Searcl1 ARB 

## [S) tg·Google .''.:. Advanced 

# Comment Log Display

BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY. COMMENT 

### 3 FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM2.5 SIP (SJVSIP) -NON-REG.

First Name: James Last Name: Enstrom Email Address: jenstrom@ucla.edu Phone Number: Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles Subject: "Air district chief asks Congress for rule flexibility" Comment: .The attached November 30, 2012 Bakersfield California article "Air

district chief asks Congress for rule flexibility" is highly relevant to the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan. Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sjvsip/5- bakersfield_californian_air _chief_asks_congress_for_flexibility_henry_113012. pdf Original File Name: Bakersfield Californian Air ChiefAsks Congress for Flexibility Henry 113012.pdf Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-01-23 09:23:10

Ifyou have any questions or comments please contact Clerk ofthe Board at (916) 322-5594.
Board Comments Home

Back to Top I All ARB Contacts ·1 A-Z Index

Decisions Pending and Opportunities for Public Participation Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy I Accessibility Howto Request Public Records The Board is one of five boarcfs 1 departments, and offices under the umbrella of the Caliromia Environmental Protection Agency. Gal/EPA I ARB IDPR I DTSC I OEHHA I SWRCB !:3ShareThis



### http

### ://wvvw.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccomdisp.php?listname=sjvsi p&comment_num=5&.
. . 2/11/2013

### http:/ /wv·.rw.bakersfie]dcalifomian.com/politics/local/x59956736/Air-district-chief-asksCongTess-for-rule-flexibility 

# The Bakersfield Californian LocalPolitics Home> Politics>Local Politics Thursday, Nov 29 2012 04:05PM 

# November 30,2012

Air district chiefasks Congress for rule flexibility By TheBakersfield Californian The director ofthe valley's airpollution control districttestified before a congressional subcommittee Thursday aboutproblems withthe CleanAir Act. Seyed Sadredin, director ofthe SanJoaquin Valley AirPollution Control District, gave politicians a detailed look atthe difficulties ofworking with the myriadrules, bureaucratic policies and court decisions that have calcified aroundthe act overthe past 20 years. He stressedthathis goal is notto have the act gutted, butto tweak certain implementationrules to create greaterflexibility. "I'mhopingthis is a setting for the beginnings ofintelligentfine-tuning ofthe act," he said after his testimony. · , Essentially, he told committee members, the acthas been applied ina one-size-fits-all manner withouttaking into account various regions' tmique challenges andthat it ignoresrealities of economy and technology. The act tasks the Environmental ProtectionAgency withreviewing the latest, best science every five years to determine ifnew standards for pollutant concentrations shouldbe set. The act does not say the EPA should take into accountwhetherthose standards are economically feasible, nor eventeclmologically realistic. Without such guidance from Congress, bureaucrats and comis have stepped in to setpolicy. The resulthas been overlap, confusion andunmeetable goals. · For example, he said, the San Joaquin Valley is now operatingunder six different implementationplans for six different standards on ozone andpmiiculate matter. Andthe latest standard for ozone being consideredbythe EPA would require the valley to ban all fossil fuel combustion or have only zero-emission engines from trains andtrucks to leaf blowers andpump motors within the next 20 years. Sadredin suggested various ways to fix some ofthe problems, including sepm·ating the health standards from the implementation schedule. That way standards wouldn'ttrigger automatic deadlines, as they do now. 

### 1

### Eachregion could then analyze the best wayto achieve those standards under timelines that make sense for its economy and available technology. Sadredin saidhe.was encouragedbythe questions he received from staffers about his ideas OI). 

### howto fine-tune the act. Buthe acknowledged the political realities, noting those who came to watchthe "bipartisan" hearing were almost all Republicans. The Democratic leadership was conspicuously absent.

-- LoisHenry, r;;a!ifornian columnist



### · Related Info

ABOUT THE HEARING This was thethird forum onthe CleanAir Actheld by Congressman Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., chairman ofthe Subcommittee onEnergy.and Power. Two other, similar forums were heldJuly 31 and Aug. 2. The stated goal is to understand how the act is being implementedthroughout the country. You can watch Sadredin's testimonyhere: energycommerce.house.gov/hearings

2

### Page 1 of 1

**~~~llillll!.'li!I** 

# C4v California Environmental Protection Agency 

# a Air Resources Board A IA I

### A Search ARB 

### Jit'

**~9,** Google (>Advanced. 

# Comment Log 

# Display

BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY. COMMENT

### 4 FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM2.5 SIP (SJVSIP)- NON-REG.

First Name: James Last Name: Enstrom Email Address: jenstrom@ucla.edu Phone Number: Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles Subject: "Emissions standards chill truckers hauling goods" Comment: The attached January 20, 2013 Bakersfield California article "Emissions standards chill.truckers hauling cooled

**good~''** is highly relevant to the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan and the serious flaws in the underlying CARE and US EPA PM2.5 science and regulations. Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sjvsip/6- bakersfield_californian_emissions_standards_chill_truckers_onei1_012013

..pdf Original File Name: Bakersfield Californian Emissions Standards Chill Truckers ONeil 012013.pdf Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-01-23 09:23:10

Ifyou have any questions or comments please contact Clerk ofthe Board at (916) 322-5594.
Board Comments Home

Back to Top 1 All ARB Contacts I A-Z Index

Decisions Pending and Opportunities for Public Participation Conditions of Use 1 Privacy Policy 1 Accessibility How to Request Public Records The Board is one of

**fiv~** boards, departments, and offices under the umbrella ofthe California Environmental Protection Agency. Cai/EPA I ARB IDPR I DTSC I OEHHA I SWRCB C9ShareThis



### htto:/ /www.arb.ca.gov/lisoub/comm/bccomdisp.php?listname=sjvsip&comment_ num=6&... 2/11/2013

### http:/ /\vww.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/health/x105527686?/Emissions-standards-chill-truckershauling-cooled-goods 

# The Bakersfield Californian Sunday, Jan 20 2013 02:00AM 

# January 20, 2013
·Emissions standards chill truckers hauling cooled goods

BY MEGAN O'NEIL Special to the Californian A1ihur Parrinohas spenthalfa century crisscrossingthe United States behindthe wheel ofa semi-trailertruck. His logbooks speak ofmillions ofmiles ofinterstatehauls and short-distance work at the ports ofLos Angeles and Long Beach. But the 68-year-old Parrino fears he mightbe reachingthe end ofthe road. ·In2008, his three-rig operation shrankbytwo-thirds whenthe ports' Clean TruckProgram went

into effect, barring older, heavypolluting engines. Now, a new cycle ofstate emissions standards for transportrefrigeratedunits, known as TRUs or reefers, means that Parrino is shelling outmore than $7,000 to retrofit his single remaining 2005- model-yeartruck in order to keep it legal to operate in California. "I used to considermyselfapretty goodbusinessman, buttoday I amjusta marginal operator," said Bakersfield's Parrino, who hauls everythingfrom artichokes to seabass. "I am strugglingto keep my head above water." The frustration is shared by many in the refrigeratedtransportbusiness, a linchpinin California's massive agriculture operation. The state's farmers, who generated $43.5 billionin revenue in 2011 and produce nearly halfofU.S."'grown fruits and vegetables, rely heavily on truckers like Parrino to gettheir bounty to market. Buttruckers say they are strugglingto keep equipmentup to speed withwhatthey call onerous enviromnental regulations amid a soft economy andhigh diesel fuel prices. Andwith fewer than halfofthe nearly 33,000 California-based TRUs compliant with emissionrules even as a new cycle kicked in on Jan. 1, some truckers questionhowfood will be deliveredifthe state is serious about enforcement. "There is a health advantage to people eating fruits and vegetables, and you can't eat fruits and vegetables ifthey are not there," said Ke1my Lund, vice president oftrucking brokerage Allen Lund Co., in La CanadaFlintridge. Proponents ofthe emission standards saythat efforts to reduce diesel particulate matter
-- especially around majortruck hubs-- will lowerhealth risks associated with toxic air contaminants.


### 1 . i !

### "You are never going to see written onthe death certificate 'This person died from freight pollution,' but we knowfreight pollution is closely associated with heart attack, premature mortality, lung cancer, asthma-- the list goes on," said Diane Bailey, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council who has closely followed California's regulation of refrigerated transport. The greening ofthe industry dates to 1998 whenthe California AirResources Board-- the regulatory agency responsible for air quality

-- formally identified diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant. The board subsequently adopted a planto reduce emissions from all diesel-fueled engines by 85 percentby 2020. New standards for the diesel engines thatpowerrefrigeration units-- separate from thosethat drive the trucks themselves

-- are one component ofan expansive regulatory undertaking. TRU engines mustbe retrofitted with a filter, rebuilt, or replaced entirely, after seven years. The requirements are beingphased in overmultiple years, and enforcement started in 2009 with model year units from 2002 or older affected. · TRUs operate at temperatures as low as 20 degrees belowzero, depending onthe cargo and ambient conditions. Truckers can spendtwice as much on fuel for refrigeration units while hauling during the summer as comparedto the winter. Costs to meetthe state-mandated standards range from several thousand dollars for retrofitting to more than $20,000 for a newrefrigeration unit. The standards apply to the nearly 33,000 TRUs based in California, as well as the tens of, thousands oftrucks that pass through each year. Some argue that the volume ofgoods flowing through Californiamake the state standards de facto national standards. Noncompliant carriers are subject to $1,000 fines, although that figure can escalate for repeat offenses. In the first year ofimplementation, compliance topped 70 percent, said Rod Hill, an air pollution specialistwith the CaliforniaAir Resources Board and the architect ofthe newin-use standards. Last year, 10 percent ofthe 2004 model years were registered as compliant. In the fourth quarter of2012, total compliance was about 43 percent, Hill said. On Jan. 1, a newcycle went into effectwith all units

**d~.ting** 

### from 2005 and earlier needing to be upgraded or replaced. A California Air Resources Board spokesperson saidthis week thatneither updated total compliance rates nor compliance rates specifically for 2005 model year units were yet available. This go-around includes a new wrinkle in enforcement efforts. As ofthe new year, truck brokers, shippers andreceivers are also subject to fine for contracting non-compliant carriers. The move will force more carriers to upgrade while also evening the playing field among those who have made the capital investmentto bringequipment into compliance and those who haven't, Hill said.

2

### The disparity is pittingtrucker against trucker. "We started getting complaints from the carriers thathad spentthe money to come into compliance that'they would be at a loading dock andthe would see all these non-compliant units," Hill said. "There were actually some drivers in non-compliant units thatwereteasing drivers that had compliantunits. II 

### To be sure, there are many companies taking the necessary steps to upgrade. JimWilcox, the regulatory and compliance manager for In-N-Out said the company acted early and implemented a five-year planto bring its 79 refrigerated trailers into compliance. Ken Gilliland, director ofinternational trade and transportation with the Western Growers Assn., said his office is directing its members to add a certification statementto contracts with carriers and brokers affirming that their equipment is compliant. 

### "It is a burden and it does mean extra cost, butwe are looking at it at this pointthat it is a regulation and it is inplace and there is a requirement to comply with it so howdo we accomplish that?" Gilliland said. Others inthe industry

**~ay** 

### the newrules increase the riskthat there won'tbe enoughtrucks available to haul Californiaproduce. That couldraise the costs offarmers andretailers, and ultimately consumers. CaliforniaAirResources Board officials said everyone will needto share a portion ofthe burden. "When it is applied.to everyone, and everyone is complying the costs get transferredproperly so that the people who are asking for clean air requirements are helping to bearthose costs," Hill said. The regulatory agency has worked hard to collaborate with stakeholders, andto buildtime and flexibility into the implementationprocess, Hill said. Brokers, shippers and receives canverify if a carrier is compliant via an equipmentregistration system, known as ARBER. "I think that everybodythat operates as a motor carrier has an obligation to operate an engine that is as clean as they can operate," Hill said. "They need to be in compliance withthe law." The CaliforniaAir Resources Board flexed its enforcement muscle this weekwhenit announced the first court-imposed fine

- $300,000 levied against anon-compliant, Ontario based-company called Foster Enterprises

-- for violations ofTRUregulations. After flirting with the idea ofleaving Califomia, owner-operator Parrino saidthat a combination offactors promptedhim to retrofit his rig, includingthe threat offines and a letterfrom amajor customer statingit would only load complianttrucks. He is compensating his mechanic for the work in equal installments, but is concerned aboutbeing able to make good onthe third and final payment.


### 3

### "I have got nobody to supportme. I am me, myselfand I

-- chiefcook and bottle washer," Parrino said. "I used to love this industry, I.really did. ButI despise it now. The regulations are getting so restrictive."



### Related Info Players inthe refrigerated transportationindustry said that new emissions changes have been particularly hardto swallow given the sluggish economy and high fuel prices.

· Trucking brokerage Allen Lund Co. does annual sales ofabout $350 million, and 8,000 ofits

listed carriers are refrigerated trucks, according to Kenny Lund. He likened fining brokers for a non-complianttruck to fining a travel agent for a faulty airplane, and balked atthe idea of turning away a long-time driver working to supporthis family because ofthe in-use standards. "What nobody gets is 95 percent ofproduce is hauled bythe little guys," Lurid said. "Almostall the trucks we load are guys with five trucks or less. Most ofthem are owner-operators-- one guy, one truck." Many can't afford to upgrade, Lund said, even ifthey wanted to. Thatraises the prospectthat some truckers will simply ignore the state's rules and taketheir chances on beingfined. "The lifespan onthese things is probably about 

### 15 years," Lund said. "They [the state] are

.basically saying, 'We are taking the last seven years ofthatresource you paid for. We areconfiscating it' Thatis notright. Youcan't come and say, 'Your car is no longer compliant, we are taking itfrom you.' " Carriers have to decide ifthe extracapital costs make sense, or whether it is bestto simply avoid the state, said Mike Tunnell, direCtor ofenvironmental affairs for the American Truckers Assn. "In any other state in the country, youbuy a TRU, new orused, you operated it," Tum1ell said. "You don't have to worry about the age ofthe engine or anything like that." TOUGH TIMEFORNEW COSTS

4 \I i

### Page 1of 1

- I l!lliiBI I illlli!mm I lBIIi'!ll!iJ California Environmental Protection Agency 

# a Air Resources Board A IA I

### A SearchP.RB 

### rq; @1 GoogleC: Advanced 

# Comment Log 

# Display

BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY. COMMENT 

### 5 FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

### PM2.5 SIP (SJVSIP) -NON-REG.

First Name: James Last Name: Enstrom Email Address: jenstrom@ucla.edu Phone Number: Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles Subject: "Particulate Matter is Not Killing Californians" .Comment: My attached September 28, 2012 American Statistical Association Joint Statistical Meeting Proceedings paper "Particulate Matter is Not Killing Californians" is highly relevant to the San Joaquin

, Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan and the serious flaws in the

underlying= CARE and US EPA PM2.5 science and regulations. Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sjvsip/7- asa_jsm_paper_particulates_not_killing_californians_enstrom_092812r.pdf Original File Name: AS_A JSM Paper Particulates Not Killing Californians Enstrom 092812R.pdf ·Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-01-23 09:23:10

. Ifyou have any questions or comments please contact Clerk ofthe Board at (916) 322-5594.
Board Comments Home

Back to Top 1 All ARB Contacts I A-Z Index

Decisions Pending and Opportunitiesfor Public Participation Conditions or Use I Privacy Policy I Accessibility Howto Request Public Records The Board is one or five boards.

**departments~** and offices under the umbrella or the California Environmental Protection Agency. CaiiEPA I ARB IDPR I DTSC I OEHHA I SWRCB C3ShareThis



### http://www.arb.ca.govllispub/comm/bccomdisp.php?listname=sjvsip&cominent_ num=7&.
. . ·2111/2013

### JSM 2012 SessionAbstracts Wed, 8/1/2012, 2:00PM- 3:50 PM http://www.amstat.org/meetings/jsm/2012/onlineprogram/ActivityDetails.cfm?SessioniD=207510 Are Fine Particulates Killing Californians?- Invited Papers Section on RiskAnalysis , Section on SurveyResearch Methods , Section on Statistics and the Enviromnent , Section for Statistical Programmers andAnalysts , Section on Statistics in Epidemiology 

### Organizer(s): Michael E Ginevan, ME. Ginevan & 

### Associates Chair(s): Michael E Ginevan, ME. Ginevan & 

### Associates 2:05PM Particulate Matteris Not Killing Californians- James E. Enstrom, University of California at LosAngeles 2:25PM A Closer Look atAir Pollution-Mmiality Relationships for California Members ofthe American Cancer Society Cohort- FrederickW. Lipfert, Environmental Consultant ; S. Stanley Young, National Institute ofStatistical Sciences 2:45PM Assessing Variable Importance in an Enviromnental Observational Study- 

### S: StanleyYoung, National Institute ofStatistical Sciences ; Jesse Q. Xia, National Institute ofStatistical Sciences 3:05 PM Improving the ScientificAdvice Providedbythe Clean Air ScientificAdvisory PM Subcommittee- Robert F. Phalen, University ofCalifornia atIrvine 3:25 PM Discussant: Michael E Ginevan, M.E. Ginevan & 

### Associates 3:45PM FloorDiscussion

01 Author(s): Companies: Address: Keywords: Abstract: Particulate Matteris NotKilling Californians James E. Enstrom*+ University ofCalifornia at LosAngeles BOX 951772,A1-295 CHS, LosAngeles, CA, 90095-1772, epidemiology ;particulate matter ; mortality ; causality ; statistics ; California There is now overwhelming epidemiologic evidence thatparticulate matter (PM), both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and course particulate mattE<r (PM10), is not related to total mortality in California. I will examine all the long-termPM epidemiologic cohort studies in California, and discuss the ways the findingsfrom these studies have be used and/or ignored. I will discuss the limitations ofthese studies: lack ofaccess to key databases; the ecological fallacy; failure to consider other pollutants; failure to satisfy causality criteria; and failure to consider other competing health risks. Also, ethical issues underlying much ofPM2.5 epidemiology will be discussed. I will make a strong case that PM2.5 is notkilling Californians and that there is not a scientific orpublic health basis for the many of the existing and proposedregulations designed to reduce PM levels in California. Finally, I will make the case that PM health effects and regulations mustbe put into perspective with other factors that influence health in California, given the low ageadjusted total_death rate in this state.Abstract

## Particulate Matter is Not Killing Californians

James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H.

UCLA School ofPublic Health Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772 http:/ /vl\V\V.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ jenstrom@.ucla.edu September 28, 2012

There is now overwhelming epidemiologic evidence that particulate matter (PM), both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and course particulate matter (PM10), is not related to total mortality in California. I will examine all the long-tenn PM epidemiologic cohort studies in CalifOrnia, and discuss the ways the findings from these studies have be used and/or ignored. I will discuss the limitations of these studies: lack of access to key databases; the ecological fallacy; failure to consider other pollutants; failure to satisfy causalitycriteria; and failure to consider other competing health risks. Also, ethical issues underlying much ofPM2.5 epidemiology will be discussed. I will make a strong case that PM2.5 is not killing Californians and that there is not a scientific or public health basis for the many ofthe existing and proposed regulations designed to reduce PM levels in California. Finally, I will make the case that PMhealth effects and regulations must be put into perspective with other factors that influence health in California, given the low age-adjusted total death rate in this state. KeyWords: epidemiology, particulate matter, mmiality, causality, statistics, Califomia



### 1. Background 

### 1.1 Relationship ofPM2.5 Epidemiologyto EPA, CARB, andAQMD This paper focuses on particulate matter (PM) epidemiology in Califomia. PM consists of fine patiiculates (PM2.5), defined to have particle size <2.5 11m in diameter, and course patiiculates (PM10), defined to have a pa1iicle size <10 11m in diameter. PM2.5 is generated mainly by combustion processes, such as, forest fires, agricultural dust, industrial combustion, and diesel engines. PM2.5 epidemiology played a major role in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishment of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality. Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 (http://www.epa.govhiir/criteria.html). EPA has recently proposed to lower the annual NAAQS for PM2.5 from the current level of 15 11g/m3 to 12-13

**~Lg/m 3** (http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html). The PM2.5 regulations established since 1997 have had multi-billion dollar economic impacts in the United States and California and have been highly contested (http://science.house.gov/press-release/harris-and-brounquestion-administration%E2%80%99s-environmental-cost-benefit-analvses). PM2.5 epidemiology has also been used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish the draconian Truck and Bus Regulation to reduce PM emissions fi·om diesel vehicles in California (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm). During the past five years, I have challenged the scientific and public health justifications for these regulations (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/gmbond20 11/2- enstrom letter to coal cornez re suspend carb diesel regs 12131 l.pdD. PM2.5 epidemiology is also being .used by the Southern Califomia Air Quality Management District (AQMD) in the development ofthe 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (http://www.aqmd.!!ov/aqmp/2012agmp/index.htm). The AQMP proposes aggressive and costly emission control measures in order to reduce existing PM and ozone levels in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). This air basin includes about 17 million residents in Orange County and the urban portions ofLos Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The primary goal of the AQMP is to bring the SCAB into compliance with the NAAQS for critei·ia pollutants, primarily, PM2.5 and ozone. An elevated relative risk (RR > 1.00) in an epidemiologic cohort study, i.e., increase in total (all cause) mortality risk for a 10 j..Lg/m3 increase in PM2.5 level, is interpreted by EPA, CARB, and AQMD as evidence that PM2.5"causes" "premature deaths." Because EPA assigns a lifetime monetary value ofabout $7-9 million to each "premature death," the health benefits of preventing these deaths exceed the compliance costs of the regulations that are designed to reduce PM2.5 levels and PM2.5-related "premature deaths." Without PM2.5-related "premature deaths" the PM2.5 regulations are not justified on a cost-benefit basis. During the past two decades there has been extensive criticism ofPM2.5 epidemiology and its use for regulation ofPM by EPA, CARB, and AQMD. Five major reasons for doubting a "causal" relationship between PM2.5 and "premature deaths" are: 1) the relative risk ofdeath due to PM2.5 is small (RR

**~** 1.10), varies by time and place, and shows no consistent dose-response relationship; 2) confounding variables, including other pollutants, often reduce the PM2.5 effect to zero (RR ':" 1.00); 3) the ecological fallacy applies to all PM2.5 epidemiology because PM2.5 measurements made at selected monitoring stations are imputed to individuals living near these stations; 4) the chemical composition of PM2.5 varies greatly across the US; and 5) the major PM2.5 epidemiologic findings that have been used to establish regulations are based on secret data maintained by the American Cancer Society and Harvard University (Krewski 2000), that is not accessible for independent reanalysis.
1.2 Major Lectures on PM2.5 and Mortality in California 

### by Enstrom The above epidemiologic issues are too complex to fully address in this paper. Additional relevant infonnation can be found in the following major lectures that I have given since 2010, often in conjunction with other experts on this subject:February 26, 2010 CARB Symposium "Estimating Premature Deaths from Long-term Exposure to PM2.5, with Enstrom talk "Critique ofCARB Diesel Science, 1998-2010" (http://wwvv.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mortlpm-mOit-ws 02-26-1 O.htm) (http://www.arb:ca.gov/research/health/pm-moJi/enstrom.pdt) November 28, 2011 UCLA Institute of the Environment Enstrom Seminar "Does Fine Particulate Matter Kill Californians? An Epidemiologic and Regulatory Controversy" (http://www.environment.ucla.edu/calendar/sbowevent.asp?eventid=667) and (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/gmbond20 11/3- ioes seminar does particulate matter kill californians enstrom 112811.pd!:) April 24, 2012 Dose-Response 2012 Conference Enstrori1 Lecture "Pseudoscientific Aspects of Fine Particulate Matter Epidemiology, 1993-2012" (http://doseresponse.org/conference/2012/pclf/Enstrom Dose Response Fine PaJticulate.pcl!:) August 1, 2012 American Statistical Association Joint Statistical Meeting Session "Are Fine Particulates Killing Californians?" with title talk by Enstrom (http:/ /www.amstat.org/meetings/jsm/20 12/onIineprogram/ActivityDetaiIs.cfm?SessionI 0=207510) and (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ ASA080112.pdf)

2. PM2.5 and Total Mortality in California 2.1 California-specific Epidemiologic Results Summarized Table 1 summarizes ten separate analyses of five major California cohorts that have found no relationship between PM2.5 and total mortality. References to these analysesare cited in the table and listed atthe end ofthis paper and additional details are provided at this link (http://lvvvw.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/Enstrom081512.pdf). Included in Table 1 is an analysis limited to the Los Angeles area (Jerrett 2005). Table 2 summarizes five separate analyses of three of the major California cohorts. These analyses have found no relationship between PM10 and total mortality. There are no statewide cohort analyses that show a positive relationship between PM (PM2.5 and PM10) and total mmiality in California. Indeed, three of these analyses (Jerrett 2011, Lipsett 2011, Ostro 2011), funded by CARB and AQMD, found no relationship between any criteria pollutant and total mortality in California. The first published evidence ofno PM2.5 mortality risk in California is contained in the

. July 2000 Health Effects Institute (HEI) Reanalysis Repmi (Krewski 2000). Figure 21, a

U.S. map of"Fine Particulates and Mortality Risk," indicates no excess mortality risk in Califomia. Figure 5 provides further evidence of the geographic variation in PM2.5 mortality risk, With Fresno (city #3) ranking second lowest in risk among 49 cities and Los Angeles (city #39) ranking fifth lowest in risk (http://www.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/HEIFigure50930JO.pd!:). Figure 1 below reproduces Figure 21 and Figure 5 with a city number assigned to each data point. The null California PM2.5 mmtality risk findings in Figure 21 were confirmed in the August 31, 2010 letter from Krewski to 

## REI (Krewski 2010).
2.2 Misrepresentation ofPM2.5 and Mortality in California by CARBMy·December 15, 2005 Inhalation Toxicology paper, "Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly Californians, 1973-2002" (Enstrom 2005), found no relationship between PM2.5 and mortality in California during 1983-2002. This is the first, largest, and most detailed peer reviewed journal publication that focuses on the relationship between PM2.5 and total mortality in California. Enstrom 2005 appeared just after the November 2005 Epidemiology paper "Spatial Analysis ofAir Pollution and Mortality in Los Angeles" (Jen-ett 2005), which found an unusually large relative risk between PM2.5 and mortality in the Los Angeles basin during 1982-2000. The finding is in direct contrast to the low absolute PM2.5 mortality risk for Los Angeles found in Figure 21. These conflicting findings need to be resolved with further analysis. Enstrom 2005 was submitted to CARB health effects scientist Linda Smith on January 9, 2006 (http://wwvv.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/declplan/gmerp comments/enstrom.pdt). The March 23, 2006 CARB meeting PPT presentation "Stronger Relationship Between Particulate Matter (PM) and Premature Death" gave extensive details on Jerrett 2005 and cited several other positive national studies, including Krewski 2000, Pope 2002, and Laden 2006 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/healthup/march06.pdt). However, it made no mention ofEnstrom 2005, which was published one month after Jen-ett 2005 and one month before a major Harvard Six Cities Study analysis (Laden 2006) appeared online. On August 21, 2006 CARB scientists Richard Bode, Linda Smith, and Hi en T. Tran conducted a "Public Workshop on Updating the Methodology for Estimating Premature Death Associated with PM2.5 Exposures" and gave a PPT presentation (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/ws-slides.pdD. The PPT presentation for this Workshop specifically shows Jerrett 2005 and Laden 2006, but not Enstrom 2005, as "New studies emerged since 2002." These PPT presentations show a pattern of

.omission ofnull findings like Enstrom 2005. Additional misrepresentation ofPM2.5 mortality risk in California was contained in the Draft and Final versions ofthe 2008 CARB StaffReport by Hien T. Tran "Methodology for EstimatingPrematureDeaths Associated with Long-term Exposureto Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California." The October 24, 2008 Final Report states that PM2.5 contributes to 18,000 annual premature deaths in Califomia, with 3,500 ofthese deaths due to diesel PM. These estimates of premature deaths provided the primary public healthjustification for new on-road diesel vehicle regulations approved and implemented by CARB. However, the premature death claims in this repoti are now entirely contradicted by the null findings presented in Table 1. My December 

### i0, 2008 CARB comments exposed major flaws m this repmi (http:/ /www.arb.ca.gov/1ists/truckbus08/897- carb enstrom comments on state,:\ride truck regulations 121 008.pdi). The CARB misrepresentations ofPM2.5 mmiality risk in Califomia continue up to the present, as explained in mytalks and submissions cited above.
2.3 Failure to Properly Review Particulate Matter Health Impacts by AQMD As an essential pati ofits currently ongoing preparation ofthe 2012 AQMP, the AQMD is required to address the health effects ofair pollution in the SCAB. Indeed, California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) Section 40471 (b) specifically states "On or before December 31, 2001, and every three years thereafter, as pati ofthe preparation ofthe air quality management plan revisions, the south coast district board, in conjunction with a public health organization or agency, shall prepare a report on the health impacts ofparticulate matter air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin. The south coast district board shall submit its report to the advisory council appointed pursuant to Section 40.428 for review and comment. The advisory council shall undertake peer review concerning the report prior to its finalization and public release. The south coast district board shall hold public hearings concerning the report and the peerreview, and shall append to the report any additional material or information that results from the peer review and public hearings." (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displavcode'?section=hsc&!rroup=4000I

- 41 OOO&file=40460-40471). However, based on available infonnation, AQMD has never prepared a "repmt on the health impacts ofpatticulate matter air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin" at the end of2001, 2004, 2007, or 2010. The only "health impacts" reports are Appendix I "Health Effects" of the 2003 AQMP, 2007 AQMP, and Draft 2012 AQMP. However these reports do not specifically address PM health impacts in the SCAB. Indeed, the 2003 AQMP Appendix I states "The purpose ofthis appendix is to provide an overview ofair pollution health effects, rather than to provide estimates of health risk from current ambient levels of pollutants in specific areas of the SCAB." (http://www.agmd.gov/aqmp/docs/2003AQMP AppT.pdO. Failure to comply with CHSC Section 40471 (b) is a serious matter because the local health effects ofPMprovidethe primary public healthjustificationfor the entire AQMP. As shown in· Tables 1 and 2, there is now overwhelming epidemiologic evidence that there is NO relationship in California between PM and total mortality (also known as "premature deaths"). However, the 2003 AQMP Appendix I (bttps://agmd.gov/aqmp/docs/2003AQMP Appl.pdt: page I-14), 2007 AQMP Appendix I (https://agmd.gov/agmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix I.pdf, page I-14), 2012 Draft AQMP Appendix I (http://www.aqmd.gov/agmp/2012agmp/clraft/ Appendices/Appxl.pdf, page I18), and 2012 Revised Draft
. AQMP Appendix I (http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/20 12agmp/RevisedDra1i:!Appl.pdf, page I-19) all make inconect statements regarding the evidence in California and the SCAB. All four Health Effects appendices have been authored by AQMD Health Effects Officer Jean Ospital (http://lvww.aqmd.gov/bios/ms ospital jean.html). These documents come to exactly the same conclusion regarding PM mortality risk: "Despite data gaps, the extensive body of epidemiological studies has· both qualitative and quantitative .consistency suggestive ofcausality. A considerable body ofevidence from these studies suggests that ambient patticulate matter, alone or in combination with other coexisting pollutants, is associated with significant increases in mortality and morbidity in a community. In summary, the scientific literature indicates that an increased risk of mortality and morbidity is associated with particulate matter at ambient levels. The evidence for particulate matter effects is mostly derived from population studies with supportive evidence from clinical and animal studies." The null PM2.5

- mortality relationship in California has been known since 2000, but the specific null evidence is only partially presented in the Draft 2012 AQMP and was entirely omitted from the earlier AQMPs. For instance, each AQMP Appendix I cites Krewski 2000. However, only the nationwide PM2.5 mottality risk results in this report are cited, not the Califomia-specific results in Figure 21. The 2007 AQMP Appendix review cites Jerrett 2005, Laden 2006, and the Pope 2006 review, which contains two references to Enstrom 2005, but Enstrom 2005 itselfis not mentioned. Enstrom 2005 is

·mentioned briefly in the Draft 2012 Appendix 1, but not assigned any major significance.The overwh_elmingly null evidence in Figures 1 and 2 is not fully or properly described in either the Draft or Revised Draft 2012 Appendix I. 1pointed out major deficiencies in my· April 21, 2011 CARB comments (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sip2011/3- carb enstrom comments on sip for pm2.5 0427ll.pdf). Since August 2008 I have also had repeated direction communications with Ospital, including an April 4, 2012 email message requesting that null evidence be included in the 2012 AQMP Appendix I (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Ospital040412.pdf). The health impacts ofPM in the SCAB are still not addressed in the September 7, 2012 Revised 2012 Draft AQMP AppendixI (http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/20 12agmp/RevisedDraft/Appi.pdt} Furthermore, this version makes an incorrect assessment ofthe California-specific evidence by uncritically relying on the June 2012 US EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (US EPA 2012). The RIA looked at California-specific-studies regarding PM2.5 and mortality published in the scientific literature. Appendix I states "The EPA analysis cone!uded 'most ofthe cohmi studies conducted in California report central effect estimates similar to the (nation-wide) all-cause mmiality risk estimate we applied from Krewski et al. (2009) and Laden et al. (2006) albeit with wider confidence intervals. 

### A couple cohort studies conducted in California indicate higher risks than the risk estimates we applied.' Thus in EPAsjudgment the California related studies provided estimates ofmortality consistent .with or higherthan those from the national studies." However, there are clear errors in vhiually every California-specific RR in EPA RIA Table 5.B-10. The McDonnell 2000 ratio, RR (males) =1.09 (0.98-1.24), should be RR (both

**sexes)~** 1.00 (0.95-1.05), based on inclusion ofan approximated RR for females. The paiiially adjusted Jerrett 2005 ratio, RR = 1.15 (1.03-1.29), should be the fully adjusted value, RR = 1.11 (0.99-1.25). The Enstrom 2005 ratio for 1973-1982, RR = 1.04 (1.01-1.07), should be the ratio for the entire follow-up period (1973-2002), RR = 1.01 (0.99-1.03). The Krewski 2009 ratio, RR = 1.42 (1.26-1.27), is obviously invalid and should be replaced by the Krewski 2010 ratio, RR = 0.968 (0.916-1.022), which is the ratio for all California subjects in Krewski 2009. The implausibly high Ostro 2010 ratio, RR = 1.84 (1.66-2.05), is invalid and has been r_eplaced by the new Ostro 2011 ratio, RR = 1.06 (0.96-1.16). The corrected ratios are all consistent with RR = 1.00 and DO NOT suppmi the EPA RIA claim that California-specific results are consistent with national results. Ospital uncritically accepted the EPA RIA and did not mention a single one oftheEPA errors cited above. The July 11, 2012 AQMP Advisory Council meeting did not result in proper peer review ofDraft 2012 Appendix I. The three Advisory Council members with the most expetiise on PM motiality studies and PM health effects epidemiology are John R. Froines, Ph.D., Samuel Soret, Ph.D., and RobS. McConnell, M.D. They have not done peer review of Appendix I regarding "the health impacts ofparticulate matter air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin," as specified in CHSC Section 40471 (b). Also, there is evidence that they are not objective peerreviewers regarding PMhealth effects. UCLA Professor John R. Froines has engaged in inappropriate activism regarding PM science based on the information contained in the following· documents: 1) June 30, 2009 letter and attachments from Nonnan R. Brown to UCLA officials (http://w-vvw.calcontrk.org/CARBdocs/Delta UCLA Letter 063009.pdf), 2) February 20, 2011 Bakersfield Californian column by Lois Henry(http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/columnistsllois-henrv/x1902890284/Politics-airrules-make-for-a-smellv-situation), and 3) Apri115, 2012 Bakersfield Californian column by Lois Henry (http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/health/x1322083219/The-exradical-who-heads-air-boards-kev-panel). Lorna Linda University (LLU) Professor Samuel Soret has not responded to my August 23, 2012 and September 14, 2012 email messages regarding his peer review of the AQMP Appendix l (http://www.scientificintegriiYinstitute.on!ISoret091412.pdD. His July 11, 2012 email message to AQMD did not mention the highly relevant December 2010 paperthat he co-authored and apparently submitted to Epidemiology "The Mortality & Long-Term Expo·sure to AP in Elderly CA Adventists" (Chen 2010). Also, he has not properly described the overwhelmingly null relationship between PM and total mortality in the 35-year LLU Adventist Health Study of Air Pollution (AHSMOG) project (http:/ /www.llu.edu/public-health/health/ahsmog.page). USC Professor Rob S. McConnell has not responded to my August 25, 2012 and September 17, 2012 email messages regarding his incomplete July 9, 2012 peer review of AQMP Appendix I, which did not discuss PM m the SCAB (http:/J\,,Iww.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/McConnell091712.pdO. I submitted comments to AQMD regarding AQMP Appendix I on August 30, 2012 (http://www.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/AQMP0830l2.pdD and on September 20, 2012 (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ AQMP0920 12.pdf). These comments emphasize the need for AQMD to comply with all provisions ofCHSC Section 40471 (b) before finalizing the 2012 AQMP. It is particularly important that the AQMD Governing Board conduct a hearing on the health impacts ofPM in the SCAB. This hearing will allow scientists with diverse views to directly present evidence to the Board Members. This hearing could have a profound impact on the emission control measuresthat are approved in the 2012 AQMP.
Conclusions There is now overwhelming epidemiologic evidence that PM (PM2.5 and PM10) is not killing Californians. This evidence must be fully examined and recognized by EPA, CARB, and AQMD before there are any futiher regulations to reduce PM levels in California, patiicularly in· the SCAB. In addition, there needs to be a full reassessment of the cmTent PM regulations to be sure that they are based on the actual health effects evidence in California. AQMD should not be required to comply with NAAQS that are not appropriate for California or the SCAB. Instead, AQMD should request a waiver from compliance with the NAAQS using the special waiver status granted to California in Section 209 ofthe Clean Air Act (http://wvvw.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm). Finally, PM health effects and regulations must be put into perspective with other factors that influence health in Califomia. Keep in mind the findings in Figure 2, which show that, based on the 2009 age-adjusted total death rate by state, California had the third lowest rate. Furthennore, the SCAB had a total death rate that was lower than the rate for every state except Hawaii (http://www.scientificintearitvinstitute.org/NCHSRR070811.pdf).Table 1. Epidemiologic Cohort Studies ofPM2.5 and Total Mortality in California (http://w\vw.scientificinteg:ritvinstitute.org/Enstrom081512.pd0 Relative risk ofdeath from all causes CRR and 95% Cl) associated with increase of 1

0 ug/m3 in PM2.5 Krewski 2000 & 2010 CA CPS II Cohort (N=40,408 [18,000 M + 22,408 F]; 4 MSAs;

1979-1983 PM2.5; 44 covariates) RR= 0.872 (0.805-0.944) 1982-1989

McDonnel12000 CA AHSMOG Cohort RR

**~** 1.00 (0.95 -1.05) 1977-1992

**(N~3,800** [1,347 M + 2,422 F]; SC&SD&SF AB; M RR=l.09(0.98-1.21) & F

**RR~0.98(0.92-1.03))** Jerrett 2005 CPS II Cohort in Los Angeles Basin (N=22,905; 267 zip code areas; RR = 1.11 (0.99- 1.25) 1982-2000

1999-2000 PM2.5; 44 cov +max confounders) Enstrom 2005 CA CPSI Cohozi RR = 1.039 (1.010-1.069) 1973-1982 (N=35,783 [15,573 M+20,210F]; 11 counties; RR=0.997(0.978-1.016) 1983-2002

1979-1983 PM2.5; 25 county internal comparison) Enstrom 2006 CA CPS I Cohort RR = 1.061 (1.017-1.106) 1973-1982 (N=35,783 [1 5,573 M + 20,210 F]; 11counties; RR= 0.995 (0.968-1.024) 1983-2002

1979-1983 & 1999-2001 PM2.5)
. Zeger 2008 MCAPS Cohmi "West" RR = 0.989 (0.970-1.008) 2000-2005 (3 .1 M [1.5 M M + 1.6 M F]; Medicare enrollees in CA+OR+WA (CA=73%); 2000-2005 PM2.5) Jerrett 2010 CA CPS II Cohort

**RR~** 0.994 (0.965-1.025) 1982-2000 (N=77,767 [34,367 M + 43,400 F]; 54 counties; 2000 PM2.5; KRG ZIP; 20 ind cov+7 eco var; Slide 12) Krewski 2010 CA CPS II Cohort (N=40,408; 4 MSAs; 1979-1983 PM2.5; 44 cov) RR = 0.960 (0.920-1.002) 1982-2000 (N=50,930; 7 MSAs; 1999-2000 PM2.5; 44 cov) RR= 0.968 (0.916-1.022) 1982-2000 Jerrett 2011 CA CPS II Cohmi RR = 0.994 (0.965-1.024) 1982-2000 (N=73,609 [32,509 M + 41,100 F]; 54 counties; 2000 PM2.5; KRG ZIP Model; 20 ind cov+7 eco var; Table 28) Jerrett 2011 CA CPS II Cohoti RR = 1.002 (0.992-1.012) 1982-2000 (N=73,609 [32,509 M + 41,100 F]; 54 counties; 2000 PM2.5; Nine Model Ave; 20 ic+7 ev; Fig 22 & Tab 27-32) Lipsett 2011 CA Teachers Cohmi RR= 1.01 (0.95

- 1.09) 2000-2005 (N=73,489 [73,489 F]; 2000-2005 PM2.5) Ostro 2011 CA Teachers Cohort RR = 1.06 (0.96 -1.16) 2002-2007 (N=43,220 [43,220 F]; 2002-2007 PM2.5) replaced Ostro 20I0 Incorrect 201 0 Result: RR = 1.84 (1.66- 2.05) 2002-2007Table 2. Epidemiologic Cohort Studies ofPM1 0 and Total Mortality in California Relative risk ofdeath from all causes CRR and 95% Cl) associated with increase of 10 ug/m3 in PMJ.O Abbey1999 CAAHSMOGCohort M RR=l.04 (0.99-1.10) 1977-1992 (N=6,338 [2,278 M + 4,060 F]; PM10 F RR= 0.98 (0.93 -1.02) 1977-1992 monitors in SC & SO & SF Air Basins) BS RR= 1.00 (0.97 -1.04) 1977-1992 [N=610M+965F, all natural causes ICD9=001-799] McDonnell 2000 CA AHSMOG Cohort

**(N~3,800** [1,347 M + 2,422 F]; PMlO monitors in SC & SO & SF Air Basins) [all natural causes ICD9=001-799] Chen2010 CA AHSMOG Cohort (N=4,830 [1,750 M + 3,080 F]; PM10 monitors in SC & SO & SF Air Basins) [all natural causes ICD9=001-799] M RR= 1.05 (0.98- 1.12) F

**RR~0.98** (0.92-1.03) BS RR

**~** 1.01 (0.96- 1.05)
RR= 1.01 (0.98-1.04) 1977-1992 1977-1992 1977-1992
1977-2006

Jerrett 2011 CA CPS II Cohort RR= 1.001 (0.987-1.017) 1982-2000 (N=76,135 [33,625 M + 42,510 F]; 54 counties;

1988-2002 PM10; KRG Zip Model; 20 ind cov+7 eco var; Table 37) Lipsett2011 CA Teachers Cohort RR= 1.01 (0;95- 1.09) 2000-2005 (N=73,489 [73,489 F]; 2000-2005 PM10)

### Figure

## i. Figures 21 and 5 from HEI Reanalvsis Report (Krewski 2000) Figure 21 Spatial Overlay ofPM2.5 Level and Mortality Risk by City (page 197) Fine Particles and Mortality Risk

ti:CIUot Zl, .S["IIilll

**t~r,.rlll~** nf lin" pnlid.,

**lwvnl~** n.nrll•>'llliiY<•

**ri~L:.** urnulrlnlity, lnt
.. rval

**clno>~l[i~•ll•>no** (c.r Eiua f"'tlir.\
... IU.';•Biml): l<>w

**f::.IJ\~17.(0;** :n'l(liWn 11

**Jl:~:.J;.Oi;** higlo ::5.0,-:1:1

**1~1.,1'<'<11 o:;J•~•IIk<~~liulo•**  fur

**r~lnhv**..rl"l....

**oh1~<ttL4Jity: ]oi0·6.~0:!..U,1ll·.rnr(IJIIU1**  0 7ll-0.91 1 j; loi!;l• rJ.11l'.l-1.17<!1· Figure 5 (Upper Right) Relative Risk for PM2.5 and Total Mortality by City (page 161)

"': 

### ,... 

### q

**~** 

### ,... rJJ 

### ii Gl Ol > +:: 

### 0 (11 4i 

## a: ro



## . o :t I 'f 

## •

;; t 

### 10 :r 

### •·
7



## • 

# All Cause Mortality (Excluding Boise City, Idaho)

&q /0 13 

## ••••• " N



# •

12 

# .. **~3** 

### •

'3:1. 

### w 

### • 

## .. 18

**~~** :2.! 31 '18 

## ,_, 

## • it 

# *" 'l-7 

## • 3o

**~7** 

## • •

**·~w** 3S 

### .:. :;":1-:z. \ 3! • a.6 :?II 

# • • • /q

**"-~** 17

**~** 

## • 3'f I(O /(, I 

# .. •• rl 

# • I 

# ..

**';!..~** 27 33 

# ,, 

# .. '/I

**"~ ~s**  :t



### 15 

### 20 25 

## Fine



# ~eConcentration



# (~[}1m3) **'I~** 

# 'Figure 2. 2009 Age-Adjusted Total Death Rates by State for the United States NCHS Data BriefNumber 64, July 2011 "Death in the United States, 2009" (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db64.pdf) (http://www.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/NCHSDR0708ll.pdf)

Figure 4. Age-adjusted death rates. by state and the District of Columbia: United States, preliminary 2009

SOLIRCE: COCmCHS. Nat1ona! Vitti! StaUs!JCS System, Mor:ahty 0 619.8-681.6 [j] 681.7-724.1 E[J 724.2-760.7



### Ratio of2009 Age-Adjusted Total Death Rates (Deaths/100,000) .0



### California 

### IU.S. 652.21741.1 

### = 0.880 

### = 88.0% 'South Coast Air Basin' (4 Counties) 

### IU.S. 650.81741.1 

## =0.878 

## =87.8% Los Angeles County 

### IU.S. 637.31741.1 

## =0.860 

## =86.0% Orange County 

### IU.S. 570.91741.1 

## =0.770 

## =77.0%

References Abbey DE, Nishino N, McDonnell WF, Burchette RJ, Knutsen SF, Lawrence Beeson W, Yang JX (1999). Long-term inhalable pa1iicles and other air pollutants related to mo1iality in· nonsmokers. Am 

### J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:373-382 (http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/159/2/373.full.pdt)Chen LH, Knutsen SF, Beeson WL, Soret S, Shavlik D, Ghamsary 

### M (2010). "The Mmiality and Long-Tenn Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution in Nonsmoking Adults" (http://wwvv.scientificintegritvinstitute.onr/Chen4C201O.pdf), Chapter 4 of December 2010 Lama Linda University Dr.P.H. Dissertation "Coronary Heart Disease Mortality and Long-term Exposure to Ambient Patiiculate Air Pollutants in Elderly Nonsmoking California Residents" by Lie 

### H. Chen (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Chen201O.pdf) Enstrom JE (2005). Fine patiiculate air pollution and total motiality among elderly Californians, 1973-2002. Inhal Toxicol 2005;17:803-816 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/dec1 plan/2:merp comments/enstrom.pdt) and (http://www.scientiticintegritvinstitute.org/JT12l505.pdf)

. .

Enstrom JE (2006). Response to "A Critique of'Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly Californians, 1973-2002" by Bert Brunekreef, PhD, and Gerard Hoek, PhD',Inhal Toxico/2006: 18:509-514 (http://www.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/IT0601 06.pdf) and (http://www.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/ITBH060I06.pdt) Jenett M, Burnett RT, MaR, Pope CA III, Krewski D, Newbold KB, Thurston G, Shi Y, Finkelstein N, Calle EE, Thun MJ (2005). Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology 2005;16:727-736 (http:/ /www.scientificinte2:ritvinstitute.org/Jenett11 01 05.pdf) Jerrett M (2010). February 26, 2010 CARB Symposium Presentation by Principal Investigator, Michael Jerrett, UC Berkeley/CARB Proposal No. 2624-254 "Spatiotemporal Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in California· Based on the American Cancer
. Society Cohort" (http:/ 

### /\VvVW.scientificintegritvinstitute.org:/CARBJerrett02261 0.pdf) JetTett M (2011). October 28, 2011 Revised Final Report for Contract No. 06-332 to CARB Research Screening Committee, Principal Investigator Michael Jerrett, "Spatiotemporal Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality iri California Based on the American Cancer Society Cohort" Co-Investigators: Burnett RT, Pope CA III, Krewski D, Thurston G, Christakos G, Hughes E, Ross Z, Shi Y, Thun M · (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/rsc/10-28-11/item 1 dfr06-332.pciD and (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/JerrettO1251O.pd0 and (http://w-vvw.scientiticintegritvinstitute.or2:/JerrettCriticisml028Il.pdf) Krewski D (2000). "Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Pmiiculate Air Pollution and Mortality: HEI Special Report. July 2000" (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=6). Figure 5 and Figure 21 ofPart 11: Sensitivity Analyses (http:/ /pubs.healtheffects.ow./getfile.php?u=275) and (http://v.,ww.scientificintes.rritvinstitute.org/HE1Figure50930 1 O.pdt) Krewski D (2009). Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi Y, Turner MC, Pope CA III, Thurston G, Calle EE, Thun MJ. Extended Analysis ofthe American Cancer Society Stuclv ofPa1iiculate Air Pollution and Mortalitv. HEI Research Repoti 140. May 2009 (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?icl=315)Krewski D (20 1 0). August 31, 2010 letter from Krewski to Health Effects Institute and CARB with California..:specific PM2.5 mortality results from Table 33 in Krewski 2009 (http://v,rww.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/HEI Correspondence.pdt) Laden F, Schwattz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW (2006). Reduction in fine patticulate air pollution and mortality: Extended follow-up ofthe Harvard Six Cities Study.

### Am J 

### Respir Crit Care Med 2006;173:667-672. Epub 2006 Jan 19 (http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/173/6/667.fuII.pdf) Lipsett MJ, Ostro BD, Reynolds P, Goldberg D, Hertz A, Jen·ett M, Smith DF, Garcia C, Chang ET, Bernstein L (2011). Long-tetm Exposure to Air Pollution and Cardiorespiratory Disease in the California Teachers Study Cohort. 

### Am J 

### Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184;828-835 (http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/1 84/7/828.full.pdf) McDonnell WF; Nishino-Ishikawa N; Petersen FF; Chen LH; Abbey DE (2000). Relationships ofmortality with the fine and coarse fractions oflong-term ambient PM10 concentrations in nonsmokers. 

### J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2000;10:427-436 (http:/ /wwvi.scientiftcintegritvinstitute.org/JEAEE090100.pdf) Moolgavkar SH (2006). Fine Particles and Mmtality. 

### lnhal Toxico/2006; 18:93-94 (http://www.scientiticintegrityinstitute.org/ITO101 06.pdf) Ostro B, Lipsett M, Reynolds P, Goldberg D, Hertz A, Garcia C, Henderson KD, Bernstein L (201 0). Long-Term Exposure to Constituents of Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Results from the Califomia Teachers Study. 

### Environ Health Per,<,1Ject 2010;118:363-369 with June 2011 Erratum (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10. 1289/ehp.0901181) Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mmtality, and long-tetm exposure to fine patticulate air pollution. JAMA · 2002;287:1132-1141 (http:/!iama.jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/4822/JOC11435.pdf) Pope CA III, Dockery DW. (2006). Health Effects ofFine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect. JAWMA, Critical Review. 56(6):709-742 (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/PopeDockerv2006.pdf) and (http://wwvv.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/PopePPT2006.pdi) U.S. EPA (2012). Regulatory ImpactAnalysis related to the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Pmticulate MatterEPA-452/R-12-003 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile Bookmarked.pdf) Zeger SL, Dominici F, McDennott·A, Samet JM (2008). Mortality in the Medicare Population and Chronic Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution in Urban Centers (2000-2005). 

### Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:1614-1619 (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.ll449)