1 COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITIES FOR CLEAN PORTS EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FO R ENVIORNMENTAL JUSTICE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

June 30, 2011

Philip M. Fine South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-2239 pfine@aqmd.gov

Dear Dr. Fine:

On behalf of Communities for a Better Envi ronment, Communities for Clean Ports, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, we
submit these comments on the 2011 Air Monitori ng Network Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“the District”). For the reasons described below, the Air Monitoring Network Plan fails to meet the requi rements established in the Clean Air Act and applicable regulations. Specifically, the Air Monitoring Network Plan fails to adequately monitor near heavily trafficked highways, especially those with a large share of diesel trucks. As
it relates to Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (“PM 2.5”), EPA’s monitoring regulations require place ment of at least one monitor in a population-oriented area of expected maximum concentration. The comments and the appended materials indicate that the Air Monitoring Network Plan has failed to comply with this provision becaus e it fails to include adequate monitoring near major roadways. In addition, section 107(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that the State demonstrate that its plan for attainment will reduce emissions to the levels needed to attain the NAAQS “within the enti re geographic area comprising such State.” By not locating monitors in populated ar eas affected by the incremental concentrations of PM2.5 caused by emissions from heavily trafficked highways, the attainment demonstration and implementation plan will fail to demonstrate atta inment within the geogra phic area of the state adjacent to such highways.

Beyond conflicting with the prov isions of the Clean Air Act and applicable monitoring regulations, the failure of the Ai r Monitoring Network Plan to ad equately address the elevated levels of pollution near highways violat es environmental justice principles.

I. Introduction.

In its Charge for Developing Recommendations to Address the Air Quality Impacts of
Goods Movement on Communities , EPA acknowledges the following:2 The environmental, public health, and quali ty of life impacts of goods movement on communities are more pronounced in areas wi th major transportation hubs and heavily trafficked roads. “Near roadway hotspots” – lo calized areas with elevated levels of air pollution – is an issue of longstanding con cern to EPA and other environmental health agencies. This issue also is a matter of incr easing concern to government transportation and planning agencies. Research shows th at the many communities, including minority and/or low income communities, living near these transportation hubs and thoroughfares, already bear disproportionate environmental impacts because of their close proximity to multiple pollution sources. 1

Despite this acknowledgement of the major impact roadways have on air quality in neighborhoods adjacent to heavily trafficked hi ghways, the current mon itoring network used to develop the last plan to meet the Nationa l Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for
PM2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin fails to m onitor in these areas. This compromises the adequacy and lawfulness of the last plan, and a ny future plan based on demonstrating attainment in the air basin, given the large populations that reside near heav ily trafficked highways and the high levels of pollution found near highways. The failure of the current monitoring network to measure population exposures to elevated c oncentrations of PM2.5 found in communities adjacent to major highways, and the resulting failu re to develop an attainment strategy designed to eliminate NAAQS violations in these communities, allows serious health risks to be ignored in
the South Coast Air Basin.

EPA has identified highways carrying significa nt numbers of diesel vehicles as the highways that require attention because of thei r potential for emitting enough fine particles to cause NAAQS violations. In the rulemaking wh ere EPA determined that new or expanded highway projects require a quantitative analysis to determine whether vehicle emissions are likely to cause new, more frequent, or more severe NAAQS violations for PM2.5, EPA concluded “that highway and trans it projects that involve signifi cant levels of diesel vehicle emissions have the potential to increase local PM2.5 concentrations.” 71 Fed.Reg. 12,468, 12,472 (March 10, 2006). EPA drew this conclusion from

... studies [that] provide strong evidence of elevated PM2.5 concentrations along roadways on a consistent basis from certain types of projects. Based on EPA's review of all studies, studies identified el evated PM2.5 concentrations of 8% to 60% for high-traffic roadways to 285% for major truck stops, compared to background concentrations.
Variables identified in the st udies as key predictors of PM2.5 concentrations include: Total traffic volume; volume of heavy-duty tr ucks; traffic congestion; and proximity to major facilities (within approximately 150 mete rs). Most studies showed elevation in

1 EPA, Charge for Developing Recommendations to Address the Air Quality Impacts of Goods Movement on Communities, attached as Exhibit A.3 PM2.5, black carbon, or other components \4\ asso ciated with major facilities (e.g., truck routes, intermodal or bus terminals).

Id. EPA concluded that the evidence of local ized impacts from highways was sufficiently compelling that “it is essential that a quantitat ive PM2.5 or PM10 hot-spot analysis be performed for all projects of air quality concern.” Id. The Agency concluded that highways “that have a significant number of or significan t increase in diesel vehicles” were presumptively “projects of air quality concern.” 71 Fed. Reg. at 12,470; 40 C.F.R. § 93.123(b)(i).

Although these criteria fo r identifying transportation faci lities “of air quality concern” were developed for the purpose of identifying ne w or expanded transportation facilities that should be evaluated before approval for “hot spot” NAAQS violations, th e criteria have equal applicability for identifying existing facilities that require evaluation as part of the SIP process. If a facility is known to emit pollutants at elevated le vels that EPA has found to be associated with NAAQS violations, emissions from such a facility should be evaluated in the development of an attainment strategy to ensure that emissions wi ll not cause or contribute to NAAQS violations on or after the statutory deadline for attainment.

The conditions that EPA found to cause elevat ed near-highway exposures to PM2.5 occur on a number of highway links and terminals thro ughout the South Coast Air Basin where diesel
vehicles are concentrated. These include diesel truck access to the first and second busiest ports in the nation, carrying freight to and from rail ya rds and transshipment terminals in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Regi onal planners are also taking actions to accommodate massive increases in cargo throughout this region, which will place near highway residents, children attending sc hools near highway alignments, a nd others spending time in close proximity to highways at risk to severe adverse health impacts. The following map demonstrates the expansive and intricate network of freight facilitie s in the region.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//4 Los Angeles/Long Beach, California Map

***Copied from Global Trade Impacts: Addressing the Health, Social and Environmental Consequences of Moving International Freight (March 2011) available at http://hydra.usc.edu/ scehsc/web/index.html

.
Many advocacy groups have been pressing EPA to address the failure of the 2007 South
Coast PM2.5 SIP to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 NAAQS near highways, and to address
the failure to account for the incremental co ncentrations of PM2.5 near highways in the determination of design values for the purpos e of making nonattainment designations for the 2006 NAAQS. But EPA has refused to consider the evidence of elev ated near highway exposures when reviewing the adequacy of the SIP or making designations. Instead EPA urges advocates to focus on working with state and local governments to revise the air quality monitoring network to ensure that monitors are s ited to measure highway impacts. For example, in the designation process for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS environmental groups requested that EPA model highway emissions using th e techniques required by EPA’s Quantitative Guidance for assessing the impact of emissions on receptor locations in communities near highway. In response to th ese requests, EPA stated:5 The EPA does not believe that the designations process is th e appropriate fo rum in which to address this potential local ized hotspot issue. The desi gnations process relies on air quality data from monitoring si tes that already have been in existence and operational for at least three full years. The commenter’s i ssue is more directly associated with the design of the PM 2.5 monitoring network established by each State. EPA’s network design criteria (40 CFR Part 58, A ppendix D) emphasize that PM 2.5 monitors are to be sited to represent community-wide air quality. This ge neral approach follows from the studies on which the PM 2.5 NAAQS were established and later re vised. These studies evaluated the correlation of health effects to varying levels of communitywide fine particle concentrations. However, Appendix D also re quires the State to establish at least one monitoring station in a population-oriented area of expected maximum concentration. Each State is required to develop a PM 2.5 network design plan and make it available for public review prior to submitting it to EP A for approval. EPA believes that the commenter should work with the States in the network design pr ocess to explore the appropriateness of establishing new monito ring locations in the near-roadway zone. 2

The undersigned organizations do not agree th at highway scale modeling such as that required by EPA’s Guidance for Quantitative Hot Spot analysis of transportation facilities is an inappropriate tool for determini ng the design values in communiti es exposed to emissions from highways to ensure that control strategies are developed to elim inate NAAQS violations and the significant adverse health impacts associated with high levels of pollution near highways. However, these organizations are heeding EPA’s a dvice to work with the Air District to remedy
the failure of the current mon itoring network to provide reliab le evidence of PM2.5 exposures experienced by communities adjacent to the major diesel traffic routes in the South Coast Air
Basin.

Specifically, the South Coast Air Monitoring Ne twork Plan fails to monitor any of the transportation facilities identified by EPA as of “air quality concern.” EPA found that emissions from these types of facilities contribute to high levels of pollution near highways that are associated with violations of the NAAQS. Failure to monitor PM2.5 in the impact zone within
150 meters of such facilities where EPA determined that incremental PM2.5 concentrations occur means that NAAQS violations caused by emi ssions from such facilities will not be remedied by the next SIP for PM2.5 unless EPA a nd the District apply highway scale modeling to identify such NAAQS violations and adopt co ntrol measures sufficient to eliminate such violations. Such modeling could be conducted wi thout monitoring data u nder the authority of EPA’s 2007 Implementation rule:

2 EPA, Public Comment Summary and Re sponse Document on EPA’s Recommended Area Designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 De signation Recommendations, EPA-HQ-OAR-2007- 0562, at 31, attached as Exhibit B.6 [N]onattainment areas with poten tial hotspot issues (relativel y high concentrations and/or gradients of primary PM2.5) should not rely exclusively on regional modeling.

* * *

We describe an “unmonitored area analysis ” which uses interpolated ambient data combined with gridded model outputs to ex amine whether potential violations of the NAAQS may occur in unmonitored areas. If potential violations are indicated, we recommend further analysis of the problem through additional local modeling. Options for State action to address such a situa tion could include imposition of reasonably available control technology to reduce emissions, or the deployment of an air quality monitor to further characterize the problem.

72 Fed.Reg. 20, 586, 20,607 (April 25, 2007). But if the Air District does not commit to performing the kind of local sc ale modeling described by EPA in its “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating A ttainment of Air Qualit y Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze,” then at least one roadside m onitor that satisfies the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 58 must be included in the monitoring network.

For this and other reasons, th e Air Monitoring Plan fails to comply with the Clean Air Act and applicable regulations.

I. Highway Emissions Cause the Highest Population Exposures to PM2.5 for South
Coast Air Basin Residents.

Dozens of studies have shown greatly increase d pollutant levels and health impacts in close proximity to freeways, prompting the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to recommend in 2005 that local governments “[a] void siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 10 0,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.” 3 The rationale for that caution is su mmarized as follows: “In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer h ealth risk attributable to proxi mity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 f eet. California freeway studies show about a 70% drop off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet.” Addi tionally: “we recommend that land use agencies track the current assessment efforts, and consid er limitations on the siting of new sensitive land uses in areas immediately downwind of ports.”

A) Air Pollution is Si gnificantly Elevated Near Roadways.

One recent study in the Los Angeles basin measured elevated air pollutants far downwind, up to 2,000 meters and up to 600 meters upwind of a major freeway. 4 The study, along Interstate10, documented high concentrations of ultra-fine particulates, polycyclic

3 California Air Resources Board, Air Qualit y and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf

. 4 Hu, S. et.al., A wide area of air pollutant impact downwind of a freeway during pre-sunrise hours, Atmospheric Environment 2009; 43:2541-2549.7 aromatic hydrocarbons and nitric oxide at di stances of 1,200 meters (roughly 4,000 feet) and farther downwind, especially during pre-sunrise hours when winds were low, humidity was high and there was a surface temperature inversion. Nu merous other studies show elevated pollutant concentrations within up to 500 meters (1,600 feet) of freeways and busy roadways. 5

II. Evidence Supporting Revision of NAAQS Demo nstrates that Health Risks to be
Prevented Are Associated with Ex posure to Highway Emissions.

EPA has argued that the annual NAAQS is to be applied to prevent regional scale exposures to PM2.5 because the da ta used to develop the standa rds were derived from studies that evaluate health ri sks associated with exposure to con centrations measured at the regional scale. But the last review of the NAAQS in cluded studies showing a dverse health effects associated with exposure to highway emissions. The need for the annual NAAQS relied, in part, of evidence showing adverse he alth effects linked to expos ure to highway emissions.

We summarize here some of the studies incl uded in the last review , and others published more recently that affirm the evidence in earlie r studies demonstrating that the adverse effects associated with exposure to fine particles from highways is not less than the effects linked to a broader mix of particles meas ured at the regional scale.

A) Correlation Between Asthma and Attending School Near a Major Roadway.

In California, over two percen t of public schools (K-12) ar e within 150 meters of high traffic roads and a disproportionately large per centage of students atte nding these schools are economically disadvantaged and nonwhite. 6 A related study surveying over 1,000 elementary school students in Northern California found higher rates of asthma and bronchitis symptoms in children attending schools near busy roads and freeways. 7 A study of thirteen southern California communities found children exposed to traffic-related pollution in school were more likely to develop asthma, irrespectiv e of residential exposure. 8 A study of almost 1,500 children in Dutch schools found a positive relations hip between school proximity to freeways and asthma

5 Commenter has attached two technical reports th at provide evidence of high levels of pollution near highways. First, Commenter has attached a Draft Technical Repo rt from Gregory Gould (attached as Exhibit C). Sec ond, Commenter has attached a report from Pechan & Associates that summarizes much of the research on the hi gh levels of pollution near highways (attached as Exhibit D). The SJVAPCD and EP A should review these documents prior to taking final action on the Air Monitoring Plan.

6 Green, R.S. et. al., Proximity of Calif ornia Public Schools to Busy Roads, Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112(1): 61-66.

7 Kim, J. et al., Traffic-related air polluti on and respiratory health : East Bay Children’s Respiratory Health Study, American Journal of Respirator y and Critical Care Medicine 2004; 170: 520-526.

8 McConnell, R. et al., Childhood Incident Asthma and Traffic- Related Air Pollution at Home and School, Environmental Health Perspectives 2010; 118(7): 1021-1026.8 occurrence. Truck traffic intensity and pollutant levels measured in schools were significantly
associated with chroni c respiratory symptoms. 9

A recent nationwide study of almost 9,000 U.S. public schools asserts that children spend a significant amount of time at school, making exposure to pollution at school an important consideration; the study found that approximately one third of student s were likely to be at an
increased risk of acute and chroni c respiratory disorders due to cl ose proximity of their school to a freeway. 10 Surveys among thousands of junior high sc hool students in Jakart a also revealed a
link between traffic levels and respiratory impacts including phlegm, persistent cough and
asthma. 11

B) Correlation Between Respiratory Disease and Living Near a Major Roadway.

Proximity of residences to heavy traffic le vels has been associated with respiratory impacts such as cough, wheeze, persistent cough, asthma and hospital admissions for asthma in many studies. 12 The California Children’s Health Study, which began in 1992, found an 89 percent increase in the likelihood of being diagnose d with asthma for those children living close to freeways versus those living farther away. 13 Another report from th e Children’s Health Study showed adverse health impacts of local traffic exposure on children independent of regional air quality, including decreased lung f unction that is unlikely to be regained and thus predisposes

9 Speizer, F. E. and B. G. Ferris, Jr., Exposure to automobile exhaus t. I. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and disease, Archives of Environmental Health 1973; 26(6):313-8; Van Vliet, P.et al., Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways, Environmental Research 1997; 74(2):122-32.

10 Appatova, A.S. et al., Proximal exposure of public schools and students to major roadways: a nationwide US survey, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2008; 51(5): 631- 646.

11 Duki, M.I.Z. et al.,. Effect of Air Polluti on on Respiratory Health in Indonesia and its Economic Cost, Arch Environmental Health 2003; 58:135–143.

12 Nicolai, T. et al., Urban tr affic and pollutant exposure rela ted to respiratory outcomes and atopy in a large sample of children, Eur Respir J. 2003 ; 21:956–963Brunekreef, B. et al., Air pollution from truck traffic and lung func tion in children living near motor-ways, Epidemiology 1997; 8(3): 298-303; Duhme, H. et al., The asso ciation between self-reported symptoms of asthma and allergic rhinitis and self-reported traffic density on street of residence in adolescents, Epidemiology 1996; 7(6): 578-582;Edwards, J. et al., Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children: relationship to ma jor roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom, Archives of Environmental Health 1994; 49(4): 223-227.

13 Gauderman, W.J. et al., Childhood Asthma a nd Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide. Epidemiology 2005; 16:737-743; This study was confirme d by a separate Southern CA study finding an 85% higher likelihood for an asthma diagnosis among children living with 75 meters of a major road. McConnell R, et al., Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood, Environ Health Perspectives 2006; 114(5):766-772.9 those individuals to cardiovascular illness later in life. 14 A recent review of California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) data revealed a three-fold increase in asthma related hospital visits among children living in high traffic density areas. 15 A similar study based on CHIS data attributes a 92 percent increase in asthma symptoms among those living near the highest traffic densities, and suggests that impacts may be di sproportionately worse among those in poverty due to heightened vulnerability. 16 Those in poverty may also be disproportionately exposed to pollution due to older and poorer quality housing. A study in Washington state found that older homes, smaller homes, and homes with fewer renovations were more likely to have a higher
infiltration fraction of PM 2.5. 17

Distance matters. A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of a child's home to main roads, with the greatest risk being for ch ildren living within 90 meters of the road. 18 A study in rural New York found that children living in neighborhoods with heavy tr uck traffic within 200 meters of their homes had increased risks of asthma hospitalization. 19 A Dutch study of over 1,000 children found that asthma, wheeze, cough, and runny nose were significantly more common in children living within 100 meters of freeways; and th at increasing density of truck traffic was associated with signi ficantly higher asthma levels. 20 Another Dutch study found that traffic-related pollution was associated with incr eased respiratory infections, as well as some
measures of asthma and allergies among four year olds studied from birth. 21

14 Gauderman, W.J., et al., Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study, Lancet 2007; 369(19561): 571-7.

15 Wilhelm et. al., Environmental Public Health Tracking of Childhood As thma Using California Health Interview Survey, Traffic, and Outdoor Air Pollution Data, Environmental Health Perspectives 2008; 116(8):1254-1260.

16 Meng et. al., Are Frequent Asthma Sympto ms Among Low-Income Individuals Related to Heavy Traffic Near Homes, Vulnerabil ities, or Both?, AEP 2008; 18(5):343-350.

17 Hystad, P.U. et al., Modeling Residential Fi ne Particulate Matter Infiltration for Exposure Assessment, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2009; 19:570-579.

18 Venn et al., Living Near A Main Road a nd the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001; 164:2177-2180.

19 Lin, et al., Childhood Asthma Hosp italization and Reside ntial Exposure to State Route Traffic, Environmental Research, Section A 2002; 88:73-81;similarly, a San Diego study found increased medical visits in children living within 550 feet of heavy traffic. English P., et al., Examining Associations Between Childhood Asthma and Tr affic Flow Using a Geographic Information System, Environmental Health Perspectives 1999; 107(9):761-767.

20 Van Vliet et al., Motor exhaus t and chronic respiratory sympto ms in children living near freeways, Environmental Research 1997; 74:12-132.

21 Brauer, M. et al., Air pollution and development of asthma, allergy and infections in a birth cohort, Eur Respir J 2007; 29:879-888.10 C) Association Between Cancer and Living Near a Roadway.

A comprehensive Southern California study of urban toxic air pollution shows that motor vehicles and other mobile sources of air polluti on are the predominant source of cancer-causing air pollution, accounting for roughly 94% of the ca ncer risk from toxic air pollution, most of which is from diesel exhaust (84% of the cancer risk). 22 CARB estimates an increased cancer
risk of 100 in one million within 90 meters downwind of freeways carrying 10,000 trucks per day. 23 A study in Denver showed that children livi ng within 250 yards of streets or highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more lik ely to develop all types of cancer and eight times more likely to contract leukemia. 24 A Danish study of several thousand children concluded that a doubling of vehicle po llution increased the risk of lymphomas by 25 percent. 25 An earlier English study found a cancer corrido r within three miles of highway s, airports, power plants, and other major polluters, showing gr eater risk of leukemia or other cancers within a few hundred yards from highways or other major pollution sources and decreasing risk of cancer with distance from these roadways and facilities. 26

D) Association Between Reproductive Impacts and Exposure to Motor Vehicle
Pollutants.

Pre- and post-natal impacts on infants born to mothers with heavy traffic exposure have also been well documented. A Los Angeles stu dy found that pregnant women living near heavy traffic areas with high levels of carbon monoxide were more lik ely to experience adverse birth outcomes such as low birth weights and preterm births. 27 Another study found that pregnant women with high traffic exposure were three times as likely to have a ch ild with certain heart defects as women breathing the cleanest air. 28 A study of California ch ildren found an increased

22 South Coast Air Quality Mana gement District. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study-III. September 2008, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/ MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008.html.

23 CARB, 2005.

24 Pearson et al., Distance-weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers, Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 2000; 50:175-180.

25 Raaschou-Nielsen, O.et al., Air Pollution from tr affic at the residence of children with cancer, Am J Epidemiology 2001; 153:433-443.

26 Knox and Gilman, Hazard proximities of ch ildhood cancers in Great Britain from 1953-1980, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1997; 51:151-159.

27 Wilherm M. et al., Local variations in CO and particulate air pollu tion and adverse birth outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, USA, Environ Health Perspect . 2005; 113(9):212- 21.

28 Ritz B. et al., Ambient air pollution and risk of birth defects in Southern California. Am J Epidemiology 2002; 155:17-25.11 risk of autism among children who lived within 300 meters of a fr eeway during the third trimester and shortly after birth. 29

E) Association Between Proximity to Bu sy Roadways and Other Health Impacts.

A wide body of research also confirms othe r adverse health outcomes related to close proximity to busy roadways. Dutch researchers evaluating long term exposure to traffic have found that people who lived near a main road were almost twice as likely to die from heart or lung disease and 1.4 times as likely to die from a ny cause compared with t hose who lived in lesstrafficked areas. 30 A Canadian study of 5,000 people showed that those living w ithin 50 meters of a major road or within 100 me ters of a highway had increase d risks of mortality, with an “aging effect” (i.e. years of life lost) of roughly 2.5 years, which is similar to the “aging effect” of having chronic heart disease (3.1 year Rate of Advancement for mortality). 31 Another Canadian study found that people re siding within 150 meters of a hi ghway or within 50 meters of a major road were more likely to die of corona ry heart diseases. Furt hermore, subjects who moved away from a road during the study period show ed a decreased risk of death from coronary
heart disease while those who moved closer to a road were more li kely to die of coronary heart
disease. 32

III. General Statutory and Regulatory Requirements.

The statutory basis for monitoring air quali ty originates in §§110( a)(2) and 319 of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s monitoring regulations th at define how states must implement these statutory mandates are locat ed at 40 C.F.R. Part 58.

A) Requirements for the EPA Re gional Administrator.

When state or local agencies submit an air quality monitoring plan that proposes modifications or new monitoring sites, the EPA Re gional Administrator is required to allow time for public comment. Following the time for public comment, the Administrator must either approve or disapprove th e plan within 120 days. 33

29 Volk, H., Residential Proximity to Fr eeways and Autism in the CHARGE Study. Environmental Health Perspectives 2010, doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002835, available at http://dx.doi.org.

30 Hoek, et al., Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study, Lancet 2002; 360(9341):1203-9.

31 Finkelstein et al., Traffic Air Pollution and Mortality Rate Advancement Periods, Am J Epidemiology 2004; 160:173-177.

32 Gan, W. Q., Changes in Residential Proximity to Road Traffic and the Risk of Death from Coronary Heart Disease, Epidemiology 2010; 21(5):642-649.

33 40 C.F.R. 58.10(a)(2).12 B) Requirements for Monitoring Plans and Monitoring Agencies.

Part 58 requires that state or local agencies submit an annual monitoring network plan for “the establishment and maintenance of an air qu ality surveillance system that consists of a network of [State or Local Ai r Monitoring Systems (“SLAMS”)].” 34 The monitoring plan is subject to EPA approval when it proposes modi fications to the previ ous plan or any new monitoring sites. Here, the Air Monitoring Networ k Plan proposes modifications to the previous plan. The annual plan must be available for public inspection and comm ents 30 days prior to submission for approval to the EPA Regional Admini strator, which is required by July 1 of each

year. 35 The monitoring plan must also include th e method by which state or local agencies will provide for review of changes to a PM 2.5 monitoring network if those changes impact the location of a violating PM 2.5 monitor or the cr eation of or change to a community monitoring zone. The affected agency must provide time for public comment and include any received comments in the submitted plan. 36

The monitoring plan is required to include “a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of each monito r meets the requirements stated in appendices A, C, D, and E.” 37 Appendix A addresses quality controls for monitoring sites to ensure correct monitoring results. Appendix C addresses required methods for monitoring criteria pollutants. Appendix D addresses criteria for assembling monitoring networks. Appendix E addresses specific criteria for the location of monitoring sites.

C) Appendix D

Appendix D of Part 58 details “monitoring object ives and general criter ia to be applied in establishing the required SLAMS ambient air quality monitoring stations and for choosing general locations for additional monitoring sites.” 38 The three criteria for monitoring networks are as follows: “(a) Provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner... (b) Support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emissi ons strategy development... (c) Support for air pollution research studies...” 39

Monitoring networks must be designed with a variety of types of monitoring sites. “Monitoring sites must be capable of informing managers about many things including the peak air pollution levels, typical levels in populated areas, air pollution transported into and outside of

34 40 C.F.R. 58.10(a)(1).

35 40 C.F.R. 58.10(a)(2).

36 40 C.F.R. 58.10(c).

37 40 C.F.R. 58.10(a)(1).

38 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(1).

39 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(1.1).13 a city or region, and air pollution levels near specific sources.” 40 Appendix D of Part 58 list the following six type of sites.

(a) Sites located to determine the highest conc entrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network; (b) Sites located to measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density; (c) Site s located to determine the im pact of significant sources or source categories on air qua lity; (d) Sites located to determine general background concentration levels; (e) Sites located to determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and in suppor t of secondary standards; and (f) Sites located to measure air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other welfare-based impacts. 41

PM 10 monitoring sites are not always re quired; their inclus ion is dependent on population size and concentration. 42 At least one PM 2.5 monitor must be located in a population-oriented area with expe cted maximum concentrations (b ased on previous assessments of PM 2.5 levels). 43 Additionally, “the required [PM 2.5] m onitoring stations or sites must be sited to represent community-wide air quality...The se monitoring stations will typically be at neighborhood or urban-scale; however, in certai n instances where populati on-oriented micro-or middle-scale PM 2.5 monitoring are determined by the Regional Administrator to represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area, these smaller scales can be considered to represent community-wide air quality.” 44 One suggested location for a middle-scale PM 2.5 monitoring site is an area wh ere “people moving through downtow n areas, or living near major roadways, encounter particle concentration that w ould be adequately charac terized by this spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this type would be appropriate for the ev aluation of possible shortterm exposure public health effect s of particulate matter pollution.” 45

IV. The SCAQMD Must Place Monitors Ne ar Heavily Trafficked Roadways.

Currently, the District has failed to comply with the requirements laid out in the Clean Air Act and 40 C.F.R. part 58. At its core, the Clean Air Act requires States (or local agencies) to ensure compliance with the NAAQS in the entire geographic area under its jurisdiction. 46 The monitoring network plays a critical role in ensuring compliance with the NAAQS for all populations, including those residents near hi ghways. EPA may not lawfully approve a monitoring network that does not include monitori ng near highways because the plan fails to
ensure attainment in the entire geographic area, including the large number of neighborhoods

40 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(1.1.1).

41 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D (1.1.1).

42 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(4.6(a)).

43 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(4.7.1(b)(1)).

44 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(4.7.1(b)).

45 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D(4.7.1(c)(2)).

46 42 U.S.C. 7407(a).14 adjacent to highways where fine particle concentr ations have been shown to be significantly higher than levels measured at regional scale mo nitors located outside th e known impact zone of transportation facilities.

A) Large-Scale Regional Modeling Does Not Pr edict Impact of Reductions in Highway

Emissions.

The modeling analysis performed for the atta inment demonstration in prior Air Quality Management Plans uses the CAMx model. This is a regional airshed model that aggregates emissions and estimates average ambient concentr ations across a large scale grid that includes many square miles. For the purpose of compar ing modeling results with monitoring station measurements, the average concentra tion over a large area is used.

This approach may be suitable for the purpose of estimating concentr ations of secondary species that are formed after primary pollutants are cooked in the chemical soup of the Air Basin, but this large scale averaging pr ovides no useful information rega rding the dispersion of primary pollutants emitted from large sources such as highways.

Unlike secondary particulate pollutants, which become pa rticles downwind from their point of emission as gases, the elemental carbon and aerosol VOCs emitted from tailpipes, road dust, and tire and brake pad particles are emitted directly from highways to the atmosphere, and are most highly concentrated at the source. Th e regional grid modeling analysis performed by CAMx aggregates these emissions and averages them over large regions, rather than recognizing them as being most highly concentrated at the point of origin. EPA e xplained in its guidance regarding PM attainment demonstrations that “[d] ispersion models are better able to capture the influence of primary PM sources where large co ncentration gradients may exist. Grid models spread out the PM emissions to th e size of the grid (typically 4 or 12 km). This makes it difficult to judge the benefits of c ontrol strategies that may affect primary PM sources.” 47 The large-scale regional modeling analysis performed fo r the SCAQMD cannot, and does not, predict concentrations of the primary species in the n ear-highway environment. Given the limitations of this large scale tool for predicting the impact of primary PM emissions from sources on local ambient concentrations, the Monitoring Network mu st be augmented to include adequate nearhighway monitoring to protect the health of residents.

B) The Failure to Monitor Near Highways Viol ates Applicable Regulations in Part 58.

Currently, the failure to adequately monito r near highways violates EPA’s monitoring regulations. Specifically, the m onitoring plan fails to provide the following types of sites:

“(a) Sites located to determin e the highest concentrations ex pected to occur in the area covered by the network”;

47 72 Fed. Reg. 20,607-08.15 “(b) Sites located to measure typical concentrations in ar eas of high population density”; and “(c) Sites located to determin e the impact of significant sour ces or source categories on air quality”. 48

Monitoring near highways provides information cr itical to meeting each of these criteria. Moreover, EPA’s monitoring regula tions require that “[a]t leas t one PM2.5 monitor must be located in a population-oriented area w ith expected maximum concentrations.” 49 As these comments and appended technical analysis demo nstrate, there are cu rrently many populationoriented areas of maximum concen trations that remain unmonitored. Specifically, the District has failed to place a monitor in close proximity (e.g. 25-100 meters) to a major roadway with significant truck traffic in an area of the Sout h Coast Air Basin with high background particulate concentrations. Placing a monitor in those areas is necessary for the following reasons.

1. Significant Populations in the Los Angeles region are Impacted by Major Roadways.

Attached to these comments, we have provide d a draft technical report that assesses the number of people in California that reside ne xt to major roadways. Specific to the SCAQMD, we have found the following population numbers:

Population within 100m, 300m, and 500m of roads with greater than 50,000 AADT in
South Coast Air Basin Counties.

Distance to Road (>50,000 AADT a )

State County 100m 300m 500m

California Los Angeles 329,906 3.47% b 1,248,158 13.11% 2,220,631 23.33%
California Orange 103,654 3.64% 385,325 13.54% 673,478 23.66%
California Riverside 17,572 1.14% 77,495 5.01% 154,118 9.97%
California San Bernardino 26,595 1.56% 103,088 6.03% 188,266 11.01%

a Annual Average Daily Trips b Percentage of county population

//

//

//

//

48 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D (1.1.1 (a)-(c)).

49 40 C.F.R. 58, App. D (4.7.1(b)(1)).16 Population within 100m, 300m, and 500m of roads with greater than 100,000 AADT in South Coast Air Basin Counties.

Distance to Road (>100,000 AADT a )

State County 100m 300m 500m

California Los Angeles 225,445 2.37% 908,718 9.55% 1,639,205 17.22%
California Orange 60,877 2.14% 239,659 8.42% 421,817 14.82%
California Riverside 14,133 0.91% 64,088 4.15% 127,260 8.23%
California San Bernardino 17,408 1.02% 71,975 4.21% 134,411 7.86%

a Annual Average Daily Trips

b Percentage of county population

As demonstrated by this analysis, significant pop ulations in several c ounties currently reside next to major roadways. With more than 1,284,440 people within 300 meters of a roadway greater than 100,000 AADT, this pos es a large population exposed to pollution from highways that demands monitoring. 50 For context, this area of un monitored people in the Los Angeles region alone would be in the top ten for most populous cities in the nation.

Failure to monitor in these high population area s fails to meet the cr iteria of providing sites in places of high population density.

2. Credible Scientific Evidence Demonstrates High Levels of Particulate Matter and Other Pollutants Near Major Roadways.

The attached technical report demonstrates that concentrations of many pollutants, including PM2.5, near highways are significan tly higher than background concentrations measured at regional scale monitors. 51 The undersigned organizations contends that the
submitted evidence in various studies confirms EPA’s findings in the conformity hot spot rulemaking that the incremental concentrati ons of PM2.5 observed near highways are higher than regional background levels. Combining th ese results with EPA’s conclusion that higher
concentrations are linked to traffic levels a nd proximity to the roadway, it is clear that a monitoring plan that fails to incl ude monitors within the impact z one of highways fails to satisfy numerous criteria in Part 58, in cluding the requirement to site a monitor at the point of maximum expected location in the nonattainment area, and the requirement that the monitoring network be adequate to support a demonstration that the SIP will provide for attainment.

50 In prior comments, Environmental Defense Fund estimated approximately 1.5 million residents in the region next to road links with greater than 125,000 AADT. See Exhibit E (coalition letter with attachment H). Whatever the population number, it re presents a significant number of people in close proximity to major roadways.

51 Gould, Draft Report – Near Roadway Emissions : Measurement, Exposure, and Monitoring, at 5-8 (Exhibit C); see also Pechan Report (Exhibit D).17 District and EPA review this material becau se it supports the need for monitoring near major roadways. Monitoring near roadways will ensure the entire geographic area has the benefits of the Clean Air Act protections, and it will ensure the SCAQMD addresses environmental justice concerns. Because roadwa ys pose high concentrations of air pollutants and most likely the unmonitored areas near roadwa ys are an area of maximum concentration, the Monitoring Guidelines compel placement of monitors near roadways.

V. Failing to Monitor Near Highways Violates Environmental Justice Requirements.

EPA has acknowledged many times the threat that highways pose to the health of residents. In fact, EPA has noted that decreases in diesel partic ulate matter and nitrogen oxides, two common pollutants near highways, l ead to “tremendous health benefits.” 52 As EPA noted in a 2010 response on air quality and environmental ju stice, “the explosive growth in commerce in the late 1990’s through the early pa rt of this decade exacerbated the air quality issues in goods
movement communities.” 53 EPA also acknowledges that “m inority, low income, and indigenous populations have borne a disproporti onate share of the cumulative ai r toxics health impacts from goods movement.” 54 EPA claims to have set a goal of “targeting issues associated with goods movement and environmental justice,” 55 but the Agency could fail to live up to this mandate by sitting idly by through years of Monitoring Plans that fail to monitor near highway concentrations of pollutants. A pervasive exampl e of a current flaw of addressing air pollution in environmental justice communities is EPA’s approach that fails to monitor levels of PM 2.5 near highways in the South Coast Air Basin. This appr oach violates several provisions of federal law and regulatory policy. 56

The attached report demonstrates that ma ny of the communities residing near major roadways in the South Coast Air Basin tend to be communities of color. Moreover, in many counties, the odds ratio of living near a highway ar e much higher if a resident is black or latino compared to white populations.

Here, the District has chosen to site monitors away from major roadways, which has the purpose and effect of denying the benefits of attainment by excludi ng large populations of communities of color from compliance with the Clean Air Act attainment provisions and the

52 EPA, Response to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Report: Reducing Air Emissions Associated with Goods Movemen t: Working Toward Environmental Justice 3 (2010), available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/r esources/publications/n ejac/epa-resp-nejacgoods-movement-2009.pdf.

53 Id . at 11.

54 Id . at 13.

55 Id . at 3.

56 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)(i)(re quiring that states provide necessary assurances that SIPS are not prohibited by federal law).18 monitoring regulations. Failing to adequately monitor near highw ays substantially impairs the ability of the District to ensure communities of color along major roadways are not denied the benefits that flow from lawful monitoring to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. Because the District, through the Air Monitori ng Network Plan, has failed to pr otect near highway residents, the policy violates environmen tal justice principles in addition to federal law.

VI. Commenters Propose the Following Locations As Sites for Future Monitoring.

In a prior effort to determine appropriate lo cations to place monitors in the region, we identified several locations. Specifically, we identified three specific categories of places that should have a monitor: 1) locations near the I-710 because it has the highest diesel truck traffic share in the air basin; 2) locati ons near major interchanges where tr affic density is expected to be greatest; and 3) locations near freeways in the inland empire where regional concentrations of PM2.5 are high.

I-710 Locations

1) The SCAQMD should place two monitors in Commerce near the I-710 to measure upwind concentrations and downwind concen trations. If SCAQMD decides it can only place a monitor in one of these locations, it should choose the downwind location. Here is a list of locations to consider:

a. Triggs St and Duncan Ave Commer ce CA. 90040 [downwind of the I-710] b. Connor and Leonis St. Commerce CA. 90040 [upwind of the I-710]

c. S Ford Blvd & S Mines St., Los Angeles, CA 90022 [Ford Boulevard Elementary School is located near this intersection a nd may be a good location for a monitor] d. White Ave & E. Neece St., Long Beach, CA 90805

Locations Near Major Interchanges

1) East Los Angeles Interchange which has the highest aggregate VMT in the South Coast Air Basin [Soto Street Elementary School is lo cated in close proximity to this interchange and may be a good location for a monitor] 2) I-10 and I-405 Interchange [This location should be chosen to provide a reference point for monitoring where two primarily commuter traffic roads intersect]

Inland Empire Locations Near Majo r Freeways and Goods Movement Hubs

1) Klamath River Dr. Riverside CA 91761 [Near the Highway 60 and many major distribution centers in the inland empire] 2) Cisco St and Atchison St Colton, CA 92324 [N ear the I-215/I-10 interchange close to significant goods movement activities]

Monitors should be located within the proximity to roadways discussed by the siting guidance in Part 58, Appendix E.19 (a) Since emissions associated with the operation of motor vehicles contribute to urban area particulate matter ambient levels, sp acing from roadway criteria are necessary for ensuring national consistency in PM sampler siting. (b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot sites in areas of highest concentrations whether it be from mobile or multiple stationary sources. If the area is primarily affected by mobile sources and the maximum concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic corridor or street canyon location, then the monitors should be located near roadways with the highest traffic volume and at separation dist ances most likely to produce th e highest concentrations. For the microscale traffic corridor site, the lo cation must be between 5 and 15 meters from the major roadway.

71 Fed.Reg. 61,235, 61,325. Satisfying these criteria is especially important for the purpose of being able to show that populat ions living near highways will be fully protected. Given the gradient of concentrations near highways, atta inment must be demonstrated for those living closest to highways to ensure that al l exposed populations are protected.

VII. EPA’s Final Decision on the Monitori ng Plan Must Be Published in the Federal Register

.
Given the importance of the Air Monitoring Network Plan to promoting compliance with the Clean Air Act and applicable regulations, we request that EPA’s ultimate decision to approve or disapprove this Air Monitoring Network Plan be published in the Federal Register . This will allow the public an opportunity to review the responses to the significant comments and technical analysis attached to these comments.

VIII. Conclusion.

The undersigned organizations respectfully re quest that the Dist rict revise their monitoring network to include near-roadway mon itoring. Specifically, the District should site PM 2.5 monitors in areas close to major highway s in population-oriented areas that have high truck shares. Also, since these comments are forwar ded to EPA, if the District fails to address these comments, we respectfully request that EPA disapprove the Monito ring Plan and request that the agency

Sincerely,

Adriano Martinez Staff Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council

[Signatories Continued on Next Page] Bob Yuhnke
Consultant for NRDC
Robert E. Yuhnke & Associates20 Maya Golden-Krasner Attorney
Communities for a Better Environment Giselle Fong
Executive Director
Communities for Clean Ports

Jocelyn Vivar Policy Director
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Enclosures

CC: Jared Blumenfeld, Re gion IX Administrator Deborah Jordan, Director Air Division, Region IX