Michelle Garcia 

PM 2.5 Hearing 

January 2013 

Air Quality Director 

Fresno-Madera Medical Society 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on the PM 2.5 Plan. We have been 

following the plan and the plan before it and have a greatappreciation for the 

amount of work that has gone into developing such a complex and important plan. 

The San Joaquin Valley Air District should be commended for their hard work and 

dedication to protecting public health. 

I am here today representing the Fresno-Madera Medical Society's Air Qualfty 

Committee. The following comments are based on information we've received from 

the district as well as other interested stakeholders. · 

The Fresno-Madera Medical Society represents the views of over 1000 physicians in 

the Fresno and Madera area. As physicians we are deeply concerned about the 

health impacts that air pollution has on Valley residents and strive to become part of 

the solution. 

As expressed during the Districts board meeting, we would like to express our 

support for the proposed plan and also propose a few modifications that may help 

strengthen the plan. Firstly the: · · 

• Fireplace Rule-We believe the proposed modifications to the rule are a good 

start. Fireplace so otis very harmful and should be controlled. According the 

the district fireplaces are the Valley's largest source of directly-emitted 

PM2.5 in the winter. The proposed curtailment is absolutely needed. 

• For this reason we propose a few modifications to strengthen the rule even 

further. 

o Push up implementation date of 2017. For a rule that such as this 

which will have significant reductions and public health benefits it 

should be implanted as sooner rather than later. 

o Consider modeling Sacramento's tiered system with an added tier that 

would eventually lead to banning all together. 

o Expanding season to cover October and March 

o Couple with a public awareness campaign 
• Lawn care rule-We a·re extremely pleased to see that the district is taking 

action to address the emissions that come from lawn care equipment which 

is very harmful to the workers and the public. 

o Work toward turning the incentive program into an actual rule 

complete with fines and enforcement 

o Couple with an educational/training component for large businesses 

o Continue to secure funding that can be made available to lawn care 

businesses that want to trade in their old equipment for cleaner 

equipment. 

o Invest in research to identify emerging technologies 

o Banning leaf blowers may also prove necessary at some point 

• Charbroiling Rule-We believe this rule to be very important for public health 

concerns and are glad to see the district is addressing it. 

o According to the plan the District plans to include controls for underfired char broilers in a future iteration of this rule, and is working with · 

SCAQMD to develop new technologies that will make it possible for 

the regulated community to comply with the new regulations. These 

efforts are important and necessary. 

o For this reason the implementation dates should be further evaluated 

to assess weather implementation can be pushed up to get reductions 

sooner rather than later. 

o Banning of charbroiling on bad air days should be considered 

o In addition, the District could implement controls on under-fired 

charbroilers now that would provide additional emission reductions. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has 

implemented controls on new under-fired char broilers, and controls 

on existing under-fired charbroilers, this could be mimicked in the 

Valley to achieve additional reductions. 

We urge you to consider and support these reccomendations ensuring the plan is as 

health protective as possible. 

Again; we'd like to thank the district staff and board members for their hard work 

and dedication to cleaning .up the air and we thank you for this opportunity. 
Page 1 of2 

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

9 Air Resources Board A I A 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 

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the 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 

How to Request Pllblic Records 

http :1 lwww. arb. ca. gov /lispub/ cornmlbccomdisp. php ?listname=sjvsip&comment_ num=2&... 2/11/2013 
UNITED 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 of 4.8 grams of fine 

particles (PM2.s) per kilogram of wood 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 pollution from ·existing fireplaces. 

The template for the Phase 2 qualified fireplace retrofit hangtag has been forwarded to you by 

separate e-mail. If you 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 Firen1 Control 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 (Minim Lim 25% Postconsumer) 
Page 1 of 1 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

a Air Resources Board 

~~~~--~~ 

A I A 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 Air Act 120212.pdf 

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-01-23 09:23:10 

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the 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 

How to Request Public Reco\ds 

Tl1e Board is one or five boards1 departments, and offices under 

the umbrell;l of the California EnvirOnmental Protection Agency. 

Cai/EPA I ARB I DPR 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/x 180151 0372/Time-to-revamp-theClean-Air-Act 

The Bakersfield Californian 

Editorial: Our View 

Home > Opinion > Our View 

Saturday, Dec 01 2012 11:00 PM 

Time to revamp the Clean Air Act 

By The Bakersfield Californian 

December 2, 2012 

Can you imagine banning all vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley? Or how about an all out 

prohibition on combustion of fossil fuels in the region? Is it fair to require valley companies to 

pay millions in air pollution penalties when their operations account for 20 percent of air · 

pollution but vehicles and other mobile sources pump out the other 80 percent? What would 

happen if Los Angeles had to prohibit a quarter of its population from driving each day? 

These are some of the more draconian requirements that would have to be imposed in order for 

the San Joaquin Valley and other regions of California and the country to meet the goals of the 

federal Clean Air Act as a result of antiquated provisions and various court rulings. The act, 

which is 40 years old, has done tremendous good and is one of the nation's most successful 

environmental achievements. And there's no doubt it has made our region a healthier, safer place 

to live. But the act also is in desperate need of some fixes, a point that 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 Air Act is, we simply can't imagine that Congress, which 

approved the original 1970 Clean Air Act with just a single no vote in both houses, and which 

gave overwhelming bipartisan approval to major updates to the act in 1990, ever.intended some 

of the consequences the law has created today. A case in point is the multimillion-dollar fine 

imposed on the San Joaquin Valley despite the enormous progress that's been made cleaning the 

air and the ongoing obstacles that prevent it from meeting the goals for which it's being 

penalized. As Sadredin laid out in his testimony, it's not for lack of trying that the San Joaquin 

Valley hasn't met the increasingly stringent air quality standards of today. The problem has more 

to do with: 

* The teclmology needed to meet stricter and stricter attainment goals is simply not available. 

Curr-ently, the act allows for increasingly stringent air quality standards to be adopted by the 

federal government, and which local jurisdictions must meet within a set deadline, without 

regard for cost of meeting the standard or whether the technology to do so even exists. Cun·ently, 

the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency is considering a new air quality standard that is nearly 

equivalent to the naturally occurring levels of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, according 

to Sadredin. To reach it, the valley would have to ban the combustion of all fossil fuels. 

1 
*The major sources of air pollution being outside an air district 1

S control. The main issue here is 

emissions from mobile sources, over which regional air districts have no direct authority. 

Currently, 80 percent of emissions that significantly contribute to the valley's air pollution come 

from mobile sources. Only the state or federal government can act to bring down those emissions, 

yet regional air districts are held accountable when those sources contribute to our failure to meet 

air quality standards. 

* Court cases that create complications and lack of clarity. For example, the valley is currently 

being penalized with millions in fines because a court ruled it must still comply with an air 

quality standard that was revoked in 2005. 

These are just a few of the more blatant examples of how unwieldy certain aspects of the Clean 

Air Act have become. Sadredin1

s testimony also included a number of examples of bureaucratic 

red tape that has piled up over the years, which has 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 it1

S not just Sadredin making the case. The head of the Los Angeles air district and many 

other regional and state air quality managers from around the nations have given similar· 

testimony to the subcommittee. 

The San Joaquin Valley has a huge stake in the continued success of the Clean Air Act, but that 

success will require reforms and updates. The situation faced by air districts like the valley's and 

the numerous comt rulings that have complicated implementation of the 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 1 of 1 

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

e Air Resources Board A I A 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 Chief Asks Congress for Flexibility Henry 113012.pdf 

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-01-23 09:23:10 

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the 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 

How to Request Public Records 

The Board is one of five boarcfs1 departments, and offices under 

the umbrella of the Caliromia Environmental Protection Agency. 

Gal/EPA I ARB I DPR I DTSC I OEHHA I SWRCB 

!:3ShareThis 

http ://wvvw. arb. ca. gov /lispub/ comm/bccomdisp. php ?listname=sjvsi p&comment_num=5 &. . . 2/11/20 13 
http:/ /wv·.rw. bakers fie] dcalifomian. com/po litics/local/x5 995 673 6/ Air-district-chief-asksCongTess-for-rule-flexibility 

The Bakersfield Californian 

Local Politics 

Home> Politics> Local Politics 

Thursday, Nov 29 2012 04:05PM 

November 30,2012 

Air district chief asks Congress for rule flexibility 

By The Bakersfield Californian 

The director of the valley's air pollution control district testified before a congressional 

subcommittee Thursday about problems with the Clean Air Act. 

Seyed Sadredin, director of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, gave 

politicians a detailed look at the difficulties of working with the myriad rules, bureaucratic 

policies and court decisions that have calcified around the act over the past 20 years. 

He stressed that his goal is not to have the act gutted, but to tweak certain implementation rules 

to create greater flexibility. 

"I'm hoping this is a setting for the beginnings of intelligent fine-tuning of the act," he said after 

his testimony. · , 

Essentially, he told committee members, the act has been applied in a one-size-fits-all manner 

without taking into account various regions' tmique challenges and that it ignores realities of 

economy and technology. 

The act tasks the Environmental Protection Agency with reviewing the latest, best science every 

five years to determine if new standards for pollutant concentrations should be set. The act does 

not say the EPA should take into account whether those standards are economically feasible, nor 

even teclmologically realistic. 

Without such guidance from Congress, bureaucrats and comis have stepped in to set policy. The 

result has been overlap, confusion and unmeetable goals. · 

For example, he said, the San Joaquin Valley is now operating under six different 

implementation plans for six different standards on ozone and pmiiculate matter. 

And the latest standard for ozone being considered by the EPA would require the valley to ban 

all fossil fuel combustion or have only zero-emission engines from trains and trucks to leaf 

blowers and pump motors within the next 20 years. 

Sadredin suggested various ways to fix some of the problems, including sepm·ating the health 

standards from the implementation schedule. That way standards wouldn't trigger automatic 

deadlines, as they do now. 

1 
Each region could then analyze the best way to achieve those standards under timelines that 

make sense for its economy and available technology. 

Sadredin said he.was encouraged by the questions he received from staffers about his ideas OI). 

how to fine-tune the act. 

But he acknowledged the political realities, noting those who came to watch the "bipartisan" 

hearing were almost all Republicans. The Democratic leadership was conspicuously absent. 

-- Lois Henry, r;;a!ifornian columnist 

· Related Info 

ABOUT THE HEARING 

This was the third forum on the Clean Air Act held by Congressman Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., 

chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy .and Power. 

Two other, similar forums were held July 31 and Aug. 2. The stated goal is to understand how 

the act is being implemented throughout the country. 

You can watch Sadredin's testimony here: energycommerce.house.gov/hearings 

2 
Page 1 of 1 

~~~llillll!.'li!IC4v California Environmental Protection Agency 

a Air Resources Board A I A 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 

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the 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 of the California Environmental Protection Agency. 

Cai/EPA I ARB I DPR 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. bakersfi eldcalifornian.com/health/x 1 05 52 7 686? /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 Parrino has spent half a century crisscrossing the United States behind the wheel of a 

semi-trailer truck. His logbooks speak of millions of miles of interstate hauls and short-distance 

work at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 

But the 68-year-old Parrino fears he might be reaching the end of the road. 

·In 2008, his three-rig operation shrank by two-thirds when the ports' Clean Truck Program went 

into effect, barring older, heavy polluting engines. 

Now, a new cycle of state emissions standards for transport refrigerated units, known as TRUs or 

reefers, means that Parrino is shelling out more than $7,000 to retrofit his single remaining 2005-

model-year truck in order to keep it legal to operate in California. 

"I used to consider myself a pretty good businessman, but today I am just a marginal operator," 

said Bakersfield's Parrino, who hauls everything from artichokes to sea bass. "I am struggling to 

keep my head above water." 

The frustration is shared by many in the refrigerated transport business, a linchpin in California's 

massive agriculture operation. The state's farmers, who generated $43.5 billion in revenue in 

2011 and produce nearly half ofU.S."'grown fruits and vegetables, rely heavily on truckers like 

Parrino to get their bounty to market. 

But truckers say they are struggling to keep equipment up to speed with what they call onerous 

enviromnental regulations amid a soft economy and high diesel fuel prices. And with fewer than 

half of the nearly 33,000 California-based TRUs compliant with emission rules even as a new 

cycle kicked in on Jan. 1, some truckers question how food will be delivered if the state is 

serious about enforcement. 

"There is a health advantage to people eating fruits and vegetables, and you can't eat fruits and 

vegetables if they are not there," said Ke1my Lund, vice president of trucking brokerage Allen 

Lund Co., in La Canada Flintridge. 

Proponents of the emission standards say that efforts to reduce diesel particulate matter --

especially around major truck hubs-- will lower health risks associated with toxic air 

contaminants. 

1 

. i 

! 
"You are never going to see written on the death certificate 'This person died from freight 

pollution,' but we know freight 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 when the California Air Resources Board-- the 

regulatory agency responsible for air quality -- formally identified diesel particulate matter as a 

toxic air contaminant. The board subsequently adopted a plan to reduce emissions from all 

diesel-fueled engines by 85 percent by 2020. 

New standards for the diesel engines that power refrigeration units-- separate from those that 

drive the trucks themselves -- are one component of an expansive regulatory undertaking. TRU 

engines must be retrofitted with a filter, rebuilt, or replaced entirely, after seven years. The 

requirements are being phased in over multiple years, and enforcement started in 2009 with 

model year units from 2002 or older affected. · 

TRUs operate at temperatures as low as 20 degrees below zero, depending on the cargo and 

ambient conditions. Truckers can spend twice as much on fuel for refrigeration units while 

hauling during the summer as compared to the winter. 

Costs to meet the state-mandated standards range from several thousand dollars for retrofitting to 

more than $20,000 for a new refrigeration unit. 

The standards apply to the nearly 33,000 TRUs based in California, as well as the tens of, 

thousands of trucks that pass through each year. Some argue that the volume of goods flowing 

through California make 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 of implementation, compliance topped 70 percent, said Rod Hill, an air pollution 

specialist with the California Air Resources Board and the architect of the new in-use standards. 

Last year, 10 percent of the 2004 model years were registered as compliant. In the fourth quarter 

of2012, total compliance was about 43 percent, Hill said. 

On Jan. 1, a new cycle went into effect with all units d~.ting from 2005 and earlier needing to be 

upgraded or replaced. A California Air Resources Board spokesperson said this week that neither 

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 of the new year, truck brokers, 

shippers and receivers 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 investment to bring equipment into compliance and those who haven't, Hill said. 

2 
The disparity is pitting trucker against trucker. 

"We started getting complaints from the carriers that had spent the money to come into 

compliance that'they would be at a loading dock and the would see all these non-compliant 

units," Hill said. "There were actually some drivers in non-compliant units that were teasing 

drivers that had compliant units. II 

To be sure, there are many companies taking the necessary steps to upgrade. Jim Wilcox, the 

regulatory and compliance manager for In-N-Out said the company acted early and implemented 

a five-year plan to bring its 79 refrigerated trailers into compliance. 

Ken Gilliland, director of international trade and transportation with the Western Growers Assn., 

said his office is directing its members to add a certification statement to contracts with carriers 

and brokers affirming that their equipment is compliant. 

"It is a burden and it does mean extra cost, but we are looking at it at this point that it is a 

regulation and it is in place and there is a requirement to comply with it so how do we 

accomplish that?" Gilliland said. 

Others in the industry ~ay the new rules increase the risk that there won't be enough trucks 

available to haul California produce. That could raise the costs of farmers and retailers, and 

ultimately consumers. 

California Air Resources Board officials said everyone will need to share a portion of the burden. 

"When it is applied .to everyone, and everyone is complying the costs get transferred properly so 

that the people who are asking for clean air requirements are helping to bear those costs," Hill 

said. 

The regulatory agency has worked hard to collaborate with stakeholders, and to build time and 

flexibility into the implementation process, Hill said. Brokers, shippers and receives can verify if 

a carrier is compliant via an equipment registration system, known as ARBER. 

"I think that everybody that 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 with the law." 

The California Air Resources Board flexed its enforcement muscle this week when it announced 

the first court-imposed fine - $300,000 levied against a non-compliant, Ontario based-company 

called Foster Enterprises -- for violations of TRU regulations. 

After flirting with the idea of leaving Califomia, owner-operator Parrino said that a combination 

of factors prompted him to retrofit his rig, including the threat of fines and a letter from a major 

customer stating it would only load compliant trucks. He is compensating his mechanic for the 

work in equal installments, but is concerned about being able to make good on the third and final 

payment. 

3 
"I have got nobody to support me. I am me, myself and I -- chief cook and bottle washer," 

Parrino said. "I used to love this industry, I .really did. But I despise it now. The regulations are 

getting so restrictive." 

Related Info 

Players in the refrigerated transportation industry said that new emissions changes have been 

particularly hard to swallow given the sluggish economy and high fuel prices. 

· Trucking brokerage Allen Lund Co. does annual sales of about $350 million, and 8,000 of its 

listed carriers are refrigerated trucks, according to Kenny Lund. He likened fining brokers for a 

non-compliant truck to fining a travel agent for a faulty airplane, and balked at the idea of 

turning away a long-time driver working to support his family because of the in-use standards. 

"What nobody gets is 95 percent of produce is hauled by the little guys," Lurid said. "Almost all 

the trucks we load are guys with five trucks or less. Most of them are owner-operators-- one guy, 

one truck." 

Many can't afford to upgrade, Lund said, even if they wanted to. That raises the prospect that 

some truckers will simply ignore the state's rules and take their chances on being fined. 

"The lifespan on these things is probably about 15 years," Lund said. "They [the state] are 

. basically saying, 'We are taking the last seven years of that resource you paid for. We areconfiscating it' That is not right. You can't come and say, 'Your car is no longer compliant, we 

are taking it from you.' " 

Carriers have to decide if the extra capital costs make sense, or whether it is best to simply avoid 

the state, said Mike Tunnell, direCtor of environmental affairs for the American Truckers Assn. 

"In any other state in the country, you buy a TRU, new or used, you operated it," Tum1ell said. 

"You don't have to worry about the age of the engine or anything like that." 

TOUGH TIME FOR NEW COSTS 

4 

\I 

i 
Page 1 of 1 

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

a Air Resources Board A I A I A SearchP.RB rq; @1 Google C: 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 

. If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the 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 or Use I Privacy Policy I Accessibility 

How to 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 I DPR I DTSC I OEHHA I SWRCB 

C3ShareThis 

http://www. arb. ca. gov llispub/ comm/bccomdisp. php ?listname=sjvsip&cominent_ num=7 &. . . ·2111 /20 13 
JSM 2012 Session Abstracts 

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 Risk Analysis , Section on Survey Research Methods , Section on Statistics and the 

Enviromnent , Section for Statistical Programmers and Analysts , Section on Statistics in 

Epidemiology 

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

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

2:05PM Particulate Matter is Not Killing Californians- James E. Enstrom, University of 

California at Los Angeles 

2:25PM A Closer Look at Air Pollution-Mmiality Relationships for California Members of the 

American Cancer Society Cohort- Frederick W. Lipfert, Environmental 

Consultant ; S. Stanley Young, National Institute of Statistical Sciences 

2:45PM Assessing Variable Importance in an Enviromnental Observational Study- S: 

Stanley Young, National Institute of Statistical Sciences ; Jesse Q. Xia, National 

Institute of Statistical Sciences 

3:05 PM Improving the Scientific Advice Provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory PM 

Subcommittee- Robert F. Phalen, University of California at Irvine 

3 :25 PM Discussant: Michael E Ginevan, M.E. Ginevan & Associates 

3:45PM Floor Discussion 

01 

Author(s): 

Companies: 

Address: 

Keywords: 

Abstract: 

Particulate Matter is Not Killing Californians 

James E. Enstrom*+ 

University of California at Los Angeles 

BOX 951772, A1-295 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, 

epidemiology ; particulate matter ; mortality ; causality ; statistics ; California 

There is now overwhelming epidemiologic evidence that particulate matter (PM), 

both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and course particulate mattE<r (PM1 0), is not 

related to total mortality in California. I will examine all the long-term 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 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 not killing 

Californians and that there is not a scientific or public health basis for the many of 

the existing and proposed regulations designed to reduce PM levels in California. 

Finally, I will make the case that PM health effects and regulations must be 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 of Public Health 

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772 

http:/ /vl\V\V. scientifi cintegrityinsti tute.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 (PM1 0), 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 

causality criteria; and failure to consider other competing health risks. Also, ethical issues 

underlying much of PM2.5 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 of the existing and proposed regulations designed to reduce PM levels 

in California. Finally, I will make the case that PM health 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. 

Key Words: epidemiology, particulate matter, mmiality, causality, statistics, Califomia 

1. Background 

1.1 Relationship of PM2.5 Epidemiology to EPA, CARB, and AQMD 

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 (PM1 0), defined to have a pa1iicle size <1 0 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/m3 
(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 of Los 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 of about $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 of PM2.5 epidemiology 

and its use for regulation of PM by EPA, CARB, and AQMD. Five major reasons for 

doubting a "causal" relationship between PM2.5 and "premature deaths" are: 1) the 

relative risk of death due to PM2.5 is small (RR ~ 1.1 0), 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 of CARB Diesel Science, 1998-201 0" 

(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/20 12/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/meetin gs/j sm/20 12/on I ineprogram/ ActivityDetai I s.cfm?Session I 

0=20751 0) and (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ ASA080 112.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 at the end of this 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 of no 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/HEIFigure50930J O.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 201 0). 

2.2 Misrepresentation of PM2.5 and Mortality in California by CARB 
My ·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 of Air 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 of Enstrom 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 of null findings like Enstrom 2005. 

Additional misrepresentation of PM2.5 mortality risk in California was contained in the 

Draft and Final versions ofthe 2008 CARB Staff Report by Hien T. Tran "Methodology 

for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposure to 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 of these deaths 

due to diesel PM. These estimates of premature deaths provided the primary public 

health justification 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 i 0, 2008 CARB 

comments exposed major flaws m this repmi 

(http:/ /www.arb. ca.gov/1 ists/truckbus08/897-

carb enstrom comments on state,:\ride truck regulations 121 008.pdi). The CARB 

misrepresentations of PM2.5 mmiality risk in Califomia continue up to the present, as 

explained in my talks and submissions cited above. 

2.3 Failure to Properly Review Particulate Matter Health Impacts by AQMD 

As an essential pati of its currently ongoing preparation of the 2012 AQMP, the AQMD 

is required to address the health effects of air pollution in the SCAB. Indeed, California 

Health and Safety Code (CHSC) Section 404 71 (b) specifically states "On or before 

December 31, 2001, and every three years thereafter, as pati of the preparation of the 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 of 
particulate 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 peer review, 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=4000 I -

41 OOO&file=40460-404 71 ). 

However, based on available infonnation, AQMD has never prepared a "repmt on the 

health impacts of patticulate 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 of this appendix is to provide an overview of air 

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 of PM provide the primary public health justification for 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/20 12agmp/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 of causality. A considerable body of evidence 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 itself is 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. 1 pointed 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 of PM in the SCAB are still not addressed in the September 7, 2012 

Revised 2012 Draft AQMP Appendix I 

(http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/20 12agmp/RevisedDraft/Appi.pdt} Furthermore, this 

version makes an incorrect assessment of the 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 of the 

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 

EPAs judgment the California related studies provided estimates of mortality consistent 

.with or higher than 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 of an 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 ofthe EPA errors cited above. 

The July 11, 2012 AQMP Advisory Council meeting did not result in proper peer review 

of Draft 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 of particulate 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 peer reviewers regarding PM health 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. bakersfield cal iforn ian.com/co lumn istsllois-henrv/x 1902890284/Pol itics-airrules-make-for-a-smellv-situation), and 3) Apri115, 2012 Bakersfield Californian column 

by Lois Henry (http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/health/x 1322083219/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 paper that 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.ed u/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/AQMP0830 l2.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 of CHSC 

Section 40471 (b) before finalizing the 2012 AQMP. It is particularly important that the 

AQMD Governing Board conduct a hearing on the health impacts of PM 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 

measures that are approved in the 2012 AQMP. 

Conclusions 

There is now overwhelming epidemiologic evidence that PM (PM2.5 and PM1 0) 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 of the 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 of death 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 CPS I 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]; 1 1 counties; 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 20 I 0 Incorrect 201 0 Result: RR = 1.84 (1.66- 2.05) 2002-2007 
Table 2. Epidemiologic Cohort Studies of PM1 0 and Total Mortality in California 

Relative risk of death 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 I CD9=00 1-799] 

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) 

Lipsett 2011 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 7 ll-0.911j; 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 ~e Concentration (~[}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 I U.S. 652.21741.1 = 0.880 = 88.0% 

'South Coast Air Basin' (4 Counties) I U.S. 650.81741.1 = 0.878 = 87.8% 

Los Angeles County I U.S. 637.31741.1 = 0.860 = 86.0% 

Orange County I U.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://aj rccm.atsjournals.org/content/ 159/2/3 73. 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/Chen4C201 O.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/Chen201 O.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/dec 1 plan/2:merp comments/enstrom.pdt) and 

(http://www .scientiticintegritvinstitute.org/JT12l 505 .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/IT060 1 06.pdf) and 

(http://www.scientificintegritvinstitute.org/ITBH060 I 06.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.scientific inte2:ritvinstitute.org/J enett 11 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:/C ARBJ errett02261 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/1 0-28-11/item 1 dfr06-3 32.pciD and 

(http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/JerrettO 1251 O.pd0 and 

(http://w-vvw.scientiticintegritvinstitute.or2:/JerrettCriticisml 028 I l.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 of Part 

11: Sensitivity Analyses (http:/ /pubs.healtheffects. ow./ getfi le.php?u=2 75) 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 of the American 

Cancer Society Stuclv of Pa1iiculate 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 of the Harvard Six Cities Study. Am J Respir 

Crit Care Med 2006;173:667-672. Epub 2006 Jan 19 

(http ://ajrccm.atsj ournals.org/content/1 73/6/667 .fu II .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 of mortality with the fine and coarse fractions of long-term ambient PM 10 

concentrations in nonsmokers. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2000;10:427-436 

(http:/ /wwvi .scientiftcintegritvinstitute.org/JEAEE090 100 .pdf) 

Moolgavkar SH (2006). Fine Particles and Mmtality. lnhal Toxico/2006; 18:93-94 

(http://www.scientiticintegrityinstitute.org/ITO 101 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.n ih. gov/article/info:doi/1 0. 1289/ehp.090 1181) 

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/JOC 11435 .pdf) 

Pope CA III, Dockery DW. (2006). Health Effects of Fine 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 (20 12). Regulatory Impact Analysis related to the Proposed Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Pmticulate Matter EPA-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/1 0.1289/ehp.ll449)