Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-1411
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-12T04:00Z

220
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1
2
Transcript
of
Hearing
to
Take
Comment
on
3
Two
Proposed
Rules
4
­
­
­

1.
Revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
5
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
6
and
7
2.
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
8
­
­
­
9
DATE:
Wednesday,
March
8,
2006
(
Afternoon
and
Evening
10
Sessions)
11
HELD
AT:
12
13
Holiday
Inn
14
4th
and
Arch
Streets
15
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
16
HELD
BEFORE:

17
JOHN
BACHMANN,
CHAIR
Associate
Director
of
Science/
Policy
and
Programs
18
JUDY
KATZ
19
Director
of
the
Air
Protection
Division
20
PHIL
LORANG
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards'
21
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Group
22
BETH
HASSET­
SIPPLE
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards'
23
Ambient
Standards
Group
24
REPORTED
BY:

Emilie
S.
Pakman
25
221
MR.
BACHMANN:
If
everybody
would
take
their
1
seats,
we're
going
to
start
this
afternoon's
session
and
2
reopen
the
hearing.
As
this
morning,
I'm
going
to
begin
3
with
reading
just
an
overview
that
we're
doing
in
the
4
beginning
of
every
session.
The
entire
statement
and
5
the
summary
of
what
we're
proposing
here
is
in
fact
on
6
paper
out
on
the
table
out
there.
7
Good
afternoon
and
thank
you
for
attending
8
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
public
hearing
on
9
two
proposed
rules
for
particulate
matter.
I
know
that
10
a
lot
of
you
have
traveled
a
long
way,
and
we
appreciate
11
that.
My
name
is
John
Bachmann
and
I
am
the
Associate
12
Director
of
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
13
Standards
Science
Policy
group,
and
I'll
be
chairing
14
today's
hearing.
We're
here
today
to
listen
to
your
15
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
revisions
to
the
National
16
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
and
17
proposed
revisions
to
the
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
18
Regulations.
As
a
reminder,
this
is
a
hearing,
an
19
opportunity
for
the
public
to
comment
on
the
EPA's
20
proposed
rules.
The
panel
members
may
answer
questions
21
and
seek
to
clarify
what
we've
proposed,
but
the
purpose
22
of
this
hearing
is
to
listen
to
your
comments,
not
to
23
discuss
or
debate
the
proposals.
24
Before
we
move
to
the
comment
period,
I'm
25
222
going
to
very,
very
briefly
describe
the
proposed
rules.
1
Both
of
them
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
2
January
17,
2006.
3
Particulate
matter,
also
known
as
particle
4
pollution,
includes
a
mixture
of
solids
and
liquid
5
droplets.
Particles
come
in
a
wide
variety
of
sizes.
6
Some
are
emitted
directly,
and
some
are
formed
in
the
7
atmosphere
when
pollutants
such
as
sulfur
oxides,
8
nitrogen
oxides,
ammonia,
and
volatile
organic
9
compounds,
compounds
that
react
together
chemically
that
10
form
particles
in
the
atmosphere
from
gases.
Exposure
11
to
particles
has
been
associated
with
premature
death
as
12
well
as
a
significant
adverse
cardiovascular
and
13
respiratory
effects.
14
The
proposed
revisions
that
we're
here
to
15
talk
about
today
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
16
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
address
two
categories
17
of
particles:
Fine
particles,
PM2.5,
which
are
those
18
smaller
than
a
nominal
2.5
micrometers
in
diameter,
and
19
inhalable
coarse
particles,
which
are
particles
between
20
10
and
2.5
micrometers
in
size.
We
call
that
PM10
minus
21
2.5.
So
they
are
smaller
than
10
micrometers
in
22
diameter
but
larger
than
2.5.
We
have
had
National
23
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
fine
particles,
PM2.5,
24
since
1997,
and
for
particles
10
micrometers
and
smaller
25
223
since
1987.
We
have
proposed
specific
revisions
to
the
1
current
PM
standards
and
requested
comments
on
a
range
2
of
alternative
standards
for
both
fine
and
inhalable
3
coarse
particles.
The
proposed
revisions
address
4
changes
to
both
the
primary
standards
to
protect
public
5
health
and
the
secondary
standards
to
protect
public
6
welfare
including
visibility.
7
We
have
three
major
aspects
to
the
primary
8
standards
to
protect
public
health,
which
include
9
changing
the
level
of
the
current
24­
hour
fine
particle
10
standard
from
65
down
to
35;
retaining
the
current
11
annual
fine
particle
standard
at
15
micrograms
minutes
12
per
cubic
meter;
and
establishing
a
new
standard
for
13
inhalable
coarse
particles
that
would
be
qualified
as
to
14
where
it
would
apply,
and,
in
so
doing,
it
would
exclude
15
both
agriculture
and
mining
as
categories
of
concern.
16
On
these
standards,
we've
requested
comments
17
and
a
wide
variety
of
alternatives,
which
range
as
low
18
for
the
fine
particles
standards,
standards
as
low
as
12
19
and
25,
standards
as
high
as
65
and
15,
and
the
proposed
20
level
for
the
24­
hour
standard
for
inhalable
coarse
21
particles
is
70.
We've
also
proposed
comments
on
having
22
no
standard
for
coarse
particles
or
keeping
the
PM
10
23
standards
in
some
fashion.
24
We've
also
asked
for
comments
and
25
224
alternatives
to
the
secondary
standard
to
protect
1
disability,
including
a
sub­
daily
4
to
8
averaging
time
2
standard
with
a
range
of
20
to
30
microgram
per
cubic
3
meter.
4
Inhalable
coarse
particles,
or
PM10
minus
5
2.5,
is
a
subset
of
the
type
of
particles
controlled
by
6
the
existing
standards
for
PM10,
raising
the
question
of
7
what
we
would
do
with
the
PM10
standards
if
we
finalized
8
coarse
particle
standards,
between
the
time
we
did
that
9
and
the
time
we
actually
implemented
those
standards
10
which
could
be
a
number
of
years.
11
We
propose
that
the
current
scientific
12
evidence
does
not
support
setting
an
annual
standard
for
13
inhalable
coarse
particles,
and
therefore
we've
proposed
14
to,
upon
completion
of
this
action,
revoke
the
current
15
annual
PM10
standard
in
all
areas.
If
we
finalize
the
16
24­
hour
primary
standard
for
PM10­
2.5,
we
have
17
proposed
to
revoke
the
current
24­
hour
PM10
standard,
18
except
in
areas
that
have
at
least
one
monitor
that's
19
located
in
an
urbanized
area
with
a
minimum
population
20
of
100,000
people
and
that
has
measured
a
violation
of
21
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
based
on
the
most
recent
three
22
years
of
data.
23
In
the
second
rule,
we're
proposing
24
revisions
to
the
ambient
air
monitoring
requirements
for
25
225
criteria
pollutants,
and
these
changes
would
support
1
proposed
revisions
to
the
NAAQS,
National
Ambient
Air
2
Quality
Standard,
for
particulate
matter,
including
new
3
minimum
monitoring
network
requirements
for
inhalable
4
coarse
particles,
PM10­
2.5,
and
criteria
for
5
improving
applicable
sampling
methods.
These
proposed
6
changes
would
establish
a
new
nationwide
network
of
7
monitoring
stations
that
take
an
integrated,
8
multi­
pollutant
approach
to
ambient
air
monitoring
in
9
support
of
multiple
objectives.
The
proposed
amendments
10
would
modify
the
current
requirements
for
ambient
11
monitors
by
focusing
those
requirements
on
populated
12
areas
with
air
quality
problems,
and
the
purpose
of
this
13
is
to
enhance
air
quality
monitoring
to
better
serve
14
current
and
future
air
quality
management
and
research
15
needs.
16
And,
again,
more
about
all
of
this
in
detail
17
on
materials
you
can
find
out
there
or
on
the
proposal
18
itself.
19
Let's
talk
about
how
we're
going
to
proceed
20
here
in
the
comment
portion
of
today's
hearing.
This
21
hearing
is
one
of
three
public
hearings
that
we're
22
holding
across
the
country
today
in
San
Francisco,
23
California,
in
Chicago,
Illinois
and
here
in
24
Philadelphia.
We'll
be
preparing
a
written
transcript
25
226
of
each
hearing.
We
have
a
court
reporter
who
is
taking
1
down
everything
that's
said.
And
we'll
put
that
in
the
2
rule
making
docket.
We're
also
accepting
written
3
comments
for
the
two
proposed
rules
until
April
17,
2006.
4
We
have
a
handout
available,
again,
in
the
registration
5
area
with
detailed
information
on
how
to
submit
those
6
written
comments
and
to
where.
7
At
this
time,
I
want
to
outline
exactly
how
8
we're
going
to
work
this
afternoon.
I'm
going
to
call
9
scheduled
speakers
in
pairs.
We
call
these
pairs
10
panels,
even
if
you're
unrelated.
And
we
want
the
11
speaker
first
to
state
their
name
and
affiliation.
It
12
will
help
the
court
reporter
if
you
also
spell
your
13
name.
14
In
order
to
be
fair
to
everyone,
we're
15
asking
you
to
limit
your
testimony
to
five
minutes
each.
16
In
the
morning,
folks
had
an
exemplary
performance
in
17
stopping
when
the
red
light
came
on.
If
you
could
18
please
pay
attention
to
that
in
fairness
to
them
because
19
they
stopped.
So
after
you
finish
your
testimony,
a
20
panel
member
may
ask
for
clarifying
questions
about
your
21
testimony,
and
as
I
mentioned
we're
transcribing
today's
22
hearing
and
each
speaker
that
will
testify
will
become
23
part
of
the
official
record.
Please
be
sure
to
give
a
24
copy
of
any
written
comments
to
the
staff
at
the
25
227
registration
table,
and
we'll
put
the
full
text
of
your
1
written
comments
in
the
docket
for
you.
2
We
have
a
time
keeping
system
consisting
of
3
green
yellow
and
red
lights.
The
yellow
light
will
4
signal
when
you
have
two
minutes
to
left
to
speak.
5
We'll
ask
that
you
to
stop
speaking
when
the
red
light
6
comes
on.
We've
got
a
fairly
full
schedule
of
speakers
7
already.
We
intend
to
stay
in
the
evening
until
8
everyone
has
an
opportunity
to
comment.
It
certainly
9
looks
like
no
obstacle
at
this
point.
If
you
would
like
10
to
testify
but
haven't
registered
to
do
so,
please
sign
11
up
at
the
registration
table.
For
those
who
have
12
already
registered
to
speak,
we've
tried
to
accommodate
13
your
requests
for
specific
time
slots.
We
ask
for
your
14
patience
as
we
proceed
through
the
list.
We
may
need
to
15
make
some
minor
adjustments
as
the
day
progresses.
16
Now,
I'd
like
to
introduce
the
EPA
17
representatives
on
our
panel.
To
my
right,
Judy
Katz,
18
the
Director
of
the
Air
Protection
Division,
Region
3;
19
Steve
Silverman,
of
the
Office
of
General
Counsel;
to
my
20
left,
Phil
Lorang,
with
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
21
Planning
and
Standards'
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Group;
22
and
Beth
Hassett­
Sipple,
with
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
23
Planning
and
Standards'
Ambient
Standards
Group.
Thank
24
you
all
again
for
participating
today.
25
228
We'll
get
started
with
our
first
panel
which
1
is
George
Thurston
and
Nathan
Willcox.
2
DR.
THURSTON:
Good
afternoon.
The
adverse
3
health
consequences
of
particulate
matter
are
serious
4
and
well
documented.
This
documentation
includes
5
impacts
demonstrated
by
controlled
chamber
exposures
and
6
by
observational
epidemiology
studies
showing
consistent
7
associations
between
this
pollutant
and
adverse
impacts
8
across
a
wide
range
of
human
health
outcomes.
9
Unfortunately,
the
implementation
of
the
NAAQS
standard
10
proposed
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
on
January
17,
will
fail
to
11
provide
sufficient
public
health
protection
to
the
12
American
people,
as
is
called
for
by
the
Clean
Air
Act,
13
and
as
indicated
is
necessary
by
the
latest
air
14
pollution
health
effects
science.
15
Observational
epidemiology
studies
have
16
shown
compelling
and
consistent
evidence
of
adverse
17
effects
by
PM,
including
decrease
lung
function,
more
18
frequent
respiratory
symptoms,
increased
numbers
of
19
asthma
attacks,
more
frequent
emergency
department
20
visits,
additional
hospital
admissions,
and
increased
21
numbers
of
deaths.
22
The
state
of
science
on
particulate
matter
23
and
health
has
undergone
thorough
review,
as
reflected
24
in
the
recently
released
EPA
Criteria
Document
for
25
229
Particulate
Matter;
I
was
a
contributing
author
to
that
1
document.
Since
the
fine
particle
standard
was
set
in
2
1997,
the
hundreds
of
new
published
studies,
taken
3
together,
robustly
confirm
the
relationship
between
4
PM2.5
pollution
and
severe
adverse
human
health
effects.
5
In
addition,
the
new
research
has
eliminated
many
of
the
6
concerns
that
were
raised
in
the
past
regarding
the
7
causality
of
the
PM
health
effects
relationship
and
has
8
provided
plausible
biological
mechanisms
for
the
serious
9
impacts
associated
by
studies
with
PM
exposure.
10
In
my
own
research
I
found
that
both
ozone
11
and
particulate
matter
air
pollution
are
associated
with
12
increased
numbers
of
respiratory
hospital
admissions
in
13
New
York
City,
Buffalo,
Toronto,
and
even
at
levels
14
below
the
present
standards.
These
results
have
been
15
confirmed
by
other
researchers
considering
locales
16
elsewhere
in
the
nation
and
throughout
the
world,
as
17
documented
in
the
most
recent
PM
Criteria
document,
18
which
was
prepared
by
the
EPA
staff
and
reviewed
by
the
19
EPA's
independent
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
20
Committee.
Furthermore,
I
was
Principal
Investigator
of
21
an
NIH
funded
research
grant
that
showed,
in
an
article
22
published
in
the
Journal
of
the
American
Medical
23
Association,
JAMA,
that
long­
term
exposure
to
24
particulate
matter
air
pollution
is
associated
with
an
25
230
increased
risk
of
death
from
cardio­
pulmonary
disease
1
and
lung
cancer,
as
displayed
in
Figure
1
of
my
2
testimony.
In
fact,
the
increased
risk
of
lung
cancer
3
from
air
pollution
in
polluted
U.
S.
cities,
like
4
Philadelphia,
was
found
in
this
study
to
be
comparable
5
to
the
lung
cancer
risk
of
a
non­
smoker
living
with
a
6
smoker.
But,
of
course,
you
don't
have
a
choice
whether
7
to
breathe
the
air
in
the
city
you
live.
You
have
a
8
choice
whether
to
live
with
a
smoker
or
not,
but
not
9
whether
to
breathe
the
air.
Thus,
the
health
benefits
10
to
the
U.
S.
public
of
reducing
long­
term
exposures
to
11
particulate
matter
can
be
substantial.
But
the
January
12
2006
EPA
proposal
ignores
this
new
science
and
ignores
13
the
sound
scientific
advice
of
it's
own
CASAC
panel
of
14
scientists.
The
EPA
NAAQS
proposal
therefore
also
fails
15
to
sufficiently
protect
the
U.
S.
public
from
this
16
serious
health
risk.
17
Of
particular
concern
is
the
fact
that
the
18
EPA
Administrator
has
ignored
new
information
regarding
19
the
increased
risk
of
lung
cancer
and
cardio­
pulmonary
20
mortality.
For
example,
new
scientific
documentation,
21
from
both
epidemiological
studies,
such
as
the
JAMA
22
paper,
and
toxicological
studies,
such
as
the
recent
23
JAMA
article
showing
increased
accumulation
of
plaque
in
24
the
heart's
of
mice
as
a
result
of
long­
term
PM
exposure
25
231
are
effectively
ignored
by
the
Administrator.
1
The
Administrator
has
instead
chosen
to
2
raise
and
over­
emphasize
certain
scientific
issues
in
3
the
preamble
in
order
to
support
his
inaction
on
the
4
issue
of
protecting
public
health
from
the
dangers
of
5
long­
term
PM
air
pollution
exposure.
For
example,
the
6
preamble
to
this
decision
raises
issues
of
education
and
7
sulfur
dioxide
in
the
JAMA
study
that
I
was
an
author
8
of.
These
comments
in
the
preamble
do
not
represent
a
9
full
and
balanced
consideration
of
all
the
facts.
10
Indeed,
when
the
HEI
Reanalysis
of
the
ACS
data
reported
11
these
associations,
they
also
noted
that.
"
The
12
Reanalysis
Team
concludes
that
this
modifying
effect
is
13
not
necessarily
attributable
to
education
per
se,
but
14
could
indicate
that
education
is
a
marker
for
a
more
15
complex
set
of
socioeconomic
variables
that
impact
upon
16
the
level
of
risk."
The
Pope
et
al.
study
does
correct
17
for
these
issues
through
the
inclusion
of
education.
18
Similarly,
the
HEI
report
also
notes
that
the
SO2
19
association
with
mortality
was
unlikely
to
be
causal,
20
but
was
more
likely
to
be
a
marker
of
another
component
21
of
air
pollution
stating,
"
The
absence
of
a
plausible
22
toxicological
mechanism
by
which
sulfur
dioxide
could
23
lead
to
increased
mortality
further
suggests
that
it
24
might
be
acting
as
a
marker
for
other
25
232
mortality­
associated
pollutants."
Based
on
my
own
1
recent
analysis,
it's
apparent
to
me
that
SO2
is
working
2
as
a
marker
for
coal
combustion
fine
particles
in
this
3
data
set.
However,
the
HEI
Reanalysis
report's
4
clarifying
statements
are
ignored
by
the
administrator.
5
In
no
way
do
these
factors,
fully
considered,
take
away
6
from
the
scientific
evidence,
both
from
the
ACS
and
7
other
studies
that
long­
term
exposure
to
PM2.5
­­
8
MR.
BACHMANN:
Dr.
Thurston
you're
out
of
9
time.
10
DR.
THURSTON:
Okay.
I've
got
to
wrap
up.
11
MR.
BACHMANN:
No.
We're
real
strict
about
12
it.
People
this
morning
had
to
do
that.
The
other
13
thing
is
you
didn't
use
up
enough
time,
really,
to
make
14
sure
you
state
your
name,
spell
it,
and
your
15
affiliation.
16
DR.
THURSTON:
That's
unfortunate.
My
name
17
is
George
Thurston
and
I'm
on
the
faculty
at
the
NYU
18
School
of
Medicine.
I
just
want
to
say
that
to
me
this
19
is
not
just
standard
­­
20
MR.
BACHMANN:
Please
understand
that
21
everyone
gets
the
same
amount
of
time.
22
Mr.
Willcox.
23
MR.
WILLCOX:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
24
Nathan
Willcox,
W­
I­
L­
L­
C­
O­
X.
I'm
the
energy
and
clean
25
233
air
advocate
with
PennEnvironment.
PennEnvironment
is
a
1
statewide
non­
profit
and
non­
partisan
environmental
2
advocacy
organization
with
more
than
18,000
citizen
3
members
across
Pennsylvania.
Thank
you
for
giving
me
4
the
opportunity
to
testify
today.
I
am
here
to
urge
you
5
to
heed
the
scientific
community
and
protect
public
6
health
by
substantially
strengthening
the
air
quality
7
standards
for
fine
particular
soot
pollution.
8
Fine
particular
soot
is
the
nation's
9
deadliest
air
pollutant
and
one
of
its
most
pervasive.
10
Fine
particles
can
lodge
deep
in
the
lungs
or
even
enter
11
the
bloodstream,
causing
serious
respiratory
and
12
cardiovascular
problems
such
as
asthma
attacks,
heart
13
attacks,
lung
cancer,
and
strokes.
These
small
14
particles
are
so
dangerous
that
they
cause
tens
of
15
thousands
of
premature
deaths
every
year,
cutting
off
16
the
lives
of
victims
by
an
average
of
14
years,
17
according
to
one
EPA
estimate.
Combustion
sources
such
18
as
coal­
fired
power
plants
and
diesel
engines
are
the
19
largest
source
of
fine
particles,
which
can
fall
close
20
to
home
or
travel
thousands
of
miles
through
the
air.
21
While
air
quality
has
improved
in
the
U.
S.
22
since
the
inception
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
in
1970,
by
the
23
by
the
EPA's
own
account,
88
million
Americans
still
24
live
in
areas
with
unsafe
levels
of
soot
pollution.
In
25
234
our
own
recent
survey
of
state
environmental
agencies,
1
we
found
that
fine
particle
levels
exceeded
national
air
2
quality
standards
for
soot
in
nearly
half
the
states,
3
including
Pennsylvania.
In
fact,
in
2004,
Pennsylvania
4
ranked
2nd
in
the
nation
for
the
worst
annual
soot
5
pollution
among
states,
with
Pittsburgh
and
Philadelphia
6
ranking
2nd
and
16th
respectively
for
the
worst
annual
7
soot
pollution
among
major
metropolitan
areas.
What
8
this
means
is
that
these
areas
were
polluted
year
round,
9
with
sensitive
groups
such
as
senior
citizens,
children
10
with
asthma,
and
people
with
heart
and
lung
disease
11
suffering
the
most.
12
Incredibly,
despite
the
magnitude
of
the
13
health
risks
from
fine
particles,
we
had
no
national
air
14
quality
standards
for
fine
particle
soot
pollution
until
15
1997.
Today,
we
are
still
operating
under
the
same
16
annual
and
daily
standards
that
the
EPA
adopted
then,
17
standards
intended
to
establish
how
much
soot
is
safe
to
18
breathe
on
a
regular
basis
and
on
any
one
given
day.
19
Unfortunately,
the
levels
at
which
both
the
20
annual
and
daily
standards
were
set
are
far
too
weak
to
21
protect
public
health.
Numerous
studies
have
shown
that
22
fine
particle
exposure,
whether
long­
term
or
short­
term,
23
has
devastating
health
effects
even
at
levels
well
below
24
the
current
standards.
And
the
more
we
learn
about
the
25
235
health
effects
of
soot,
the
more
we
realize
the
severity
1
of
the
threat.
For
instance,
a
major
study
published
2
just
last
November
found
that
the
chronic
health
effects
3
of
fine
particles
are
two
to
three
times
greater
than
4
previously
believed
and
that
for
each
increase
of
10
5
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
fine
particles
in
the
air,
6
the
risk
of
death
from
any
cause
rose
by
11
to
17
7
percent.
8
Such
knowledge
demands
action.
And
so
does
9
the
law.
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
EPA
must
set
air
10
quality
standards
to
protect
public
health,
including
11
the
health
of
sensitive
groups,
with
an
adequate
margin
12
of
safety.
The
agency
must
also
review
air
quality
13
standards
every
five
years
to
ensure
that
they
reflect
14
the
latest
scientific
knowledge
and
update
the
standards
15
as
needed.
16
Last
year,
both
the
EPA's
staff
scientists
17
and
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
the
18
administration's
independent
science
advisors
on
air
19
pollution
issues,
concluded
that
the
current
fine
20
particle
standards
are
too
weak
to
protect
public
21
health.
As
a
result,
they
recommended
that
the
22
administration
strengthen
the
standards.
The
medical
23
and
scientific
communities
both
endorsed
the
strongest
24
standards
within
the
EPA's
recommended
ranges:
12
25
236
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
annual
standard
and
1
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
daily
standard.
2
Regrettably,
despite
having
acknowledged
3
that
soot
pollution
is
our
most
pressing
air
quality
4
problem,
the
administration
has
chosen
to
disregard
the
5
advice
of
its
own
scientific
advisors.
In
the
face
of
6
overwhelming
evidence
of
the
harmful
effects
of
fine
7
particles,
it
has
proposed
no
change
whatsoever
to
the
8
annual
standard
and
only
a
limited
reduction
in
the
9
daily
standard,
a
reduction
that
will
have
little
impact
10
on
public
health.
In
short,
it
has
opted
to
largely
11
maintain
the
status
quo,
under
pressure
from
power
12
companies
and
other
influential
special
interests
and
at
13
the
expense
of
public
health.
14
I
am
extremely
disappointed
in
the
15
administration's
proposal,
which
puts
politics
over
16
science
and
the
law,
leaving
millions
of
Americans
to
17
suffer
the
consequences.
But
it
is
not
too
late
to
18
change
the
course.
19
If
the
administration
is
serious
about
20
fighting
soot
pollution,
it
must
adopt
strong,
21
health­
protective
standards.
I
urge
the
administration
22
to
heed
the
science
and
adopt
an
annual
standard
no
23
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
daily
24
standard
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
25
237
Air
qualities
standards
are
the
foundation
for
reducing
1
air
pollution
nationwide,
so
this
decision
is
one
of
the
2
most
important
decisions
this
administration
will
make
3
on
air
pollution
issues.
4
MR.
BACHMANN:
I
have
a
question
for
Dr.
5
Thurston.
You
mentioned
the
SO2
marker
issue
and
that
6
you
had
done
work
subsequently
that
has
convinced
you
7
fine
particles
­­
I'm
fairly
familiar
with
a
lot
of
the
8
literature
­­
what
specifically,
what
paper
9
specifically?
10
DR.
THURSTON:
This
work
that
I
am
11
presenting
at
the
ISE
meeting
this
fall
so
it's
not
yet
12
published.
13
MR.
BACHMANN:
Fair
enough.
14
MR.
SILVERMAN:
One
question
for
Dr.
15
Thurston.
A
commenter
this
morning
mentioned
your
1994
16
study
and
cited
it
as
an
example
of
no
causal
link
to
17
exposure
to
coarse
particulate,
and
I
was
wondering
if
18
you
agree
with
that
type
of
characterization.
19
DR.
THURSTON:
No,
I
wouldn't
agree
with
20
that.
I
would
say
we
were
unable
to
find
a
statistical
21
association.
This
is
probably
the
Toronto
study?
Yeah,
22
we
were
unable
to
find
a
statistical
association
within
23
that
data
set.
We
were
looking
at
asthma,
and
it
may
be
24
particular
to
that,
but
I
think,
you
know,
a
lot
of
25
238
times
it's
just
a
question
of
having
enough
power.
So
1
that
you
can't
­­
if
one
study
doesn't
find
a
2
statistical
association,
it
doesn't
mean
there
isn't
one
3
there.
It
might
mean
that
the
study
didn't
have
enough
4
power
to
detect
it.
So
I
certainly
would
not
conclude
5
that
from
that
study.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
The
next
panel
is
7
Reverend
Sandra
Strauss
and
Mr.
Ajama
Kitwana.
8
REV.
STRAUSS:
I'm
Reverend
Sandra
Strauss,
9
S­
T­
R­
A­
U­
S­
S,
and
I'm
the
Director
of
Public
Advocacy
10
for
the
Pennsylvania
Council
of
Churches.
As
an
11
organization
made
up
of
43
member
bodies
representing
20
12
Anglican,
Orthodox,
and
Protestant
communions,
we
13
represent
thousands
of
persons
of
faith
throughout
the
14
Commonwealth.
I'm
here
to
testify
today
because
this
is
15
an
issue
of
significant
concern
to
the
Council's
16
constituents.
17
As
stated
in
the
Council's
Principles
for
18
Public
Advocacy,
we
believe
that
in
a
healthy
society,
19
the
well­
being
of
all
is
a
priority.
We
believe
the
20
current
proposed
standards
for
particle
pollution
do
not
21
make
protecting
the
health
and
well­
being
of
all
people
22
a
priority.
23
Particle
pollution
is
known
to
present
a
24
serious
health
threat
to
tens
of
thousands,
if
not
25
239
millions,
of
Americans.
Research
by
EPA
scientists
has
1
already
concluded
that
we
need
stronger
standards
if
we
2
truly
desire
to
protect
public
health,
with
research
3
indicating
that
many
people
suffer
ill
effects
from
4
particle
pollution
at
levels
far
below
the
current
5
standard.
The
impacts
on
elderly
persons,
children
with
6
asthma,
and
people
with
heart
and
lung
disease
is
even
7
greater
than
for
the
average
person.
We
are
concerned
8
that
the
proposed
standards
ignore
the
vulnerability
of
9
some
Americans.
10
In
addition,
proposed
lower
standards
for
11
coarse
particle
pollution
are
limited
to
urban
areas
and
12
exempt
agriculture
and
mining
operations
from
the
lower
13
standard.
This
proposal
will
threaten
the
health
of
14
many
more
Americans
by
imposing
disproportionate
15
standards
that
result
in
greater
levels
of
exposure
16
based
on
where
people
live.
17
We're
disturbed
that
the
EPA,
despite
it's
18
own
research
and
recommendations
to
the
contrary,
would
19
bow
to
the
demands
of
the
current
administration,
20
demands
that
are
fueled
by
the
lobbying
efforts
of
21
special
interests.
This
catering
to
special
interests
22
is
indicative
of
a
kind
of
politics
that
places
the
23
interests
of
business
and
profits
over
the
health
and
24
welfare
of
individuals.
We
have
a
strong
moral
25
240
obligation
to
set
standards
that
protect
all
people.
1
The
proposed
standards,
we
believe,
do
not.
It
is
2
simply
wrong
to
sacrifice
the
health
of
our
most
3
vulnerable
citizens,
those
who
live
in
the
"
wrong"
4
places,
and
those
who
work
in
industries
that
are
5
exempt.
We
have
the
legal
obligation
as
well.
Our
6
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
air
quality
standards
be
set
7
at
levels
that
protect
public
health,
and
that
these
8
standards
must
be
uniform,
not
favoring
some
people
or
9
places
or
industries
over
others.
Staying
at
status
quo
10
in
light
of
our
greater
knowledge
concerning
the
health
11
effects
of
particle
pollution
violates
the
law
and
is
12
immoral.
13
We
believe
in
a
society
that
works
for
the
14
wholeness
of
all
people.
Wholeness
is
achieved
when
15
persons
know
themselves
to
be
worthy
of
respect
simply
16
because
they
are,
each
one,
made
in
the
image
of
God.
17
These
proposed
standards
do
not
respect
the
worth
of
all
18
Americans,
and
place
greater
value
on
some
than
others.
19
Value
should
not
be
based
on
monetary
worth
or
power
of
20
position,
upon
abilities
or
disabilities
or
upon
21
particular
demographic
characteristics,
but
rather
upon
22
each
person
being
part
of
the
human
family.
23
We
respectfully
call
upon
the
EPA
to
follow
24
the
recommendations
of
its
own
scientists,
rather
than
25
241
bow
to
the
demands
of
the
administration.
We
ask
that
1
the
EPA
strengthen
the
particle
pollution
standards
to
2
treat
all
Americans
fairly
and
equally,
providing
3
greater
protection
for
the
health
and
welfare
of
all
4
people.
Thank
you.
5
MR.
BACHMANN:
Mr.
Kitwana.
6
MR.
KITWANA:
Greetings.
My
name
is
Ajamu
7
Kitwana,
A­
J­
A­
M­
U
K­
I­
T­
W­
A­
N­
A.
I'm
speaking
on
8
behalf
Youth
Ministries
for
Peace
and
Justice,
a
youth
9
and
community
organization
in
the
South
Bronx
in
New
10
York.
At
Youth
Ministries
we
have
dedicated
over
a
11
decade
of
work
to
fighting
the
toxic
legacies
of
12
industries
and
highways
that
overburden
our
community.
13
Our
struggle
has
been
to
provide
a
safe
environment
for
14
our
young
people
to
grow
up
without
the
eminent
threat
15
of
disease
and
illness
solely
because
of
where
they
were
16
born
and
where
their
families
can
afford
to
live.
We
17
rely
on
the
EPA
to
support
us
by
ensuring
that
those
18
that
may
pollute
our
living
environment
exercise
the
19
restraint
necessary
to
prevent
endangering
American
20
children.
21
Unfortunately,
the
proposed
national
air
22
quality
standards
would
be
no
help
to
us
in
our
efforts
23
to
make
the
South
Bronx
environment
safe.
I
strongly
24
encourage
the
EPA
to
reduce
the
24­
hour
standard
for
25
242
fines
to
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
At
35,
the
1
current
levels
that
cause
the
South
Bronx
to
have
the
2
highest
asthma
rates
in
the
country
are
unacceptable.
3
In
the
neighborhood
we
serve,
studies
have
shown
that
4
one
in
four
children
have
been
diagnosed
with
asthma.
5
With
the
standard
as
proposed
by
the
EPA,
the
EPA
is
6
telling
us
that
this
is
okay.
People
stigmatize
our
7
community
as
being
violent,
but
far
more
of
our
8
citizens,
youth
and
adults,
are
hospitalized
by
asthma
9
and
other
respiratory
diseases
than
any
form
of
10
violence.
The
standards
that
the
EPA
has
proposed
say
11
that
this
air
pollution
violence
is
acceptable.
I
know
12
adults
that
have
recently
moved
to
the
South
Bronx
and
13
within
months
they
have
newly
developed
asthma
or
signs
14
of
respiratory
complications.
The
standards
currently
15
proposed
would
make
this
fate
possible
all
over
the
16
United
States.
17
In
the
South
Bronx
we
are
fighting
to
save
18
our
families
from
environmental
toxins
that
have
plagued
19
our
communities
for
generations.
We
rely
on
the
20
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
support
us
in
that
21
fight.
You
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
by
setting
a
22
24­
hour
standard
for
fines
at
or
below
25
micrograms
per
23
cubic
meter
and
an
annual
standard
at
or
below
12
24
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
At
the
proposed
standards
25
243
of
35
and
15,
you,
the
EPA,
tell
us
in
the
South
Bronx
1
that
the
asthma
and
respiratory
diseases
that
threaten
2
our
lives
and
our
families
at
inordinate
rates
is
okay.
3
And
you
tell
every
citizen
of
the
United
States
that
you
4
don't
care
if
they
suffer
the
same
fate.
5
Well
I,
Youth
Ministries
for
Peace
and
6
Justice
and
the
citizens
of
the
South
Bronx
that
stand
7
with
me
daily
to
fight
asthma
and
environmental
8
injustice
say
that
our
current
air
quality
levels
are
9
from
okay.
We
urge
you
to
set
the
24­
hour
and
annual
10
standards
at
25
and
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
11
respectively.
Thank
you.
12
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
both
for
your
13
comments.
Next
panel
is
Mr.
Rich
Raiders
and
Ms.
14
Yolanda
Gonzalez.
15
MR.
RAIDERS:
My
name
is
Rich
Raiders,
16
R­
A­
I­
D­
E­
R­
S.
I'm
with
Arkema
Incorporated,
17
A­
R­
K­
E­
M­
A.
I'm
here
speaking
to
you
on
behalf
of
the
18
American
Chemistry
Council.
We
believe
that
EPA
and
the
19
states
should
fully
implement
the
existing
fine
20
particulate
standard
before
adopting
any
tighter
21
standards
such
as
those
proposed
on
January
17th,
2006.
22
EPA's
existing
fine
particulate
standard,
through
a
23
series
of
significant
emission
control
programs,
will
24
continue
to
provide
necessary
protection
of
public
25
244
health
as
EPA
improves
their
understanding
of
fine
1
particulate
emissions.
At
this
time,
we
do
not
believe
2
the
scientific
evidence
supports
further
tightening
of
3
the
PM2.5
standard.
4
ACC
members
understand
and
value
the
5
importance
of
clean
air
and
we
support
protecting
public
6
health
and
the
environment
as
demonstrated
by
the
7
industry's
significant
and
continued
progress
in
8
reducing
our
emissions.
Since
1988,
ACC
companies
and
9
the
broader
business
of
chemistry
have
reduced
air
toxic
10
emissions
by
75
percent,
nitrogen
oxide
by
62
percent,
11
volatile
organic
compounds
by
78
percent,
and
fine
12
particulate
emissions
are
down
34
percent.
13
More
broadly,
the
nation's
air
quality
has
14
significantly
improved
and
continues
to
improve
with
new
15
programs
being
implemented,
all
while
our
economy
16
continues
to
grow.
17
Between
1970
and
2004,
U.
S.
gross
domestic
18
product
increased
187
percent,
vehicle
miles
traveled
19
increased
by
171
percent,
energy
consumption
increased
20
by
47
percent,
and
the
U.
S.
population
grew
by
40
21
percent.
During
the
same
time
period,
total
emissions
22
of
the
six
principal
air
pollutants
dropped
by
54
23
percent.
24
These
emissions
reductions
were
driven
25
245
primarily
by
several
EPA
rulemakings.
These
rulemakings
1
will
continue
to
be
implemented
over
the
next
ten
years,
2
and
include
the
variety
of
Maximum
Achievable
Control
3
Technology
standards
still
being
issued
by
EPA,
the
2007
4
Clean
Diesel
Truck
and
Bus
Rule,
and
the
Clean
Air
5
Interstate
Rule.
The
Clean
Diesel
Truck
and
Bus
Rule
6
will
result
in
diesel
emissions
from
cars
and
trucks
7
being
95
percent
cleaner
than
today's
models
for
8
smog­
causing
emissions
and
90
percent
cleaner
for
9
particulate
matter.
CAIR,
which
covers
29
eastern
10
states,
will
cut
SO2
emissions
by
more
than
40
percent
11
from
today's
levels
by
2010,
and
NOx
emissions
will
be
12
cut
by
50
percent
from
today's
levels
by
2010.
13
We
believe
that
EPA
state
and
industry
14
resources
are
already
being
stressed
by
these
emission
15
reduction
programs,
especially
in
the
Northeast
Corridor
16
and
the
Houston/
Galveston
air
shed,
areas
where
ACC
17
members
have
significant
operations.
Adopting
new,
18
tighter
standards
for
fine
particulates
when
19
implementation
of
the
existing
PM2.5
standards
are
20
barely
underway
will
be
confusing
and
detrimental
to
21
achieving
fine
particulate
standard
attainment
as
states
22
struggle
to
meet
their
current
obligations.
23
States
are
just
beginning
to
design
and
24
implement
emissions
reductions
tools
to
reach
the
25
246
current
PM2.5
standard
that
has
significant
deadlines
1
looming.
EPA
and
the
states
are
still
debating
rules
2
and
guidance
instructing
states
how
to
meet
the
current
3
PM2.5
standards.
States
must
submit
attainment
plans
4
for
current
PM2.5
standard
by
April
of
2008.
5
Preliminary
modeling
conducted
by
EPA
to
support
the
6
CAIR
rulemaking
indicates
that
much
of
the
Northeast
7
Corridor
may
not
meet
the
PM2.5
standard
that
the
sates
8
are
just
now
implementing,
even
with
the
extensive
9
emission
reductions
that
EPA
has
already
required.
10
EPA
should
allow
states
to
focus
on
fully
11
attaining
the
current
standards
before
making
the
states
12
plan
for
different
targets
with
different
deadlines.
In
13
the
Northeast
Corridor,
EPA
may
also
need
to
require
14
additional
emissions
reductions
from
economic
sectors
15
where
state­
level
controls
may
not
be
enough
for
the
16
states
to
show
attainment
in
all
areas.
While
the
17
current
standards
are
being
achieved,
EPA
could
focus
18
more
on
health
risks
associated
with
particulate
matter
19
and
develop
an
understanding
of
what
part
of
the
PM2.5
20
constituents
may
be
contributing
to
adverse
health
21
effects.
Further
data
collection
and
study
will
allow
22
EPA
to
make
a
scientifically
sound
and
better
informed
23
decision
on
whether
further
action
is
needed.
24
Last
thing
I
want
to
mention,
the
increase
25
247
of
energy
costs
and
tightening
of
the
standards.
We've
1
already
seen
first­
hand
the
skyrocketing
cost
of
energy
2
in
this
country,
both
for
automotive
fuel,
as
well
as
3
natural
gas,
which
is
increasingly
being
used
to
heat
4
our
homes
and
fuel
our
electricity
generating
capacity.
5
Today's
proposal
will
increase
the
demands
6
on
our
already
burdened
energy
supply.
The
chemical
7
industry
appreciates
the
balancing
act
that
EPA
must
8
consider
to
maintain
fuel­
neutral
standards
that
would
9
not
cause
coal­
using
industries
to
switch
to
natural
gas
10
and
the
need
to
ensure
that
the
adequate
emissions
11
reductions
are
achieved
by
the
coal­
burning
units
to
12
ensure
attainment
in
the
Northeast
Corridor.
13
In
conclusion,
ACC
recommends
that
EPA
14
retain
the
current
PM2.5
standard
and
not
tighten
15
standards
further
as
proposed
in
January
2006.
16
Implementation
of
the
current
standard
will
continue
to
17
provide
necessary
health
protection
as
EPA
works
to
18
understand
what,
if
any,
additional
actions
might
be
19
warranted
in
the
future.
20
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
The
21
American
Chemistry
Council
will
also
be
submitting
22
detailed
technical
comments
prior
to
April
17th.
23
MS.
GONZALEZ:
Before
I
speak,
I
have
24
PowerPoint
presentation
that
goes
with
this.
While
25
248
that's
being
done
­­
My
name
is
Yolanda
Y­
O­
L­
A­
N­
D­
A
1
G­
O­
N­
Z­
A­
L­
E­
Z.
I
represent
the
organization,
Nos
2
Quedamos.
Good
afternoon
ladies
and
gentlemen.
It
is
3
very
difficult
to
watch
a
person
you
love
suffer
from
4
asthma
throughout
their
short
life.
It
is
extremely
5
difficult
to
watch
a
person
turn
blue,
piece
by
piece,
6
from
lack
of
oxygen
because
their
lungs
are
unable
to
7
intake
the
amount
of
oxygen
needed.
First
their
legs
8
turn
blue,
then
their
arms,
as
their
body
shuts
down
9
parts
unnecessary
for
survival
in
order
to
conserve
10
vital
organs.
Finally,
once
every
piece
of
tissue
and
11
organ
turns
blue
due
to
the
lack
of
oxygen,
even
despite
12
being
hooked
up
to
the
respirator
machines
in
the
13
hospital,
it
is
very
hard
to
watch
the
person
you
love
14
die
before
your
eyes.
This
is
what
happened
to
my
15
brother
Ismael
Gonzalez.
This
is
an
overwhelming
sense
16
of
helplessness
one
feels
and
is
what
fuels
my
17
motivation
for
the
testimony
today.
18
It
is
tremendously
difficult
to
watch
a
19
person
you
love
not
being
able
to
walk
two
blocks
20
without
having
to
stop
to
catch
their
breath.
To
have
21
to
stop
and
walk
and
stop
again
every
couple
of
steps
22
until
they
die.
That
was
what
my
mother
had
to
suffer
23
and
had
to
endure,
Yolanda
Garcia,
with
respiratory
24
difficulties
in
the
South
Bronx.
25
249
Today
the
U.
S.
EPA
is
holding
hearings
on
1
proposed
revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
2
Standards
for
coarse
and
fine
particulate
matter.
These
3
standards
could
encompass
both
short
and
long­
term
4
measurements
of
air
quality
and
the
levels
at
which
5
particulates
in
the
air
are
measured.
The
importance
of
6
these
standards
is
that
they
measure
the
air
quality
of
7
air
and
individuals
will
breathe
in
their
whole
entire
8
life.
These
need
to
be
standards
of
lower
emissions
and
9
better
air
monitoring
so
we
can
all
breathe
without
10
devastating
consequences.
11
Hundreds
of
thousands
of
families
are
in
12
that
same
situation
everyday.
People
are
dying
due
to
13
the
lack
of
clean
air
and
barely
cling
onto
life
because
14
of
diminished
lung
function.
The
asthma
rate
of
the
15
South
Bronx
pollution
is
over
17
percent
higher
than
the
16
national
average
and
climbing
in
alarming
rates.
Asthma
17
attacks
are
increasing
in
families
who
have
never
had
18
asthma
before.
Some
families
have
an
occurrence
of
over
19
50
percent
of
their
family
members
who
have
asthma.
20
Many
scientific
studies
have
found
an
21
association
between
being
exposed
to
particulate
matter
22
and
the
series
of
significant
problems,
including:
23
aggravated
asthma,
chronic
bronchitis,
reduced
lung
24
function,
irregular
heartbeat,
enlarged
heart,
heart
25
250
attacks,
and
can
lead
to
premature
death
in
people
with
1
lung
and
heart
disease.
2
I
support
the
proposed
short­
term
changes
so
3
that
the
area
would
meet
the
24­
hour
standards
of
99th
4
percentile
of
24­
hour
of
the
PM2.5
concentration
in
a
5
year
within
the
community
basis
for
fine
particulate
6
matter
is
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
rather
than
the
7
current
65
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
Particulate
8
matter
should
be
measured
at
2.5
at
the
fine
point,
not
9
at
the
coarse
point.
This
is
the
difference
between
10
attainable
and
non­
attainable
air
for
the
threshold
of
11
our
area.
12
New
York
City
now
has
population
at
8
13
million
people.
Nearly
700,000
people,
the
equivalent
14
of
the
entire
city
of
Boston,
moved
to
New
York
in
the
15
1990s.
The
population
growth
has
not
slowed
down.
16
Currently
our
community
in
the
Bronx
consists
of
1.3
17
million
people.
It
makes
the
seventh
largest
city
in
18
the
United
States
if
it
stood
alone.
It
also
counts
for
19
the
largest
concentration
of
city
power
plants,
20
transformer
stations,
waste
facilities,
and
other
21
noxious
uses.
The
rate
of
asthma
and
conditions
related
22
to
the
lung
and
heart
diseases
are
significantly
higher
23
than
the
national
average.
24
The
situation
I
described
before,
the
25
251
devastating
effects
of
living
with
and
losing
loved
ones
1
to
asthma,
affects
hundreds
of
thousands
of
families
on
2
a
daily
basis.
People
are
forced
to
suffer
because
they
3
are
deprived
something
of
the
basics
as
clean
air
and
a
4
cleaner
environment.
This
disproportionately
affects
5
the
poor
and
minority
members
of
our
society,
the
people
6
less
able,
for
one
reason
or
another,
to
help
7
themselves.
Rates
of
asthma
in
New
York
City
as
a
whole
8
are
above
the
national
averages.
Rates
in
the
South
9
Bronx
still
comprise
of
some
of
our
nation's
poorest
10
communities,
as
well
as
of
high
proportions
of
minority
11
residents
in
the
five
boroughs.
12
MR.
BACHMANN:
Ms.
Gonzalez,
we're
out
of
13
time.
Any
questions?
14
MR.
SILVERMAN:
One
question
for
15
Mr.
Raiders.
I'm
curious
what
your
technical
basis
16
would
be
for
leaving
the
24­
hour
fine
PM
standard
at
65
17
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
How
does
that
requisite
to
18
protect
human
health
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety?
19
MR.
RAIDERS:
There's
a
big
question
for
us
20
as
to
which
particulate
matter
is
driving
the
health
21
risks
and
we
are
not
sure
that,
based
on
the
science
22
that
we've
seen,
whether
we
know
enough
yet
to
justify
23
which
reductions
are
necessary
to
protect
it,
because
a
24
lot
of
the
studies
we
see
can
be
interpreted
several
25
252
different
ways
and
we're
still
looking
for
guidance
from
1
the
toxicology
community.
So
we're
still
waiting
to
see
2
what
might
be
the
case
with
this,
because
until
we
see
3
further
information
we're
not
sure.
4
MR.
SILVERMAN:
And
you
address
that
in
your
5
technical
comments?
6
MR.
RAIDERS:
Yes.
7
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
both.
8
The
next
panel
is
Ian
Sturrock
and
Michael
9
Bonds.
10
MR.
STURROCK:
My
name
is
Ian
Sturrock
and
I
11
represent
a
company
called
Mass
Media
Underwriters.
12
We're
also
the
distribution
source
for
some
13
environmental
products.
And
the
reason
I'm
here
is
to,
14
really,
introduce
Michael
Bonds,
who
is
the
president
of
15
a
company
called
Bio
Plus
Fuel
International.
And
we
16
are
­­
we
want
to
introduce
our
new
foundation,
and
our
17
primary
purpose
here
is
a
matter
of
education.
We
want
18
to
make
people
aware
of
the
new
technologies
that
are
19
available
to
reduce
emissions
and
improve
the
20
environment.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over
to
Michael.
21
MR.
BONDS:
Thank
you
Mr.
Sturrock.
My
name
22
is
Michael
Bonds,
Bio
Research
and
Technology
23
Foundation.
We're
thankful
that
you
invited
us
up
today
24
from
Annapolis,
Maryland
to
speak.
25
253
Sometimes
I
feel
a
little
bit
like
John
1
Denver
in
the
movie
"
Oh,
God."
If
you
remember
the
2
message
there,
it
was,
basically,
that
God
gave
us
3
everything
here
that
we
need
to
solve
our
own
problems.
4
We
know
that
the
few
additives
that
are
on
the
current
5
U.
S.
market
are
very
carcinogenic.
They
poison
our
6
water
systems.
They
destroy
livestock
in
our
7
environment.
But
people
say,
well,
what's
out
there?
8
We
just
formed
a
new
foundation;
it's
been
in
existence
9
about
six
months,
the
Bio
Research
and
Technology
10
Foundation.
And
our
company
mission
is
to
go
out
into
11
the
international
markets
and
find
safer
environmental
12
products
that
will
not
do
these
things
that
the
current
13
products
do.
14
Our
company
has
brought,
already,
a
15
non­
toxic
biodegradable
fuel
additive
that's
doing
very
16
well
in
the
U.
S.
market.
We're
also
testing
now
with
17
the
USDA
a
non­
toxic
pesticide,
an
urbacide
and
18
fungicide,
a
non­
toxic
biocide,
and
also
a
non­
toxic
19
food
preservative,
that
have
shown
great
preliminary
20
results.
21
Now,
I
think
there's
a
second
part
to
this
22
and
our
foundation
is
going
to
be
willing
to
put
our
23
money
where
our
mouth
is,
as
the
government
sometimes
is
24
not
willing
to
do,
and
to
implement
some
comprehensive
25
254
educational
program.
I
have
the
unique
opportunity
to
1
travel
all
around
the
world,
and
I
get
a
chance
to
speak
2
to
young
people
a
lot
when
I'm
out
traveling.
And
let
3
me
tell
you
folks,
they
have
no
clue,
whatsoever,
of
4
environmental
issues
or
what's
going
on
with
the
5
environment.
I
think
we'll
all
agree
that
this
is
our
6
future.
And
if
we
don't
begin
now
teaching
the
children
7
about
thinking
outside
the
box
environmentally,
as
8
President
Bush
said,
we
will
be
addicted
to
foreign
oil
9
for
many
generations
to
come.
10
Our
company
is
in
the
starting
up
stages,
11
but
we've
got
a
tremendous
amount
of
response
from
local
12
governments
and
from
private
foundations.
We're
going
13
to
be
around
a
little
while
after
the
meeting
today
if
14
anybody
would
like
to
find
out
more
about
our
products
15
and
our
company,
feel
free
to
give
us
a
shout.
And
you
16
can
also
visit
our
website,
bioplusfuel.
us,
if
you'd
17
like
to
check
us
out.
Thank
you.
18
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
The
next
panel
is
19
Arthur
Frank
and
Barbara
Warren.
20
DR.
FRANK:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
21
Arthur
L.
Frank,
F­
R­
A­
N­
K.
I'm
a
physician.
I
also
22
have
a
PhD
in
biomedical
sciences
and
I
chair
the
23
Department
of
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health,
24
here
in
Philadelphia
at
the
Drexel
University
School
of
25
255
Public
Health.
1
Today
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
American
2
Thoracic
Society.
The
ATS
is
a
medical
professional
3
society
with
over
13
thousand
members
who
are
dedicated
4
to
the
prevention,
diagnosis,
treatment
and
research
of
5
respiratory­
related
diseases.
The
ATS
is
deeply
6
concerned
about
air
pollution,
both
as
an
underlying
7
cause
of
respiratory
illness
and
it's
effects
on
8
exacerbating
existing
respiratory
illnesses.
9
I'm
also
a
representative
of
the
American
10
College
of
Preventative
Medicine,
which,
together
with
11
the
ATS,
has
addressed
the
issues
of
air
pollution.
12
While
the
ATS
will
submit
formal
comments
on
several
13
aspects
of
the
proposed
rule,
I
will
limit
my
comments
14
today
to
the
PM2.5
component
of
the
rule.
The
ATS
is
15
extremely
concerned
that
the
proposed
EPA
standard
for
16
PM2.5
does
not
protect
the
American
public
from
the
17
dangers
of
air
pollution.
We
know
that
the
proposed
EPA
18
standards
do
not
follow
the
recommendations
of
the
Clean
19
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
and
the
ATS
finds
the
20
proposed
standard
to
be
lax
in
both
the
annual
standard
21
and
the
24­
hour
standard
for
particulate
matter.
22
There
is
a
substantial
body
of
evidence
23
showing
that
adverse
health
effects,
in
terms
of
24
morbidity
and
mortality,
at
exposure
levels
below
the
25
256
proposed
standard.
The
new
evidence
is
substantial,
in
1
part
because
Congress
called
for
a
national
research
2
agenda
on
PM
that
was
to
be
developed
by
the
EPA
with
3
guidance
from
a
committee
from
the
National
Research
4
Council.
PM
has
now
been
linked
to
a
broad
range
of
5
adverse
health
effects,
both
respiratory
and
6
cardiovascular
and
epidemiologic
and
toxicologic
7
research.
8
The
diversity
of
effects
may
reflect
the
9
complexity
of
airborne
PM,
which
is
made
up
of
a
rich
10
mixture
of
primary
and
secondary
particles
and
11
combustion
sources,
such
as
vehicles,
power
generations
12
and
industry
are
major
contributors
to
urban
PM.
13
Monitoring
data
showed
that
PM2.5
differ
in
14
concentration
characteristics
across
regions
of
the
15
countries
within
urban
areas
and
by
season.
The
U.
S.
16
median
annual
average
PM2.5
concentration
is
13
17
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
with
a
range
of
4
to
28,
with
18
higher
levels
in
urban
areas
and
in
the
eastern
United
19
States
and
California.
20
Time
series
studies
reported
in
the
early
21
1990s
showed
that
the
day­
to­
day
variation
of
PM
22
concentrations
were
so
suited
with
mortality
counts.
23
These
studies
in
selected
cities
have
now
been
followed
24
by
national
level
time
series
analysis
in
the
United
25
257
States
and
Europe
that
pull
data
from
broad
regions
to
1
produce
national
estimates
of
the
effects
of
PM
on
daily
2
mortality.
For
example,
in
90
U.
S.
cities
the
national
3
morbidity
and
mortality
air
pollution
study
estimated
a
4
0.2
percent
increase
of
all
caused
mortality
per
10
5
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
increase
in
PM10,
and
risk
6
was
highest
in
the
northeast
and
for
cardiovascular
and
7
respiratory
diseases.
8
Findings
of
follow­
up
studies
including,
9
most
notably,
the
Harvard
Six
City
Study
and
the
ACS
10
Cancer
Prevention
Two
Study,
show
that
the
resulting
11
loss
of
life
may
be
substantial.
The
WHO
estimated
that
12
the
inhalation
of
PMs
in
ambient
air
caused
500,000
13
premature
deaths
per
year.
The
time
series
study
show
a
14
linear
relationship
between
PM
concentration
and
the
15
risk
of
concentrations
measured
routinely
in
U.
S.
16
cities.
17
There's
now
a
substantial
parallel
18
literature
on
PM
and
morbidity,
including
a
study
19
published
just
today
in
JAMA,
which
I'm
sure
you've
20
either
heard
about
or
will
see,
pointing
to
the
same
21
kind
of
data
with
morbidity
if
not
mortality.
Since
the
22
1997
PM
NAAQS
there's
been
an
explosion
of
research
on
23
cardiovascular
consequences
of
exposures
to
PM,
24
indicating
both
short­
term
and
long­
term
effects
of
PM
25
258
on
cardiovascular
health.
1
Expanding
toxicological
research
indicates
2
multiple
mechanisms
by
which
PMs
might
cause
disease
and
3
the
evidence
on
cardiovascular
health
effects
is
4
illustrative
the
complexity
of
underlying
pathogenetic
5
mechanisms.
Numerous
studies
have
shown
that
PM
6
exposure
activates
inflammatory
pathways
in
the
7
respiratory
system
through
effects
of
release
of
8
oxidants
and
other
factors.
Experimental
human
9
exposures
show
increases
in
the
number
of
neutrophils
10
and
lavage
fluid.
Direct
installation
of
particles
11
collected
in
an
area
where
smelter
was
a
principal
12
source
of
PM2.5
increased
neutrophils
and
oxygen
species
13
of
lung
lavage.
14
In
healthy
volunteers
and
volunteers
with
15
asthma
diesel
exhaust
particles
increased
airway
16
hyperresponsiveness
to
metacoline
challenge,
airway
17
resistance,
bronchial
tissue
mass
cell,
neutrophil,
and
18
lymphocyte
counts.
19
In
short,
the
existing
evidence
on
the
20
health
effects
of
PM2.5
air
pollution
is
comprehensive
21
and
compelling.
The
EPA
should
adopt
a
stricter
22
standard
­­
23
MR.
BACHMANN:
I'm
sorry;
your
time
is
up.
24
We
have
this
written
testimony?
25
259
DR.
FRANK:
Yes.
Thank
you.
1
MR.
BACHMANN:
Barbara
Warren.
2
MS.
WARREN:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
3
Barbara
Warren,
W­
A­
R­
R­
E­
N.
Thank
you
for
this
4
opportunity.
As
a
former
board
member,
I'm
here
today
5
representing
the
Citizens'
Environmental
Coalition
of
6
New
York
State,
which
was
founded
in
1983
by
the
people
7
living
with
the
legacy
of
toxic
pollution.
Twenty
years
8
later
CEC
has
grown
into
110
community
labor,
9
faith­
based,
youth,
health
and
environmental
groups
and
10
over
14,000
individuals
throughout
New
York
state
with
11
offices
in
Albany
and
Buffalo.
12
In
order
to
avoid
keeping
you
in
suspense,
13
our
recommendations
on
this
proposal
are
as
follows:
14
The
annual
PM
2.5
standard
should
be
12
micrograms
per
15
cubic
meter
and
the
99th
percentile
for
determining
16
compliance.
The
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard
should
be
25
17
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
the
99th
percentile.
18
Anything
less
than
these
standards
requires
ignoring
the
19
scientific
evidence
and
the
requirement
for
an
adequate
20
margin
of
safety
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
21
While
I
address
the
coarse
particulate
here,
22
I'm
going
to
skip
over
that
and
try
to
finish
my
other
23
points
because
I
consider
them
relatively
important
24
today.
The
bulk
of
my
testimony
will
address
the
25
260
question,
why
do
we
support
the
most
stringent
or
health
1
protective
standards.
In
answer
to
the
question,
why
do
2
we
support
the
stringent
and
health
protective
3
standards,
I've
got
about
seven,
maybe
eight,
if
I
can
4
work
it
in.
5
The
first
is,
a
stringent
PM
standard
is
6
good
public
health
policy.
It
was
in
the
18th
century
7
that
public
health
first
came
into
its
own,
making
major
8
advances
in
creating
conditions
that
allowed
more
9
populations
to
remain
healthy,
clean
water,
proper
10
sanitation
and
sewage
management,
and
restrictions
on
11
open
burning,
etcetera.
Today
when
people
are
asked
to
12
explain
the
increase
in
lifespan
and
the
improved
health
13
of
the
population,
they
often
attribute
these
changes
to
14
improved
medical
care.
But
the
truth
is
that
public
15
health
measures
that
were
applied
to
large
populations,
16
such
as
whole
cities,
explain
the
greatest
improvements
17
in
health
since
the
18th
century.
Such
public
health
18
measures
have
another
unique
characteristic.
They
can
19
be
delivered
at
a
fraction
of
the
cost
of
medical
care
20
for
treating
disease.
Good
public
health
policy
21
requires
strong
health
protective
national
ambient
air
22
quality
standards
that
incorporate
an
adequate
margin
of
23
safety.
24
Number
2.
Science
and
knowledge
should
be
25
261
respected
and
utilized
to
set
policy,
not
ignored.
Our
1
statewide
environmental
organization
has
respect
for
2
properly
conducted
science
and
research,
and
for
3
carefully
derived
policy
recommendations
based
on
that
4
evidence.
The
current
state
of
knowledge
concerning
5
fine
particulates
is
extraordinary,
consisting
of
6
thousands
of
studies.
The
CASAC
panel
has
done
a
7
thorough
job
of
analyzing
the
evidence
and
coming
up
8
with
health
protective
recommendations.
The
EPA
staff
9
paper
is
also
a
very
thorough
analysis.
10
Today
we'd
like
to
express
our
gratitude
to
11
the
many
EPA
scientists
and
policy
analysts
and
to
the
12
members
of
the
CASAC
panel
who
worked
so
hard
for
so
13
many
years
to
identify
the
correct
air
standard
which
14
would
protect
the
public
health
with
an
adequate
margin
15
of
safety.
These
people
in
their
work
represent
the
16
best
in
public
health
and
science
and
it
is
very
17
unfortunate
that
others,
within
and
outside
the
EPA,
18
would
thwart
this
work.
Science
supports
a
more
19
protective
health
standard
than
the
Administrator
20
proposes.
21
Number
3.
Mortality
is
a
very
serious
22
adverse
health
effect.
There
are
two
major
issues
23
associated
with
toxicology,
the
dose
of
the
toxin
that
24
elicits
an
adverse
effect
and
the
nature
of
the
adverse
25
262
effect.
Most
of
the
analysis
about
fine
particulate
1
focuses
on
the
issue
of
the
dose
that's
been
found
to
2
cause
a
particular
health
effect.
Even
though
the
3
adverse
effects
are
listed,
and
they
include
mortality,
4
the
seriousness
of
mortality
as
an
adverse
health
effect
5
is
not
highlighted
in
the
documents
that
the
EPA
6
produces.
Maybe
this
is
due
to
the
fact
that
we've
been
7
studying
fine
particulate
for
so
many
years
and
the
8
evidence
of
mortality
effects
are
so
clear.
However,
it
9
should
still
be
emphasized
that
adverse
effects
can
10
range
from
very
minor
alterations
in
biochemistry
11
through
profound
changes
in
organs
and
systems
all
the
12
way
to
death.
So
death
is
a
very
serious
adverse
effect
13
and
all
of
the
rulemaking
should
point
this
out.
This
14
understanding
that
mortality
is
so
serious
should
guide
15
the
Administrator
to
propose
a
stringent
health
16
standard.
17
I'd
also
like
to
address
the
issue
of
a
18
safety
margin.
Public
health
professionals,
generally,
19
like
to
have,
when
they're
dealing
with
toxins
or
a
20
pollutant,
a
substantial
safety
margin
that
­­
in
other
21
words,
the
level
that
causes
the
adverse
effect
is
far
22
apart
from
the
level
that
the
public
is
actually
exposed
23
to.
We
know
with
fine
particulate
that
that
is
not
the
24
case.
We
have
no
safety
margin
today.
Large
numbers
of
25
263
the
population
are
exposed
to
levels
that
cause
death.
1
MR.
BACHMANN:
I'm
sorry
that
the
light
is
2
on,
but
you
are
handing
those
in;
correct?
3
MS.
WARREN:
I
am.
4
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
We
are
up
to
5
Steffi
Domike
and
Walter
Goldburg.
6
MS.
DOMIKE:
My
name
is
Steffi
Domike
and
7
I'm
the
Coordinator
of
the
Collaborative
on
Health
and
8
the
Environment
in
Pennsylvania.
And
this
testimony
was
9
written
in
collaboration
with
Conrad
Volz
­­
who
has
a
10
doctorate
and
master's
in
public
health
­­
from
the
11
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health
Faculty
at
the
12
University
of
Pittsburgh
Graduate
School
of
Public
13
Health.
14
And
just
for
the
record,
I
have
tested
15
positive
for
asthma,
triggered
primarily
by
fumes
such
16
as
tobacco
and
diesel.
My
case
is
not
nearly
as
severe
17
as
my
6­
year­
old
granddaughter's.
She
has
used
an
18
inhaler
twice
daily
for
the
past
five
years,
and
she's
19
only
six
years
old.
She
often
experiences
distress
20
reacts
to
multiple
triggers,
including
diesel
fumes
21
among
others.
She
requires
several
daily
medications
22
and,
even
so,
is
vulnerable
to
respiratory
infections,
23
experiences
wheezing
episodes,
and
has
regular
visits
to
24
the
doctor
with
unfortunate
frequency,
and,
sometimes,
25
264
the
emergency
room.
1
It
should
come
as
no
surprise
then,
that
I
2
am
here
to
speak
in
support
of
strengthening
the
3
standards
for
particle
pollution.
I
live
in
Allegheny
4
County,
one
of
the
Pennsylvania
counties
that
does
not
5
currently
meet
the
federal
standards
for
PM2.5
We
have
6
multiple
sources
for
particle
pollution,
including
7
marine,
construction
and
highway
diesel,
heavy
industry
8
and
automotive,
as
well
as
upwind
sources.
And
I
9
believe
that
strengthening
the
standard
will
force
the
10
county
to
develop
and
implement
plans
to
clean
up
these
11
multiple
sources.
12
The
current
annual
mean
of
15
micrograms
per
13
cubic
meter
and
daily
maximum
24­
hour
average
of
65
14
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
is
not
protective
of
our
15
health.
Most
Allegheny
County
monitors
currently
16
register
around
a
maximum
of
14
micrograms
per
cubic
17
meter
when
averaged
annually,
and
over
40
micrograms
per
18
cubic
meter
on
daily
maximum
of
24­
hour
average.
Across
19
the
Monongahela
River,
downwind
from
the
USX
Clairton
20
Coke
Works,
where
I
worked
for
five
and
a
half
years,
21
the
Liberty
Boro
monitor
exceeded
the
short
term
federal
22
daily
maximum
standard
of
65
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
23
seven
times
in
2004.
24
This
is
unhealthy
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
25
265
mandates
that
air
quality
standards
must
be
set
at
1
levels
that
protect
public
health,
based
solely
on
known
2
health
effects.
3
According
to
the
Clean
Air
Task
Force
4
estimates
for
1999,
Pennsylvania
experiences
the
eighth
5
highest
rates
of
diesel
pollution
in
the
lower
48
states
6
and
estimates
that
456
Pennsylvanians
per
million
7
develop
cancer
as
a
result
of
exposure
to
diesel
8
pollution,
25
percent
higher
than
the
national
lifetime
9
cancer
risk
from
diesel
exposure
of
365
in
one
million.
10
Both
of
these
risks
are
clearly
above
the
lifetime
11
cancer
risk
of
one
in
a
million
deemed
by
the
EPA
itself
12
to
be
the
limit
of
what's
acceptable.
This
exposure
is
13
also
estimated
to
cause
Pennsylvania
adults
to
suffer
14
1,170
premature
deaths,
1,660
non­
fatal
heart
attacks,
15
19,021
asthma
attacks,
575
chronic
bronchitis
diagnoses,
16
110,404
lost
work
days,
and
643,926
days
of
restricted
17
activity.
18
There
are
numerous
peer­
reviewed
medical
and
19
research
studies
supporting
the
work
of
the
Clean
Air
20
Task
Force
and
health
impact
estimates.
I
will
cite
21
three
recent
ones,
and
the
full
information
is
on
my
22
statement.
23
A
study
of
hospital
admissions
in
Toronto,
24
Canada
demonstrated
the
effects
of
exposure
to
PM2.5
25
266
from
urban
motor
vehicle
emissions.
It
was
shown
to
1
significantly
increase
admission
rates
for
a
subset
of
2
respiratory
diagnoses,
including
asthma,
bronchitis,
3
chronic
obstructive
pulmonary
disease,
pneumonia,
and
4
upper
respiratory
tract
infection.
5
An
eight­
year
longitudinal
study
made
annual
6
measures
of
lung
function
in
1,759
children
from
schools
7
in
12
southern
California
communities
which
represented
8
a
wide
range
of
ambient
exposures
to
ozone,
acid
vapor,
9
nitrogen
dioxide,
and
particulate
matter.
This
study,
10
by
scientists
from
the
Keck
School
of
Medicine
of
the
11
University
of
Southern
California,
found
that
teenagers
12
in
smoggy
communities
were
nearly
five
times
as
likely
13
to
have
clinically
low
lung
function
compared
to
teens
14
living
in
low­
pollution
communities.
People
with
15
clinically
low
lung
function
have
less
than
80
percent
16
of
lung
function
expected
for
their
age.
17
The
chronically
ill
are
another
vulnerable
18
population
that
was
the
focus
of
a
study
by
the
19
Department
of
Medicine
at
McGill
University.
This
20
mortality
time
series
showed
that
persons
with
diabetes
21
who
also
have
cardiovascular
disease
may
be
susceptible
22
to
the
short­
term
effects
of
air
pollution.
23
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
must
act
24
to
protect
our
health,
and
we
need
stronger
standards
25
267
now.
Thank
you.
1
MR.
BACHMANN:
Mr.
Goldburg.
2
MR.
GOLDBURG:
My
name
is
Walter
Goldbug.
3
I'm
a
resident
of
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania.
In
my
real
4
life,
I'm
a
physicist,
a
teacher,
and
a
person
who
5
conducts
federally
supported
research
on
turbulence
not
6
health
issues.
I
speak
today
out
of
deep
concern
over
7
the
poor
air
quality
we
breathe
in
the
Pittsburgh
area
8
and
thus
it
has
been
for
the
last
50
years
since
I've
9
been
working
there.
10
I'm
also
concerned
that
the
administration
11
has
chosen
to
substitute
it's
judgment
for
those
of
the
12
distinguished
panel
of
scholars
and
researchers
who
make
13
up
the
CASC.
These
days
the
newspapers
are
full
of
14
reports
of
such
administration
officials
who
similarly
15
replace
the
judgments
of
experts
with
views
of
their
16
own.
17
In
defense
of
retaining
the
present
annual
18
standard
of
15,
the
EPA
states
that
several
new
studies
19
increase
the
agency's
confidence
in
associations
between
20
the
long­
term
PM2.5
exposure
and
serious
health
effects,
21
including
heart
disease
and
lung­
related
death.
This
is
22
a
quotation
by
EPA
to
the
National
Governor's
23
Association
last
month.
24
One
might
expect
that
if
new
studies
confirm
25
268
the
danger
of
2.5,
this
would
logically
require
that
the
1
annual
standard
would
be
strengthened,
since
the
present
2
standard
was
set
before
it
was
fully
appreciated
how
3
dangerous
fine
particulates
really
are.
4
In
the
Federal
Register,
volume
71,
which
5
we're
focusing
on,
the
document
says,
"
It's
appropriate
6
to
give
the
greatest
weight
to
the
reanalyses
of
the
Six
7
Cities
and
ACS
studies..."
The
CASC,
of
course,
was
8
fully
aware
of
that
work,
and
came
to
an
opposite
9
conclusion.
Did
the
Administrator
misspeak
when
saying,
10
"
They
Administrator
places
great
importance
on
the
11
advice
of
the
CASC."
According
to
the
American
Lung
12
Association,
the
Six
Cities
data
indicate
that
the
13
annual
standard
should
be
tightened
to
12,
a
figure
that
14
is
more
restrictive
than
the
one
proposed
by
the
CASC
15
itself.
16
In
the
case
of
2.5,
22
distinguished
CASC
17
scientists
agreed
that
the
24­
hour
annual
standard
18
should
be
strengthened
with
the
consensus
being
that
the
19
former
should
be
set
at
35
to
30
and
that
the
annual
20
standard
should
be
set
and
arranged
13
to
14.
Are
21
distinguished
environmental
scientists,
like
those
on
22
the
CASC,
likely
to
step
forward
again
when
the
23
government
calls
on
them
for
help?
24
How
does
the
Administration
respond
to
the
25
269
American
Lung
Association,
the
American
Academy
of
1
Pediatrics,
the
American
Thoracic
Society,
and
the
2
American
College
of
Cardiology
when
they
recommend
that
3
the
2.5
standard
be
set
for
the
annual
standard
at
12
4
and
25
for
the
24­
hour
standard?
5
Though
I
am
but
one
scientist
and
teacher,
I
6
speak
for
many
more
than
myself
when
I
say
that
my
7
community
has
simply
lost
respect
for
our
own
8
government's
pronouncements
on
science­
based
public
9
issues
such
as
the
one
before
us.
10
As
sorely
distressed
as
I
am
by
this
EPA
11
proposal,
I
am
at
the
same
time
grateful
for
the
chance
12
to
speak
freely
on
this
issue,
grateful
to
the
EPA
for
13
holding
this
public
hearing,
and
for
you
ladies
and
14
gentlemen
for
hearing
us
out.
15
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
very
much.
Our
16
next
group
is
Rachel
Filippini
and
Myron
Arnowitt.
17
MS.
FILIPPINI:
My
name
is
Rachel
Filippini,
18
and
I'm
the
Executive
Director
of
the
Group
Against
Smog
19
and
Pollution
or
GASP.
GASP
is
a
non­
profit
citizens'
20
group,
located
in
southwestern
Pennsylvania
working
for
21
a
healthy,
sustainable
environment.
Founded
in
1969,
22
GASP
has
been
a
diligent
watchdog,
educator,
litigator,
23
and
policy­
maker
on
many
environmental
issues,
with
a
24
focus
on
air
quality
in
the
Pittsburgh
region.
25
270
I
have
come
here
today
to
urge
the
EPA
to
1
strengthen
the
fine
particulate
standards
so
they
are
2
most
protective
of
human
health,
and
not
simply
a
paper
3
reduction.
I
advocate
that
you
heed
the
advice
of
your
4
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
as
well
as
5
groups
like
the
American
Lung
Association,
American
6
Thoracic
Society
and
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics.
7
In
the
past,
Pittsburgh
has
had
some
8
extremely
unflattering
expressions
used
to
describe
its
9
environment.
"
Hell
with
the
lid
off"
and
"
Smoky
City"
10
are
two
such
names.
While
our
air
is
visibly
much
11
cleaner
than
it
was
36
years
ago,
when
GASP
was
formed,
12
it
is
still
unhealthy
to
breathe.
Deemed
unhealthy
to
13
breathe
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
2004
14
when
Allegheny
and
surrounding
counties
were
declared
in
15
non­
attainment
for
fine
particulates.
Within
Allegheny
16
County
there
is
a
smaller
region,
known
as
the
Liberty,
17
Clairton
area,
which
has
been
separately
designated
in
18
non­
attainment
for
soot,
because
of
its
unique
and
19
considerably
worse
air
quality.
Despite
our
cleaner
20
image,
Pittsburgh
repeatedly
receives
failing
grades
for
21
air
quality.
22
Southwestern
Pennsylvania
is
home
to
at
23
least
ten
coal­
fired
power
plants,
the
largest
coke
24
manufacturing
facility
in
the
nation,
and
countless
25
271
diesel
vehicles.
All
of
these
are
sources
of
fine
1
particulates.
In
addition,
we
are
downwind
of
many
more
2
coal­
fired
power
plants
located
in
Ohio
and
West
3
Virginia.
Essentially,
everyone
in
southwestern
4
Pennsylvania
lives
within
30
miles
of
a
coal­
fired
power
5
plant.
According
to
the
Clean
Air
Task
Force
report,
6
"
Dirty
Air
Dirty
Power,"
people
who
live
in
metropolitan
7
areas
near
coal­
fired
power
plants
feel
fine
particle
8
attributes
most
acutely.
There
attributable
death
rates
9
are
much
higher
than
areas
with
few
or
no
coal­
fired
10
power
plants.
A
more
stringent
regulation
would
almost
11
certainly
require
these
facilities
to
apply
control
12
technology
that
would
have
a
positive
impact
on
all
who
13
live
within
a
30
mile
radius
of
a
polluting
plant.
14
Our
recent
PennEnvironment
report
ranked
15
Pittsburgh
first
nationwide
for
the
most
dangerous
16
spikes
in
fine
particle
pollution
among
large
metro
17
areas
in
2004.
Pittsburgh
suffered
seven
soot
days
in
18
2004,
when
levels
of
fine
particle
pollution
spiked
19
above
EPA's
standard
for
what
is
safe
to
breathe
on
any
20
given
day.
21
While
many
air
quality
monitors
in
our
22
region
are
having
a
challenging
time
meeting
current
23
federal
particulate
standards,
that's
no
excuse
not
to
24
push
for
the
most
stringent,
technologically
feasible
25
272
standards.
Public
health
must
be
the
priority,
and
1
standards
must
be
set
with
those
who
are
most
vulnerable
2
to
poor
air
quality
in
mind.
Our
children,
the
elderly,
3
those
with
asthma
and
other
respiratory
or
cardiac
4
disease
must
be
considered.
5
According
to
the
Centers
for
Disease
6
Control,
one
in
ten
American
children
from
infancy
to
7
the
age
of
17
has
asthma.
A
recent
health
assessment
8
commissioned
by
Children's
Hospital
found
that
in
9
Pittsburgh,
138
per
1,000
children
have
the
disease.
10
One
in
four
children
living
in
Braddock,
which
is
one
11
community
in
Allegheny
County
have
asthma.
12
At
least
two
thousand
studies,
conducted
13
since
1997,
the
last
time
the
soot
standards
were
14
revised,
have
shown
additional
adverse
health
effects
15
associated
with
fine
particulates.
EPA
itself
estimates
16
that
20,000
people
each
year
die
from
fine
particle
17
pollution.
This
statement
alone
is
a
clear
reason
why
18
the
standards
must
be
tightened
further.
19
While
industry
might
say
that
even
a
slight
20
tightening
of
the
standards
would
impose
excessive
new
21
business
burdens,
the
burden
on
the
human
body
must
be
22
given
a
higher
priority.
Pollution
has
costs
as
well.
23
Transportation
related
air
pollution
alone
costs
the
24
Pittsburgh
area
more
than
$
227
million
in
public
health
25
273
costs
each
year,
including
premature
death
and
1
pollution­
related
health
costs.
It
is
my
understanding
2
that
the
EPA
is
not
to
take
cost
into
account
when
3
proposing
new
ambient
air
quality
standards,
including
4
fine
particle
standards.
5
In
addition
to
these
comments
GASP
has
6
collected
nearly
200
hearts
signed
by
residents
of
7
southwestern
Pennsylvania
asking
EPA
to
base
their
8
revisions
of
the
particulate
standards
on
sound
science.
9
These
valentines
signify
increased
risk
for
10
cardiovascular
events,
including
heart
and
stroke
11
deaths,
in
relation
to
short
and
long­
term
exposure
to
12
present­
day
concentrations
of
pollution,
especially
13
particulate
matter.
14
Thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
my
15
testimony.
16
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Mr.
Arnowitt.
17
MR.
ARNOWITT:
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Myron
18
Arnowitt.
I'm
the
western
Pennsylvania
Director
for
19
Clean
Water
Action.
We're
a
national
environmental
20
organization
working
for
clean
air,
clean
water,
and
for
21
public
health
and
environmental
protection.
22
On
behalf
of
Clean
Water
Action's
100,000
23
members
in
Pennsylvania
I
would
like
to
submit
the
24
following
testimony
to
EPA
regarding
the
proposed
25
274
changes
in
the
national
ambient
air
standards
for
1
particulate
matter.
Clean
Water
Action
is
greatly
2
concerned
that
EPA's
proposal
will
not
fully
protect
the
3
public's
health
from
the
well
documented
health
effects
4
of
exposure
to
particulates.
5
Many
of
our
members
in
Pennsylvania
live
in
6
areas
that
are
close
to
many
large
industrial
sources
of
7
particulates.
For
example,
in
the
Pittsburgh
area
where
8
I
live,
many
of
our
Allegheny
County
members
live
9
immediately
downwind
of
the
Shenango
incorporated
coke
10
works
on
Neville
Island.
I'm
submitting
several
photos
11
of
Shenango
taken
by
Clean
Water
Action
in
June
and
July
12
of
2005.
I'll
just
briefly
show
them
to
you.
As
you
13
can
see,
these
photos
dramatically
illustrate
the
large
14
amounts
of
particulates
that
nearby
residents
are
being
15
exposed
to.
This
photo
here
illustrates
a
push
with
a
16
huge
particulate
cloud.
Again,
this
is
the
quench
from
17
the
coke
plant
with,
again,
a
huge
particulate
cloud.
18
And
here
is
some
illegal
vending
of
coke
oven
gas
with
19
some
associated
particulates.
Again,
you
can
see
a
lot
20
of
particulate
matter
off
of
their
flare.
21
I
think
it's
important,
as
you
look
at
these
22
photos,
to
understand
that
there
are
50,000
Allegheny
23
County
residents
that
live
within
a
mile
of
this
plant.
24
This
is
a
dense,
urban
environment
that
residents
are
25
275
being
exposed
to
these
kind
of
pollutants.
1
In
another
part
of
Allegheny
County,
Clean
2
Water
Action
members
live
in
the
Mon
Valley
where
there
3
are
many
large
particulate
sources,
including
U.
S.
4
Steel's
Clairton
Coke
Works,
currently
the
largest
coke
5
plant
on
the
planet,
as
well
as
several
coal
burning
6
power
plants
and
steel
plants.
Fine
particulates
in
the
7
Mon
Valley
are
among
the
highest
in
the
U.
S.
The
school
8
district
with
the
highest
asthma
rate
in
Allegheny
9
County
is
located
in
the
Mon
Valley
where
the
highest
10
fine
particulate
levels
are
recorded.
11
It's
crucial
that
EPA
support
particulate
12
standards
that
are
most
protective
of
public
health.
13
Residents
in
the
Pittsburgh
area
suffer
every
day
from
14
the
health
effects
associated
with
particulate
exposure.
15
Over
20,000
children
in
Allegheny
County
alone
have
16
asthma,
a
condition
that
is
aggravated
by
their
exposure
17
to
these
fine
particulates.
I,
personally,
have
worked
18
very
closely
with
many
of
our
members
living
in
areas
of
19
high
ambient
particulates
where
children
have
asthma,
or
20
where
the
adults
themselves
are
suffering
from
21
adult­
onset
of
asthma.
These
preventable
problems
must
22
be
addressed
as
quickly
as
possible.
23
Strong
ambient
standards
are
not
only
good
24
for
our
public
health,
our
quality
of
life,
and
our
25
276
economy,
but
they
are
required
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
1
The
setting
of
national
ambient
air
standards
must
only
2
consider
what
would
be
the
health
protective
standard.
3
While
other
considerations
are
allowed
for
4
implementation
of
the
standard,
the
standard
itself
must
5
be
based
on
the
best
possible
science.
6
Clean
Water
Action's
greatly
concerned
that
7
EPA's
proposed
standard
for
fine
particulates,
15
8
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
annual,
and
35
daily,
is
not
9
based
on
the
best
possible
science.
In
fact,
the
Clean
10
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
has
criticized
the
11
EPA's
proposal
as
not
being
protective
enough
of
public
12
health.
The
Clean
Water
Action
strongly
supports
an
13
annual
fine
particulate
standard
of
12
micrograms
per
14
cubic
meter
and
a
24­
hour
standard
of
25
micrograms
per
15
cubic
meter.
16
This
position
is
supported
by
many
public
17
health
organizations
including
the
American
Lung
18
Association
and
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics.
19
Many
peer
review
studies
have
demonstrated
that
20
significant
health
effects
are
occurring
at
levels
21
considerably
below
our
current
fine
particulate
22
standard.
Millions
of
Americans
will
not
have
the
23
public
health
protection
they
deserve
if
EPA
enacts
your
24
proposed
fine
particulate
standard.
Thousands
of
lives,
25
277
literally,
are
at
stake.
1
Again,
we
urge
EPA
to
strengthen
your
2
proposal.
Please
consider
the
proper
protection
that
3
western
Pennsylvania
is
living
near
plants
like
the
4
Shenango
coke
plant
need
and
deserve.
We
look
forward
5
to
EPA's
response
to
our
concerns.
Thank
you.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
both.
The
next
7
panel
is
Sean
Jacobs
and
Ted
Kelly.
8
MR.
JACOBS:
Good
afternoon.
I
will
be
9
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
Learning
Disability
10
Association
of
America.
My
name
is
Sean
Jacobs,
S­
E­
A­
N
11
J­
A­
C­
O­
B­
S.
12
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
13
my
concerns
over
the
links
between
particulate
matter
14
emitted
in
the
environment
and
the
rising
incidence
of
15
learning
and
other
developmental
disabilities.
16
The
Learning
Disabilities
Association
of
17
America
is
a
national
non­
profit
association
with
about
18
20,000
members
and
some
200
affiliates
in
41
states.
19
Now,
60
percent
of
our
members
are
actually
partners
of
20
children
with
learning
disabilities;
57
percent
of
our
21
members
identify
themselves
as
professionals
in
the
22
field;
and
another
25
percent
of
our
members
identify
23
themselves
as
adults
who
have
learning
disabilities
24
themselves.
25
278
Organized
by
volunteer
parents
in
1963,
the
1
LDA
established
a
research
committee
in
1975,
which
2
promotes
research
and
policies
aimed
at
identifying
the
3
nature
and
causes
of
learning
disabilities
and
reducing
4
its
incidence.
Now
the
LDA
has
avidly
tracked
the
5
emerging
science
of
children's
environmental
health,
and
6
we
know
now
that
two­
thirds
of
learning
and
other
7
developmental
disabilities
are
caused
by
genetic
8
environmental
interactions.
Increasing
amounts
of
9
chemical
and
other
toxic
exposures
increase
the
10
incidence
of
cognitive
disabilities.
In
2002,
the
LDA
11
launched
its
Healthy
Children
Project
which
promotes
12
grassroots
prevention
activities
aimed
at
reducing
human
13
exposure
to
environmental
neurotoxins.
Regional
Healthy
14
Children
Project
sites
are
now
operating
through
LDA
15
affiliates
in
14
states.
LDA
is
one
of
the
founding
16
members
of
the
national
900­
member
Collaborative
on
17
Health
and
the
Environment
and
its
Learning
and
Other
18
Developmental
Disabilities
Initiative.
19
The
LDA
of
America
is
gravely
concerned
20
about
reported
increases
in
the
number
of
children
21
diagnosed
with
learning
and
other
developmental
22
disabilities,
especially
notable
in
the
dramatic
rise
in
23
the
incidence
of
autism
and
Attention
Deficit
24
Hyperactive
Disorder,
or
ADHD.
ADHD
is
not
technically
25
279
characterized
as
a
specific
learning
disability,
such
as
1
dyslexia,
but
is
co­
morbid
with
learning
disabilities
50
2
percent
of
the
time
and
can
deem
a
child
eligible
for
3
special
education
services.
4
Scientific
research
has
linked
mercury,
5
lead,
styrene,
toluene,
and
xylene
­­
some
of
which
are
6
found
in
soot
and
particulate
matter
­­
directly
to
7
compromised
neural
development.
These
substances
can
8
cause
learning
disabilities,
IQ
deficits,
attention
9
deficit,
impulsivity,
violence,
hyperactivity,
decreased
10
activity,
low
brain
weight,
speech
deficits,
motor
11
dysfunction,
and
memory
impairment.
We're
convinced
12
that
there
exists
a
direct
relationship
between
human
13
exposure
to
fine
particulate
matter
­­
especially
for
14
women
of
child­
bearing
years
­­
and
the
rising
incidence
15
of
cognitive
disabilities.
16
For
instance,
according
to
data
from
the
17
National
Center
for
Health
Statistics
and
the
Centers
18
for
Disease
Control,
630,000
of
the
four
million
babies
19
born
each
year
in
the
United
States
are
carrying
body
20
burdens
of
mercury
above
the
EPA's
current
health
21
threshold.
In
a
study
appearing
just
last
April
in
the
22
journal
"
Health
and
Place,"
University
of
Texas
23
researchers
reported
on
the
correlation
of
mercury
24
emissions
from
local
coal­
burning
utility
plants
and
the
25
280
incidence
of
autism.
On
average
for
every
one
thousand
1
pounds
of
environmentally
released
mercury,
there
was
a
2
43
percent
increase
in
the
rate
of
special
education
3
services
and
a
61
percent
increase
in
the
rate
of
4
autism.
What
is
the
impact
of
fine
particulate
matter
5
on
the
health
of
children
in
Pennsylvania?
Well,
6
according
to
the
research
done
by
Fighting
Autism,
7
autism
has
increased
nationally
by
806
percent
and
by
8
876
percent
in
Pennsylvania
in
the
ten
year
period
9
between
1993
and
2003.
Supporting
information
and
10
additional
statistics
are
available
on
11
fightingautism.
org.
12
So
what
does
it
mean
for
a
fetus
to
develop
13
with
a
damaged
brain?
Using
national
blood
mercury
14
prevalence
data
cited
above,
Dr.
Leo
Trasande,
of
the
15
Center
for
Children's
Health
and
the
Environment,
16
Department
of
Community
and
Preventive
Medicine,
and
the
17
Department
of
Pediatrics
at
Mount
Sinai
School
of
18
Medicine
in
New
York,
found
that
between
316,588
and
19
637,233
children
each
year
have
cord
blood
mercury
20
levels
associated
with
loss
of
IQ.
21
MR.
BACHMANN:
I'm
going
to
have
to
stop
22
talking
now.
I
did
give
you
a
little
extra
time
because
23
of
the
microphone,
but
we
do
need
to
move
on.
24
Mr.
Kelly.
25
281
MR.
KELLY:
My
name
is
Tim
Kelly,
and
I'm
1
reading
these
comments
on
behalf
of
Dr.
Bernard
2
Goldstein,
Dean
Emeritus
of
the
University
of
Pittsburgh
3
Graduate
School
of
Public
Health
and
the
former
4
Assistant
Administrator
for
research
and
development
in
5
the
Reagan
and
Bush
administrations
in
the
EPA.
6
Anne
Gorsuch
Burford,
arguably
the
least
7
respected
Administrator
in
the
35­
year
history
of
the
8
EPA,
resigned
under
a
storm
of
criticism
after
serving
9
then
President
Ronald
Reagan
for
only
22
months.
Ms.
10
Burford
was
particularly
disdained
by
Democrats
and
11
Republicans
alike
because
of
her
penchant
for
distorting
12
or
ignoring
any
scientific
findings
that
conflicted
with
13
her
apparent
goal
of
relaxing
environmental
standards.
14
Before
her
forced
resignation,
Ms.
Burford
was
cited
for
15
contempt
of
Congress
for
refusing
to
turn
over
Superfund
16
records
and
one
of
her
close
associates
eventually
was
17
jailed
for
lying
about
those
records.
Yet,
even
she
18
never
ignored
the
recommendations
of
the
congressionally
19
mandated
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
CASAC.
20
However,
current
EPA
Administrator
Steven
21
Johnson
has
decided
to
tread
where
even
Ms.
Burford
22
dared
not
go.
For
first
time
in
it's
history,
an
EPA
23
Administrator
has
chosen
to
ignore
its
CASAC­
recommended
24
standard
for
airborne
fine
particles
by
proposing
a
25
282
standard
that
is
above
that
limit.
1
In
January
2006
CASAC's
seven
members
­­
all
2
of
whom
were
appointed
during
the
current
Bush
3
administration
­­
recommended
an
upper
range
of
13
to
14
4
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
as
appropriate
for
the
annual
5
average
of
this
pollutant,
which
is
responsible
for
tens
6
of
thousands
of
American
deaths
per
year
and
many
more
7
illnesses.
Ignoring
this
advice,
Administrator
Johnson
8
proposed
a
maximum
annual
average
of
15
micrograms
per
9
cubic
meter.
10
There's
always
some
uncertainty
about
the
11
exact
level
above
which
a
pollutant
begins
to
cause
12
adverse
health
effects
in
sensitive
populations
­­
i.
e.,
13
the
highest
reasonably
safe
exposure
level.
However,
14
the
scientific
review
process
developed
more
than
25
15
years
ago
by
EPA
mandates
that
CASAC
provide
the
EPA
16
Administrator
with
a
range
as
to
where
that
threshold
17
lies.
CASAC
usually
qualifies
this
advice
with
the
18
caveat
that
the
upper
boundary
of
this
range
provides
no
19
margin
of
safety.
The
range
tends
to
be
narrow
when
20
there
is
an
extensive
scientific
literature
available,
21
as
there
now
is
for
the
unhealthy
effects
of
fine
22
particulates.
23
The
procedure
specified
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
24
for
obtaining
scientific
input
about
outdoor
air
25
283
pollution
standards
includes
an
extensive
review
of
the
1
world's
scientific
literature
conducted
by
EPA's
staff.
2
CASAC
members
further
review
this
data
in
the
context
of
3
the
law's
requirement
that
such
standards
be
set
to
4
prevent
adverse
effects
in
sensitive
populations,
and
to
5
include
an
adequate
margin
of
safety
to
ensure
this
6
protection.
CASAC
also
is
assisted
by
a
panel
of
7
eminent
scientists
chosen
for
their
expertise
about
a
8
specific
pollutant.
Administrator
Johnson's
decision
to
9
exceed
the
maximum
recommended
by
CASAC
strongly
signals
10
a
weakening
of
the
role
of
science
and
independent
11
scientific
advice
in
EPA's
decisions.
12
A
stake
is
not
just
setting
the
appropriate
13
level
of
control
for
outdoor
fine
particulates,
which
14
pose
a
serious
pollution
problem
in
many
heavily
15
populated
areas
of
the
United
States.
Effective
16
protection
of
the
public
health
and
the
environment
is
17
heavily
dependent
upon
the
highest
quality
science
and
18
the
effective
translation
of
this
science
to
those
19
responsible
for
regulatory
decisions.
The
process
20
developed
for
outdoor
air
pollution
standards
has
been
21
largely
successful
as
is
evident
from
the
marked
decline
22
in
levels
of
pollutants
such
as
carbon
monoxide,
lead
23
and
sulfur
dioxide.
It
has
been
a
model
for
how
science
24
and
scientists
can
and
should
be
used
to
provide
advice
25
284
that
can
be
translated
into
effective
and
defensible
1
regulatory
standards.
2
After
being
forced
from
her
position,
Ms.
3
Burford
wrote
a
book
in
which
she
claimed
that
she
4
actually
had
done
more
for
science
and
scientists
than
5
any
of
her
EPA
predecessors.
Although
preposterous,
6
this
claim
is
not
surprising.
No
EPA
Administrator
7
would
ever
admit
to
basing
their
decision
on
anything
8
but
the
best
science.
However,
the
environmental
health
9
science
community
has
learned
to
judge
the
scientific
10
credibility
of
EPA
Administrators
not
by
what
they
say
11
but
by
what
they
do.
12
Administrator
Johnson
has
a
somewhat
13
stronger
scientific
background
than
most
of
his
14
predecessors
who
headed
EPA.
However,
this
does
not
15
qualify
him
to
be
his
own
scientific
advisor,
16
particularly
on
issues
such
as
interpreting
the
complex
17
scientific
literature
on
what
should
be
the
annual
18
average
particulate
standard.
In
light
of
numerous
19
studies
showing
associations
between
chronic
exposure
to
20
airborne
particles
and
increased
health
risks,
the
21
higher
standard
he
has
proposed
undoubtedly
provides
a
22
significantly
lower
level
of
health
protection.
He
23
would
be
wise
to
reconsider
and
to
propose
a
standard
24
that
is
within
the
range
specified
by
CASAC
and
is
25
285
appropriate
to
the
credibility
of
a
process
that
has
1
served
the
American
public
so
well
all
these
years.
2
MR.
BACHMANN:
Since
you're
the
messenger,
I
3
still
think
it's
appropriate.
Several
people
have
4
mentioned
that
this
is
the
first
time
that
an
5
Administrator
­­
and
Bernie
made
it
a
big
part
of
his
6
testimony,
but
I
think
it's
important
since
he
should
7
know
better
because
he
and
I
were
around
at
the
same
8
time.
He
was
the
head
of
CASAC
during
the
time
when
9
CASAC
recommended
short­
term
SO2
standards
as
well
as
10
separate
fine
particle
standards
for
visibility,
neither
11
of
which
subsequent
administrators
after
Ms.
Burford
­­
12
and
I
believe
that
was
Bill
Ruckleshouse
(
phonetic)
and
13
Lee
Thomas
went
forward
with
them.
So
it
really
isn't
14
the
case
that
this
is
the
first
time
an
EPA
15
Administrator
has
done
something
different.
I
just
want
16
to
make
sure
you
carry
that
back
to
Bernie,
and
maybe
17
he'll
remember
that
that
they
did
make
that
18
recommendation
back
then.
But
if
there's
no
other
19
questions
for
these
folks,
we
will
have
the
next
people.
20
And
that
is
Cass
Andary
and
John
Heuss.
21
My
name
is
Cass
Andary,
C­
A­
S­
I­
M­
E­
R
22
A­
N­
D­
A­
R­
Y.
I'm
Director
of
Regulatory
Programs
at
the
23
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers,
a
trade
24
association
made
up
of
nine
car
and
light
truck
25
286
manufacturers
who
collectively
account
for
about
80
1
percent
of
new
passenger
cars
and
light
trucks
sold
last
2
year
in
the
United
States.
The
auto
industry
has
been
3
60
automobile
and
light
duty
truck
assembly
plants
in
4
the
United
States,
which,
along
with
the
mobile
source
5
products
made,
will
be
affected
directly
by
the
proposed
6
changes
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards.
7
The
Clean
Air
Programs
already
set
in
place
8
by
the
EPA
and
State
governments
are
working
effectively
9
to
reduce
criteria
pollutants
and
improve
public
health.
10
Also,
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
implementing
the
1997
11
Particulate
Standards,
including
the
first
rules
to
12
specifically
regulate
fine
particulate.
In
addition,
a
13
number
of
recent
regulations
come
into
effect
next
year
14
and
over
the
next
five
to
ten
years
that
will
also
15
reduce
particulates,
their
precursors
and
components.
16
Because
of
the
statutory
five
year
review
17
requirements,
EPA
is
required
to
consider
changing
the
18
standards
before
the
1997
standards
have
been
19
implemented.
While
EPA's
five­
year
review
is
necessary
20
and
appropriate
under
the
existing
statute,
it
is
21
premature
to
make
particulate
standards
more
stringent
22
at
this
time.
No
new
standards
that
lower
fine
23
particulate
concentrations
are
needed
or
appropriate.
24
The
United
States
Supreme
Court
made
it
clear
in
Whitman
25
287
vs.
American
Trucking
Association
that
Congress
intended
1
EPA
to
establish
uniform
national
standards
at
a
level
2
sufficient
but
not
more
than
necessary.
3
Regarding
EPA's
proposal
on
fine
PM
there
is
4
no
justifiable
basis
isolating
a
change
from
a
65
to
35
5
microgram
daily
standard,
or
from
an
annual
standard
of
6
15
micrograms.
7
The
scientific
basis
on
which
EPA
relies
to
8
lower
the
standard
is
more
uncertain
now
than
during
the
9
1997
review.
Since
1997,
a
significant
and
increasing
10
body
of
research
has
been
published
which
identifies
11
associations
with
other
pollutants
or
no
associations
at
12
all.
As
HEI,
Health
Effects
Institute,
reanalysis
13
report
showed,
the
answer
depends
greatly
on
the
14
statistical
model
chosen.
15
Toxicology
studies,
the
only
tool
available
16
to
establish
scientifically
a
direct
cause
and
effect
17
relationship
between
PM2.5
and
health
effects,
do
not
18
find
health
effects
at
observed
PM2.5
levels.
19
A
standard
of
35
micrograms
greatly
20
increases
the
number
of
non­
attainment
areas
and
the
21
degree
of
non­
attainment
in
existing
non­
attainment
22
areas.
This
makes
it
significantly
more
difficult
for
23
states
to
reach
attainment.
24
Regarding
EPA's
proposal
for
an
urban
PM
25
288
standard,
there
is
insufficient
scientific
evidence
and
1
inadequate
statutory
authority
for
EPA
to
promulgate
2
this
standard.
3
First,
the
scientific
evidence
does
not
4
support
establishing
a
separate
standard
for
particulate
5
matter
from
specific
sources
in
urban
areas
such
as
6
suspended
road
dust
from
high
density
traffic,
7
industrial
sources
or
construction
sites.
Little
is
8
known
about
the
difference
between
coarse
particle
9
composition
in
urban
or
rural
areas
and
less
about
the
10
health
effects
with
individual
components
or
sources.
11
Every
study
EPA
reviewed,
looking
for
a
connection
12
between
coarse
urban
particulates
and
premature
13
mortality
showed
no
statistically
significant
14
correlation.
The
studies
are
inconclusive
and
do
not
15
meet
the
standard
of
scientific
certainty
that
the
16
Supreme
Court
recognized
in
Whitman.
17
EPA
has
never
before
proposed
a
NAAQS
which
18
excludes
certain
components
and
cannot
be
measured
19
directly
but
depends
on
looking
for
the
constituent
only
20
in
certain
geographic
areas
and
on
certain
days
of
the
21
year.
That
is,
in
urban
areas
on
days
where
the
weather
22
patterns
ensure
that
locally
generated
pollution
23
dominates
the
concentrations
found
in
the
air.
24
Second,
any
proposal
to
adopt
a
standard
25
289
regulating
coarse
particulate
matter
sources
only
in
1
urban
areas
and
from
three
select
categories
of
sources
2
cannot
be
legally
justified.
EPA's
proposed
rule
is
a
3
source­
based
geographic
limitations
on
particulates,
4
which
targets
industrial
sources
in
the
transportation
5
sector,
including
automobiles,
as
opposed
to
all
6
contributing
sources
of
particulates.
7
The
Act
gives
EPA
authority
to
adopt
8
national
ambient
air
quality
standards,
not
standards
9
that
apply
only
to
urban
areas
or
other
specific
10
geographic
areas.
The
Act
makes
it
clear
that
air
11
pollution
control
at
it's
source
is
the
primary
12
responsibility
of
states
and
local
governments.
13
Third,
the
alliance
supports
increased
14
efforts
to
understand
the
health
effects
of
coarse
15
particulate.
Such
efforts
should
continue
but
focus
on
16
the
effects
of
coarse
particles
in
all
areas
of
the
17
country
and
from
all
sources
and
should
be
supplemented
18
by
further
CASAC
review.
The
auto
industry
supports
19
HEI's
systematic
research
efforts
to
delineate
the
20
potential
effects
of
PM
components
and
characteristics.
21
EPA
itself
is
a
sponsor
of
this
comprehensive
research.
22
The
HEI
program
is
well
designed
for
further
research
on
23
PM
air
quality
standards.
It's
premature
to
set
new
24
coarse
particulate
matter
standards
until
research
25
290
justifies
a
health­
based
standard
and
adequate
sampler
1
technology
is
available.
2
MR.
BACHMANN:
We're
out
of
time.
Any
3
questions?
4
MR.
SILVERMAN:
I
think
I
heard
you
mention
5
that
a
standard
of
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
would
6
increase
the
number
of
non­
attainment
areas.
7
MR.
ANDARY:
Yes.
8
MR.
SILVERMAN:
And
can
you
tell
me
why
you
9
think
that's
relevant
here?
10
MR.
ANDARY:
Should
I
answer
that
with
a
11
submission?
12
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Okay.
13
MR.
HEUSS:
For
the
record,
my
name
is
John
14
Heuss,
H­
E­
U­
S­
S.
The
main
issue,
I
believe,
is
that
15
when
you
look
at
the
epidemiology
in
systematic
studies
16
you
see
a
very,
very
wide
range
of
associations
from
17
positive
to
negative,
biologically
implausible,
18
biologically
impossible
wide
range.
And
yet,
when
you
19
look
at
the
public's
literature,
you
don't
see
that
wide
20
range.
21
CASAC
chose
to
ignore
that
wide
range
when
22
he
considered
the
studies
looking
only
at
the
overall
23
average
of
those
studies.
If
you
consider
publication
24
by
us
as
a
major
issue,
and
then
­­
and
also
this
25
291
extremely
wide
range
of
associations
that
are
present
in
1
the
data,
if
you
search
for
the
study
with
the
laws
2
concentration
that
has
an
association,
you
basically
3
find
the
outliners,
and
you're
not
suitable
to
use
those
4
to
set
a
standard.
5
At
this
point,
with
the
control
studies,
if
6
you
repeat
the
study
and
you
get
the
same
result,
you
7
can
believe
it.
But
with
this
type
you
are
identifying
8
outliners
in
my
view.
In
addition,
when
you
look
at
the
9
coherence
of
the
overall
information,
CASAC
looked
10
coherence
in
a
wide
consideration,
considering
it
very
11
narrowly.
The
fact
that
you
get
associations
with
a
lot
12
of
different
end
points,
but
it's
also
true
that
you
get
13
such
associations
for
every
different
pollutant.
14
When
you
look
at
coherence
in
terms
of
the
15
way
the
Health
Effects
Institute
study
recently
16
published,
looked
at
in
terms
of
mortality
and
time,
you
17
see
no
association
between
those
cities,
which,
again,
18
raises
a
severe
issue.
When
you
consider
coherence
in
19
terms
of
particle
exposures
and
other
observational
20
settings,
whether
it's
smoking,
whether
it's
indoor
and
21
other
occupational
situations,
you
don't
see
a
coherence
22
that
the
mass
of
particles,
fine
particles,
is
the
23
problem.
All
the
toxicology
that's
available
has
failed
24
to
show
how
these
very
low
concentrations
can
be
doing
25
292
these
things.
There
are
now
many,
many
candidates
that
1
have
been
chosen
to
do
things
at
higher
levels,
but,
2
again,
all
the
toxicology
shows
that
composition
counts.
3
Treating
everything
by
mass
is
not
particularly
useful.
4
So,
if
the
problem
in
fine
particles,
specific
5
components,
is
not
at
all
clear,
total
risk
will
change
6
that.
7
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
to
both
of
you.
8
Next
We
have
Marvin
Meyer
and
Michael
Burri.
9
DR.
MEYER:
Good
afternoon.
I
am
Dr.
Marvin
10
Meyer
of
Wayne,
Pennsylvania.
I
am
a
biology
professor
11
at
Eastern
College
in
the
suburbs.
If
I
seem
a
little
12
winded,
it's
because
I
just
walked
8
blocks
from
SEPTA
13
and
I
have
asthma.
So
I
know
what
it's
like
to
walk
a
14
dusty
street;
I
know
what
it's
like
to
be
at
a
campfire
15
when
the
wind
changes
and
you
breathe
in
smoke;
or
if
16
someone
near
you
is
smoking
cigarettes.
Thus,
I
have
17
experienced
the
problems
that
air
pollutants,
like
fine
18
soot
matter,
particulate
matter,
2.5
microns
in
size,
19
can
cause
with
human
health.
I
am
here
today
to
ask
the
20
EPA
to
revise
this
regulation
and
create
a
comprehensive
21
regulation
for
control
of
PM2.5
that
can
protect
my
22
health
and
the
health
of
more
than
28,000
members
of
the
23
Sierra
Club
in
Pennsylvania,
which
I
represent
today.
24
I'm
actually
filling
in
for
Nancy
Parks,
who
is
the
25
293
Chair
of
the
Clean
Air
Committee
for
the
Pennsylvania
1
Chapter
of
the
Sierra
Club.
2
EPA
last
updated
the
PM
standards
in
1997
as
3
required
by
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Since
that
effort,
an
4
additional
2000
plus
juried
and
peer
reviewed
scientific
5
studies
have
shown
that
exposure
to
ever
smaller
6
particulates
can
damage
human
health.
The
legitimate
7
scientific
community
has
urged
EPA
to
create
a
PM
8
control
standard
that
reflects
this
deluge
of
scientific
9
findings
describing
significant
organ
damage
and
health
10
impacts
to
both
respiratory
and
circulatory
systems,
and
11
increased
risk
of
premature
death.
EPA
has
ignored
the
12
Bush
Administration's
scientific
advisors
and
created
13
weak
regulations
and
scientifically
unsupportable
14
exemptions
for
agricultural
and
mining
industries.
15
Rural
areas,
small
towns
and
small
cities
are
excluded
16
from
health
protections.
17
Human
Health
Protections
and
Clean
Air
18
Standards:
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
control
19
limitations
on
air
pollutants
be
created
to
protect
20
human
health
for
all
Americans
with
an
adequate
margin
21
of
safety.
This
proposed
regulation
does
neither.
22
PM2.5
control
must
be
far
enough
below
the
what
the
best
23
public
science
shows
to
be
harmful
to
human
health
in
24
order
to
provide
an
adequate
margin
of
safety
to
our
25
294
vulnerable
populations
of
children,
of
the
elderly
and
1
of
those
with
chronic
respiratory
disease.
2
Additionally,
our
citizens,
and
there
are
many
in
3
Pennsylvania,
that
reside
in
rural
villages
and
small
4
communities
and
are
left
out
of
this
regulation,
5
preventing
a
consistent
application
of
human
health
6
protection
throughout
Pennsylvania,
and
in
fact,
7
throughout
the
United
States.
8
Therefore,
the
Sierra
Club
urges
EPA
to,
9
number
1,
adapt
a
PM2.5
fine
soot
limitation
consistent
10
with
the
most
recent
comprehensive
legitimate
and
11
reliable
scientific
evidence
that
is
protective
of
12
children,
the
elderly,
individuals
suffering
from
13
chronic
respiratory
and
cardiac
disease,
and
other
14
vulnerable
individuals.
15
Number
2,
adopt
the
most
protective
control
16
option
evaluated
by
EPA,
the
12/
25
micrograms
per
meters
17
cubed
annual/
daily
standards
for
PM2.5.
The
Sierra
Club
18
specifically
opposes
the
weak
standard
proposed
by
EPA
19
in
this
regulation;
i.
e.,
15/
35­
63
micrograms
per
meter
20
cubed
annual/
daily.
21
Number
3,
adopt
a
24­
hour
standard
for
22
coarse
particulate
matter
set
well
below
the
level
that
23
has
been
shown
by
recent,
comprehensive,
legitimate,
and
24
reliable
science
to
cause
damage
to
human
health.
The
25
295
Sierra
Club
supports
an
annual
standard
comparable
to
1
California's
PM10
standard
of
20
micrograms
per
meter
2
cubed.
3
Number
4,
close
the
loophole
excluding
rural
4
areas
from
full
protection
from
PM2.5
fine
soot.
5
Number
5,
close
the
loophole
exempting
6
mining
and
agricultural
industries
from
PM2.5
fine
soot
7
controls.
8
MR.
BACHMANN:
I'm
sorry
we've
run
out
of
9
time.
We'll
go
on
to
Michael
Burri.
10
MR.
BURRI:
I'm
Michael
Burri,
and
I'm
11
testifying
on
behalf
of
Steel
City
Biofuels.
I
want
to
12
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
today
on
13
the
proposed
changes
to
the
EPA's
particulate
matter
14
standards.
My
comments
are
rooted
in
a
deep
love
for
15
America
and
the
health
of
all
its
citizens.
Like
many
16
of
the
people
who
will
speak
before
you
today,
I
believe
17
that
there
are
clear
scientific,
legal,
and
ethical
18
rationales
for
strengthening
particulate
matter
19
standards.
20
I
know
first­
hand
the
effects
of
particle
21
pollution.
Asthma
is
a
debilitating
condition
that
has
22
deeply
affected
both
me
and
two
of
my
siblings.
While
23
preparing
my
comments
for
today,
I
asked
my
24
four­
year­
old
sister
to
describe
an
asthma
attack.
She
25
296
replied
that,
"
It
feels
like
someone
is
choking
me."
1
Moving
beyond
personal
experiences,
studies
2
have
shown
that
as
particulate
levels
increase,
3
bronchitis
and
chronic
cough
increase
in
school
4
children,
acute
respiratory
symptoms
and
illness
5
increase
among
adults,
and
emergency
room
visits
and
6
hospital
admissions
increase.
7
The
strong
relationship
between
particle
8
pollution
and
public
health
has
been
acknowledged
by
9
both
EPA
staff
scientists
and
the
Bush
Administration's
10
own
independent
science
advisors,
both
of
whom
11
recommended
the
strengthening
of
particulate
matter
12
standards.
Furthermore,
the
Clean
Air
Act
translates
13
this
scientifically
verified
relationship
into
a
clear
14
legislative
mandate:
Air
quality
standards
must
be
set
15
at
levels
that
protect
public
health,
which
the
proposed
16
levels
do
not.
17
Ethically,
this
issue
is
simple.
18
Particulate
pollution
is
a
proven
danger,
specifically
19
to
children
and
elderly
populations.
The
Buddha
20
observed
that
if
you
see
yourself
in
others,
who
can
you
21
harm?
As
you
prepare
yourself
to
make
a
final
decision
22
regarding
the
proposed
standards,
I
ask
you
to
imagine
23
yourselves
in
the
shoes
of
a
young
boy
living
next
to
24
the
bus
depot
in
Harlem,
or
an
elderly
woman
downwind
25
297
from
a
coal
mine
in
West
Virginia.
Take
a
few
long,
1
deep
breaths.
2
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
3
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Our
next
panel
4
will
be
Steve
Lomax
and
Sister
Mary
Elizabeth
Clark.
5
MR.
LOMAX:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
6
Steve
Lomax,
L­
O­
M­
A­
X.
I
am
Manager
of
Air
Quality
7
Programs
at
the
Edison
Electric
Institute.
EEI
is
the
8
association
of
U.
S.
shareholder­
owned
electric
9
companies.
10
Power
plants
and
other
industrial
sources
11
have
been
making
dramatic
emissions
reductions
for
12
decades
while
supplying
the
nation's
ever­
increasing
13
demand
for
energy
and
consumer
products.
Between
1970
14
and
2004,
energy
consumption
increased
47
percent,
the
15
total
emissions
of
the
six
principal
air
pollutants
16
dropped
by
54
percent.
The
electric
power
sector
has
17
cut
emissions
associated
with
fine
particulate
matter,
18
sulfur
dioxide
and
nitrogen
oxides,
by
more
than
40
19
percent
since
1980.
20
Whether
EPA
tightens
the
fine
particle
21
standards
as
proposed
or
leaves
the
current
standards
in
22
place,
air
quality
will
continue
to
dramatically
23
improve.
The
power
sector's
on
track
to
reduce
its
24
emission
rates
on
an
alpha
basis,
pound
per
megawatt
25
298
hour,
of
sulfur
dioxide
and
nitrogen
oxides
by
more
than
1
90
percent
compared
to
1980
levels.
Upon
implementation
2
of
EPA's
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule,
Clean
Air
Mercury
3
Rule
and
Clean
Air
Visibility
Rule.
These
amount
to
4
huge
pollution
cuts
already
in
the
pipeline
ordered
just
5
within
this
past
year,
and
we
believe
EPA
should
give
6
them
a
chance
to
work
before
seeking
additional
emission
7
reductions.
8
EEI's
comments
focus
on
the
EPA
proposal
to
9
reduce
the
24­
hour
fine
particle,
PM2.5,
standard.
EEI
10
supports
the
establishment
of
air
quality
standards
11
based
on
a
complete
and
thorough
review
of
the
current
12
body
of
scientific
literature.
Unfortunately,
we
do
not
13
believe
that
EPA
has
conducted
such
a
review.
14
Simply
stated
EPA
staff
has
cherry­
picked
15
the
science,
while
giving
short
shrift
to
studies
that
16
suggest
fine
particles
present
little
or
no
concern.
17
An
influential
EPA
staff
memo
given
to
the
18
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
characterize
the
19
mortality
risk
of
fine
particles
over
short
time
periods
20
omitted
ten
studies
that
show
mostly
no
effect
or
mixed
21
effects
of
fine
particles.
When
the
complete
set
of
22
studies
from
EPA's
particulate
matter
criteria
document
23
is
considered,
only
three
show
statistically
significant
24
effects
of
fine
particles.
One
at
about
the
level
of
25
299
today's
standards,
and
two
at
just
above
the
level
of
1
EPA's
new
proposed
standard.
2
Equally
important
is
the
fact
that
EPA's
3
review
of
the
scientific
literature
fails
to
access
and
4
identify
specific
types
of
particles
or
other
pollutants
5
present
in
the
air
along
with
fine
particulate
matter
6
that
may
be
more
significantly
associated
with
health
7
concerns.
This
shortcoming
has
been
raised
by
the
8
National
Academy
of
Sciences
and
EPA's
own
Office
of
9
Inspector
General.
As
a
result,
EPA
does
not
know
which
10
of
the
many
substances
that
comprise
fine
particulate
11
matter
may
be
causing
a
problem.
12
Legitimate
health
concerns
must
be
13
addressed.
But
moving
ahead
with
a
plan
that
may
not,
14
in
fact,
address
them,
is
in
no
one's
best
interest.
15
EPA's
Inspector
General
has
recognized
the
16
potential
folly
of
heading
down
the
road
to
further
17
regulation
without
adequate
guidance
as
to
what
should
18
be
regulated.
In
a
February
2005
report,
the
Inspector
19
General
noted
that
by
2010
industry
would
spend
$
37
20
billion
annually
to
reduce
ambient
fine
particle
21
concentrations,
despite
the
fact
that
EPA
has
inadequate
22
fine
particle
speciation
data
to
help
ensure
reductions
23
are
made
by
the
right
sources.
24
The
consequences
of
being
classified
as
25
300
non­
attainment
go
beyond
the
tens
of
billions
of
dollars
1
in
cost
to
industry
each
year
that
impact
consumers
in
2
the
form
of
higher
cost
for
energy
and
consumer
goods.
3
A
non­
attainment
designation
discourages
new
industry
4
from
located
within
such
areas
and
may
prevent
existing
5
industries
from
expanding
or
even
shutting
down
and
6
relocating
leaving
an
erosion
of
jobs.
Lost
wages
and
7
increased
costs
for
energy
and
consumer
products
create
8
an
adverse
real
world
impact
that
is
much
more
concrete
9
than
the
uncertain
benefits
of
the
proposed
standard.
10
In
closing,
the
science
supporting
EPA's
11
proposed
tightening
of
the
fine
particle
standard
12
remains
inconsistent
and
uncertain,
while
the
potential
13
costs
to
consumers
are
very
real.
EPA
should
allow
14
states
to
implement
the
existing
standard,
which
they
15
must
meet
by
2010,
before
moving
the
goal
posts
yet
16
again.
17
EEI
appreciates
this
opportunity
to
discuss
18
our
views
on
EPA's
proposed
particulate
matter
19
standards.
Thank
you.
20
MR.
BACHMANN:
Sister
Clark.
21
SISTER
CLARK:
Good
afternoon.
Thank
you
22
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
as
a
representative
23
of
the
religious
community.
I
represent
Sisters
of
St.
24
Joseph
of
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania,
and
I'm
the
25
301
Director
of
the
Cecilian
Center
for
Earth,
Arts
and
1
Spirit
in
Mt.
Airy.
2
Just
recently
we
had
a
witness
from
3
Appalachian
Voices
speaking
to
us
about
the
effects
of
4
mountain
top
removal,
and
the
effects
that
the
5
particulate
matter
has
on
their
community.
6
As
people
of
faith,
we
are
challenged
by
the
7
crisis
of
environmental
degradation
of
our
planet
Earth.
8
The
U.
S.
Catholic
Bishops
have
called
for
a
different
9
kind
of
debate.
Not
as
they
say,
"
to
embrace
a
10
particular
treaty,
not
to
engage
in
partisan
politics,"
11
but
"
in
search
of
the
common
good."
This
is
an
issue,
12
as
they
say,
"
about
the
future
of
creation
and
one
human
13
family."
14
I
don't
speak
from
the
scientific
point
of
15
view,
but
in
speaking
about
the
issue
of
particulate
16
pollution,
I
urge
you
to
keep
before
you
the
effect
of
17
this
most
dangerous
of
air
pollutants
has
on
thousands
18
of
Americans
every
year.
I
believe
there
is
a
moral
19
obligation
to
protect
all
of
Earth's
inhabitants
for
20
generations
to
come,
as
well
as
for
all
Americans
from
21
the
effects
of
pollution
caused
by
power
plants,
diesel
22
engines
and
mining
practices.
23
Just
this
year,
the
witness
that
I
heard
24
from
people
in
the
mining
town
in
West
Virginia,
and
we
25
302
have
them
in
our
own
state,
how
their
people
are
dying
1
of
cancer
in
a
disproportionate
number,
and
how
they
2
have
met
time
after
time
with
government
representatives
3
only
to
be
spurned
in
favor
of
the
large
mining
4
companies.
5
U.
S.
policy
on
particulate
pollution
should
6
be
driven
by
science
and
not
by
the
companies
alone
who
7
would
only
benefit
financially
by
weakening
the
8
standards.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
own
9
scientists
have
shown
that
the
proposed
fine
particle
10
standards
will
leave
millions
of
Americans
unprotected.
11
I
urge
you
to
seriously
consider
making
12
these
standards
stronger
and
not
succumb
to
political
13
pressure
and
ignore
what
your
own
scientists
are
14
teaching
about
the
urgency
of
these
regulations.
15
As
you
know,
air
quality
standards
are
basic
16
to
reducing
air
pollution
nationwide.
So
this
decision
17
is
one
of
the
most
important
decisions
of
this
18
administration
concerning
air
pollution.
I
urge
you
to
19
heed
the
scientific
research
on
the
dangers
of
particle
20
pollution
and
to
adopt
an
annual
standard
no
higher
than
21
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
and
a
daily
standard
no
22
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
23
Let
there
be
no
exceptions
of
agriculture
24
and
mining
from
these
controls.
Under
the
Clean
Air
25
303
Act,
you
are
required
to
issue
uniform
air
quality
1
standards,
to
protect
all
Americans
with
an
adequate
2
margin
of
safety.
There
is
no
excuse
to
limit
standards
3
to
urban
areas
and
exempt
industrial
sectors.
4
Please,
do
the
right
thing,
improve
rather
5
than
weaken
our
standards.
Thank
you.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
Mr.
Lomax,
on
the
­­
I'm
7
fairly
sure
you
were
talking
about
the
staff
paper,
and
8
it's
possible
that
the
ten
studies
you
mentioned
may
9
have
been
already
submitted
in
your
comments,
but
in
10
case
they're
not,
would
you
just
make
sure
­­
11
MR.
LOMAX:
I'll
make
sure
that
happens.
12
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
The
next
people
13
were
really
scheduled
later,
but
the
people
scheduled
14
are
not
here,
so
we're
skipping
ahead.
It
looks
like
15
Mark
Nicolich
and
Cinda
Waldbuesser.
16
MS.
WALDBUESSER:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
17
is
Cinda
Waldbuesser.
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
18
nonpartisan
National
Parks
Association
and
its
300,000
19
members
to
testify
with
regard
to
EPA's
proposed
20
secondary
standard
for
fine
particulate
matter.
21
For
the
record,
I
would
like
to
first
note
22
that
NPCA
joins
hundreds
of
leading
air
quality
23
scientists
and
physicians
and
public
health
and
24
environmental
communities
in
supporting
a
primary
25
304
standard
of
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
annual
1
standard
and
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
daily
2
standard.
Adopting
these
lower
primary
standards
is
3
necessary
in
order
to
protect
the
health
of
all
4
Americans.
5
EPA
has
requested
comments
on
whether
to
set
6
a
secondary
standard
designed
to
address
visibility
7
within
a
range
of
20
to
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
8
We
urge
EPA
to
follow
the
recommendations
of
9
the
Clean
Air
Act
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
and
its
10
own
expert
staff
by
adopting
a
secondary
standard
of
20
11
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
This
standard
is
the
12
minimum
necessary
to
protect
urban,
rural,
and
Class
I
13
areas
such
as
our
treasured
national
parks
from
the
14
effects
of
this
pollution.
15
Nearly
30
years
after
Congress
called
for
a
16
return
to
natural
visual
air
quality
in
America's
17
premier
parks
and
wilderness
areas,
the
National
Park
18
Service
says,
"
Air
pollution
currently
impairs
19
visibility
to
some
degree
in
every
national
park."
20
For
example,
air
pollution
in
the
Grand
21
Canyon
National
Park
reduces
the
ability
of
visitors
to
22
enjoy
the
park's
beauty.
Visibility
at
the
Grand
Canyon
23
can
exceed
160
miles
on
the
clearest
day,
but
haze
can
24
reduce
visibility
to
less
than
50
miles.
25
305
EPA
rightly
acknowledges
that
fine
particle
1
matter
is
the
most
significant
cause
of
visibility
2
impairment
throughout
the
U.
S.
Research
cited
by
EPA
3
shows
that
80
percent
or
more
of
respondents
are
aware
4
of
poor
visual
air
qualities.
5
Good
visibility
is
especially
important
to
6
visitors
of
our
national
parks.
They
consistently
rank
7
clean,
clear
air
as
one
of
the
most
important
features
8
of
our
parks.
9
Research
by
the
National
Park
Service
shows
10
that
visitors
would
be
willing
to
spend
more
time
and
11
money
if
visibility
conditions
improved
in
the
parks.
12
A
2000
Abt
Associates
study
found
that
13
increases
in
visibility
could
raise
park
visitations
by
14
25
percent,
which
would
yield
approximately
30
million
15
increased
fee
collection
and
160
million
in
additional
16
concession
sales.
This
would
in
turn
add
nearly
700
17
million
in
retail
sales
to
the
economies
around
the
18
park;
53
million
in
local
tax
revenues;
and
create
19
nearly
16,000
jobs.
20
EPA
proposed
a
secondary
24­
hour
fine
21
particle
standard
to
the
same
level
of
the
primary
22
standard
of
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
This
is
23
significantly
weaker
than
that
recommended
by
its
own
24
expert
scientific
advisors
and
staff,
and
would
leave
25
306
our
skies
unacceptably
hazy.
Instead,
EPA
should
adopt
1
a
standard
of
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
2
Studies
in
Denver,
Phoenix,
and
British
3
Columbia
cited
by
EPA
demonstrate
the
public
finds
4
visual
ranges
between
40
an
60
kilometers
acceptable.
A
5
secondary
standard
of
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
6
reflect
the
visual
range
of
about
35
kilometers.
7
Staff's
recommendation
that
a
4­
hour
8
averaging
time
to
use
for
the
standard
is
appropriate.
9
It
represents
the
practical
compromise
between
the
very
10
short
time
period
over
which
visual
air
quality
is
11
experienced
and
the
need
for
reasonably
stable
averaging
12
period.
13
We
further
urge
EPA
to
require
the
standard
14
be
met
at
least
98
percent
of
the
time.
Anything
less
15
would
simply
allow
too
many
bad
air
days.
While
a
16
standard
set
at
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
is
many
17
times
the
level
needed
to
restore
natural
visibility
18
conditions,
it
is
a
meaningful
improvement
over
the
19
current
standard
and
would
help
reduce
haze
causing
20
pollution.
21
Finally,
secondary
fine
particle
standards
22
should
apply
in
all
areas
of
the
country,
including
23
Class
I
areas.
EPA's
Regional
Haze
Rule
does
not
by
24
itself
sufficiently
protect
our
parks'
scenic
views.
25
307
Fewer
than
50
of
America's
388
national
parks
are
1
designated
as
Class
I
areas
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
2
thus
fall
under
the
Regional
Haze
Rule.
Even
Class
I
3
parks
will
not
return
to
natural
visibility
conditions
4
six
decades
under
this
rule.
5
Our
entire
nation
deserves
clear
air,
our
6
cities,
our
country
sides
and
our
parks.
Significantly
7
strengthening
the
secondary
fine
particle
standard
will
8
help
them
get
there
sooner.
9
On
behalf
of
the
NPCA,
I
will
submit
more
10
detailed
comments
for
the
record
at
a
later
date.
11
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Dr.
Nicolich.
12
DR.
NICOLICH:
My
name
is
Dr.
Mark
Nicolich,
13
N­
I­
C­
O­
L­
I­
C­
H.
I'm
here
today
representing
the
14
American
Petroleum
Institute.
I'm
a
statistician,
a
15
reasonable
statistician.
The
API
would
like
to
thank
16
the
EPA
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
this
17
proposed
rule.
18
We'd
like
to
recognize
the
sizable
research
19
and
regulatory
efforts
of
the
Agency,
industry,
20
academia,
and
other
parties
have
put
forward
which
is
a
21
result
in
the
significant
decrease
in
PM
concentration.
22
There's
been
about
a
30
percent
decrease
in
the
fine
PM
23
levels
over
the
past
25
years.
And
there's
been
larger
24
decreases
in
the
other
PM
fractions.
The
overall
25
308
progress
is
even
more
remarkable
if
we
consider
the
1
levels
of
the
well­
known
air
pollution
episodes
in
the
2
'
50s,
when
exposures
to
extreme
levels
of
PM
and
sulfur
3
dioxide
were
clearly
detrimental
to
health.
4
Today
I
would
like
to
address
three
areas.
5
One
is
the
accuracy
of
the
EPA
statements
that
clear
6
health
effects
exist
from
the
PM
exposures.
Second
is
7
the
uncertainty
and
precision
of
the
model
estimates,
8
and
third
is
the
research
validation
efforts
the
Agency
9
must
pursue
in
order
to
address
these
areas.
10
First,
the
EPA
claims
that
the
health
11
impacts
have
clearly
been
demonstrated
at
or
below
the
12
1997
fine
particle
standards.
In
our
view,
the
Agency
13
has
not
quite
objectively
evaluated
the
available
14
evidence
and
has
suggested
that
health
effects
are
firm
15
while
dismissing
inconsistencies
and
negative
findings.
16
If
we
look
at
the
studies
the
Agency
referred
to
in
17
their
proposed
rule,
we
see
studies
that
indicate
18
statistically
significant
negative
health
effects
when
19
fine
PM
concentrations
are
near
the
current
fine
20
standards.
But
we
also
see
studies
that
show
no
21
significant
effects
at
similar
or
even
higher
22
concentrations.
This
would
suggest
that
we
are
in
an
23
area
of
uncertainty
with
inconsistent
results.
Any
24
decisions
to
reduce
current
standards
will
have
25
309
significant
societal,
yet
with
these
inconsistencies,
it
1
is
not
clear
that
there
will
be
any
accompanying
health
2
benefits.
3
We
cannot
see
the
predicted
health
benefits
4
directly
from
these
rules
because
of
the
small
predicted
5
improvement.
Unlike
the
air
pollution
episodes
of
the
6
'
50s,
today
we
have
to
rely
on
estimated
risks
from
7
statistical
models
that
are
used
to
predict
8
improvements.
When
problems
in
the
time
series
models
9
were
corrected
by
HEI,
there
was
a
reduction
in
the
size
10
of
the
effect
estimates
in
health,
hence
the
health
11
benefits
­­
a
reduced
health
benefits,
not
increased
12
health
benefits.
And
also
changes
to
the
estimated
13
precision.
The
HEI
review
committee
indicated
it
was
14
not
possible
to
eliminate
many
of
the
biases
in
the
15
model.
And
these
biases
introduce
an
element
of
16
uncertainty
that
has
not
been
previously
appreciated.
17
There's
similar
problems
with
the
risk
18
estimates
from
the
cohort
studies,
reanalysis
of
the
ACS
19
study,
the
study
considered
key
by
the
EPA.
As
shown
20
that
the
risk
estimates
derived
from
these
studies
are
21
quite
variable
because
of
factors
such
as
a
strong
22
education
gradient
in
the
risk
estimates,
confounding
23
effects
of
SO2,
and
possible
threshold
effects.
There
24
are
similar
concerns
about
the
other
cohort
studies,
25
310
including
ASHMOG,
the
VA
studies,
and
the
Southern
1
California
Children's
studies,
some
of
which
show
little
2
or
no
risks
from
ambient
PM.
3
These
studies
challenge
the
level
of
4
accuracy
and
precision
of
the
model
estimates.
These
5
concerns
are
critical
because
the
current
ambient
6
levels,
we
cannot
directly
see
benefits
of
reducing
fine
7
PM
concentrations.
EPA
and
all
other
researches
are
in
8
the
weak
scientific
position
of
having
hypothesized
9
concentration
response
relationships
and
only
being
able
10
to
directly
measure
the
concentration.
Collectively
we
11
are
not
able
to
judge
the
human
health
success
of
air
12
quality
programs
by
directly
observing
the
improvement
13
in
health
only
by
a
reduction
in
concentration.
14
Therefore,
it's
essential
that
the
Agency
and
the
15
scientific
community
will
verify
the
link
provided
by
16
these
models.
The
most
direct
way
of
demonstrating
the
17
accuracy
and
precision
of
these
models
is
to
show
their
18
ability
to
predict
mortality
change
based
on
ambient
PM
19
data
that
has
not
been
used
to
build
the
model.
That
20
is,
we
have
some
developmental
data
that's
used
to
build
21
the
model,
and
then
we
apply
that
to
new
data,
which
is
22
not
of
the
same
time
period
but
similar.
23
Intervention
studies
are
not
applicable
to
24
the
problem
that
I'm
discussing
because
they're
based
on
25
311
gross
observations
and
there's
no
control
of
variables
1
such
as
weather
and
time.
Currently,
the
models
in
us
2
today
have
been
developed
and
evaluated
only
on
past
3
data.
They
have
not
been
used
to
demonstrate
the
4
ability
to
predict
new
data
as
is
needed
to
validate
of
5
show
that
a
model
is
useful.
Many
of
the
expert
model
6
developers
agree
that
it
is
not
easy
to
demonstrate
this
7
predictive
ability.
However,
unless
the
predictability
8
is
demonstrated,
we
may
be
adding
more
stringent
air
9
regulations
without
reaping
any
health
benefits
at
all.
10
Finally,
the
API
notes
that
CASAC
did
not
11
endorse
the
retaining
the
standards
and
the
Agency
did
12
propose
retaining
the
existing
standards.
And
also
13
notes
that
there
continues
to
be
diverging
views
within
14
CASAC.
However,
API
members
believe
that
EPA
and
CASAC
15
have
made
significant
strides
to
strike
a
balance
in
the
16
divergent
views
and
interpretations
of
these
statements.
17
MR.
BACHMANN:
We're
out
of
time.
Thank
18
you.
We
have
your
full
statement.
19
I
have
a
question
for
Cinda.
And
that
is
20
about
­­
not
many
people
have
talked
about
the
secondary
21
standards.
You're
suggesting
that
one
of
the
basis
that
22
you
would
put
forth
as
we
went
to
any
secondary
standard
23
particulate
ought
to
be
about
protecting
parks
and
Class
24
I
areas;
is
that
right?
25
312
MS.
WALDBUESSER:
Yes.
1
MR.
BACHMANN:
Obviously
there's
some
legal
2
precedent
on
that,
but
it's
worth
when
you
submit
your
3
written
comments,
taking
a
look
at
what
happened
on
the
4
last
review
of
the
D.
C.
circuit
on
that.
Thank
you.
5
MS.
KATZ:
The
next
speaker
is
going
to
be
6
Walter
Tsou
and
Hector
Ybanez.
7
DR.
TSOU:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Dr.
8
Walter
Tsou,
and
I
am
speaking
to
you
on
behalf
of
the
9
American
Public
Health
Association,
the
nation's
oldest
10
largest,
and
most
diverse
organization
of
public
health
11
professionals
in
the
world.
As
the
immediate
Past
12
President
of
the
APHA
and
the
Former
Health
Commissioner
13
of
Philadelphia,
I
consider
this
issue
of
air
quality
14
and
control
critical
to
protecting
the
public's
health.
15
The
cornerstone
of
our
nation's
efforts
to
16
solve
our
air
pollution
problems
is
the
setting
of
17
national
standards
for
the
most
serious
air
pollutants
18
based
on
the
current
science
and
data.
This
role
falls
19
to
the
EPA,
which,
inherent
in
its
statutory
mandate,
is
20
charged
to
protect
vulnerable
populations.
21
The
particulate
matter
standards
proposed
22
December
20th,
2005
fall
far
short
of
the
mandate
and
23
the
spirit
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
The
EPA
has
diverted
24
from
the
recommendations
of
its
scientists
and
advisory
25
313
panels
to
weaken
public
health
protections
in
very
1
serious
ways.
In
December
2005,
APHA
joined
with
the
2
more
than
100
prominent
air
quality
researchers,
3
physicians
and
public
health
professionals,
many
of
whom
4
are
the
nation's
leading
air
quality
scientists
and
who
5
wrote
the
very
studies
that
the
EPA
is
using
to
set
the
6
standards,
in
recommending
the
following:
7
One,
an
annual
average
fine
particulate
8
standard
of
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
Two,
a
daily
9
fine
particulate
standard
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
10
meter.
Three,
a
stringent
daily
coarse
particulate
11
standard
of
25
to
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
that
12
applies
equally
to
all
areas
of
the
country
for
13
particulates
in
the
range
of
2.5
to
10
microns,
and
all
14
the
daily
standards
should
use
the
99th
percentile
so
15
that
it
reduces
the
number
of
days
allowed
over
the
16
level
acknowledged
to
be
safe.
17
If
left
unchanged,
the
current
annual
18
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
at
15
micrograms
19
per
cubic
meter,
is
outside
of
the
range
recommended
by
20
the
Clean
Air
Science
Advisory
Council
and
above
the
21
level
where
exposure
can
be
reasonably
expected
to
lead
22
to
premature
death
based
on
scientific
evidence.
The
23
categorical
exclusion
of
most
of
the
country
from
the
24
coarse
particulate
standards,
with
the
exception
of
25
314
urban
areas
with
populations
greater
than
100,000,
1
combined
with
the
shutting
down
of
coarse
particulate
2
monitors
outside
urban
areas
is
also
not
within
the
3
recommendations
of
the
council.
4
More
importantly,
we
wish
to
underscore
what
5
many
of
our
scientists
and
health
professional
members
6
have
already
communicated
to
EPA's
advisory
committees
7
and
to
the
Agency
itself
and
in
the
public
hearings
8
currently
underway
in
Chicago
and
San
Francisco.
The
9
adverse
public
health
impacts
of
fine
coarse
particle
10
pollution
are
extraordinarily
severe
and
affect
a
wide
11
cross­
session
of
individuals
and
communities
throughout
12
the
United
States.
The
annual
toll,
in
morbidity,
13
mortality,
and
cost
to
the
health
care
system
and
to
14
caregivers,
ranks
this
readily
controllable
pollutant
15
among
the
most
serious
ambient
environmental
exposures
16
that
affects
human
health
and
well­
being.
17
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
more
than
25
18
million
children
and
more
than
14
million
seniors
over
19
the
age
of
65
live
in
areas
that
fail
to
meet
federal
20
standards
for
healthy
air,
and
over
6.5
million
people
21
with
asthma
and
7.2
million
people
with
chronic
lung
22
diseases
live
in
these
same
areas.
Within
Philadelphia,
23
asthma
among
children
is
the
leading
medical
reason
for
24
absenteeism
from
school
affecting
thousands
of
children
25
315
annually
with
broader
consequences
for
our
society.
1
We
affirm
the
importance
of
national
2
health­
based
air
quality
standards
to
offer
health
3
protection
to
susceptible
populations,
including
4
children,
from
the
harmful
effects
of
air
pollution,
and
5
urge
the
EPA
to
base
such
standards
on
the
latest
6
science.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
address
this
7
important
public
health
issue.
8
MR.
YBANEZ:
Hello,
my
name
is
Hector
9
Ybanez.
I'm
here
representing
the
Portland
Cement
10
Industry.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
11
air
quality
in
the
U.
S.
is
getting
significantly
12
cleaner.
Even
with
our
growth
and
economy,
the
rules
13
that
is
EPA
has
place
and
the
rules
which
are
planned
14
will
continue
to
see
improvement.
Notwithstanding
this
15
fact,
EPA's
data
shows
that
background
concentration
is
16
as
high
as
39
micrograms
per
meter
cubed
for
2005.
This
17
higher
background
level
makes
the
35
micrograms
standard
18
too
low
and
not
achievable
in
many
areas
of
the
country.
19
Another
issue
is
the
dispersion
modeling
20
used
to
develop
the
proposal.
It
was
based
on
regional
21
modeling
and
the
major
impact
of
the
final
rule
will
be
22
more
local
modeling.
Therefore,
protections
in
the
23
impact
are
greatly
under
estimated
by
EPA's
proposal.
24
EPA
has
demonstrated
via
their
own
health
25
316
risk
assessment
that
the
1997
PM2.5
standard
is
more
1
protective
than
what
EPA
had
originally
assumed.
2
Therefore
during
the
development
of
this
rule,
EPA
seems
3
to
have
selected
as
justification
for
a
lower
standard
4
only
though
those
analyses
that
support
a
lower
5
standard.
6
To
further
add
complexity
to
the
issue
the
7
PM2.5
standard
is
not
chemical
specific
like
the
other
8
NAAQS
pollutants.
It
includes
everything
from
dust
to
9
sea
salt.
We
still
don't
understand
how
PM2.5
might
10
cause
health
effects,
or
even
what
part
of
the
PM2.5
mix
11
might
be
causing
the
problem.
Rushing
forward,
we
might
12
be
regulating
the
wrong
pollutant.
13
Therefore,
the
promulgation
of
this
standard
14
will
create
new
non­
attainment
areas.
These
new
15
non­
attainment
areas
will
hurt
large
and
small
16
businesses
and
prevent
expansion
and
growth
in
many
17
urban
and
suburban
counties.
It
makes
no
sense
to
hurt
18
local
economies
when
the
existing
2.5
standard
is
more
19
protective
than
what
EPA
determined
to
be
adequate.
20
Therefore,
it
is
unfair,
at
this
stage
of
21
the
game,
to
move
the
goal
line
with
a
new
revised
22
standard,
even
before
the
states
begin
to
comply
with
23
the
existing
1997
standard.
24
Regarding
coarse
PM,
it
is
clear
from
the
25
317
health
science
community
that
science
is
weak
and
1
additional
research
is
necessary.
There
is
no
2
scientific
basis
for
setting
the
final
standard
as
70
3
micrograms
per
meter.
The
proposed
standard
of
70
4
micrograms
per
meter
is
not
equivalent
to
the
current
5
PM10
standard
of
150
for
sources
where
emissions
are
6
dominated
by
coarse
PM.
7
Finally,
the
proposed
exclusion
for
mining
8
agricultural
and
other
crustal
PMs
should
be
finalized
9
for
all
sources
of
PM,
but
the
exclusions
should
10
specifically
cite
coarse
fugitive
emissions
from
cement
11
plants
as
examples
of
crustal
material.
12
The
proposed
exclusions
should
also
apply
to
13
any
secondary
standards
of
coarse
PM
as
well.
The
14
monitoring
proposal
appears
to
be
reasonable,
but
must
15
be
strengthened
with
additional
language
and
16
information.
Thank
you.
17
MS.
KATZ:
Any
questions?
At
this
time
we
18
will
suspend
the
hearing
and
take
a
short
break.
19
(
Whereupon,
a
brief
recess
was
taken
at
4:
16
20
p.
m.)
21
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
resumed
at
4:
33
22
p.
m.)
23
MR.
BACHMANN:
We
will
open
back
up
again
24
and
mercifully
I
won't
have
to
read
the
introduction
25
318
again.
The
first
late
afternoon
panel
is
Al
Caporali
1
and
Sara
Kurnes.
Please
come
right
up
and
sit
right
2
there.
What
we've
done
in
the
hearings
is,
we
have
five
3
minutes
for
each
of
you,
and
if
you
just
look
at
the
4
light
right
here,
when
the
yellow
comes
up,
you
have
two
5
minutes
left,
and
then
we've
been
stopping
at
red.
I
6
know
there's
not
as
many
people
here
now,
but
just
in
7
fairness
to
everyone
else
who
spoke
that
only
got
five
8
minutes.
9
MR.
CAPORALI:
My
name
is
Al
Caporali.
I'm
10
a
resident
of
southwest
Philadelphia.
I'm
here
to
11
testify
today
because
of
the
outcome
of
the
proposal.
12
Particle
pollution
is
very
important
to
our
country,
but
13
specifically,
to
health
and
welfare
of
the
residents
of
14
south
and
southwest
Philadelphia.
15
South
and
southwest
Philadelphia
are
among
16
the
most
densely
populated
urban
industrial
areas
in
the
17
United
States.
Many
of
the
residents
in
this
26­
square
18
mile
area
live
close
to
oil
refineries.
We
have
the
19
largest
oil
refinery
in
the
northeast,
Sunoco.
Mail
20
processing
and
vehicle
maintaining
facilities,
which
21
will
be
the
largest
in
the
U.
S.
A.,
which
is
located
22
Island
Road
and
Lynburg
Boulevard,
southwest
23
Philadelphia,
chemical
manufacturing,
power
plants,
24
paint
manufacturing,
M.
A.
B.,
small
commercial
25
319
businesses,
such
as
dry
cleaners
and
auto
body
shops,
1
industrial
parks
61st
Street
below
Passyunk
Avenue
and
2
major
highways,
I95,
I76,
etcetera.
There's
also
a
3
sports
and
entertainment
complex
consisting
of
Citizen's
4
Bank
Park,
Lincoln
Financial
Field,
the
Spectrum
and
the
5
Wachovia
Center.
These
are
all
located
in
south
6
Philadelphia.
7
They
host
baseball,
football,
hockey,
and
8
rock
concerts.
We
live
with
particle
pollution
every
9
day.
Diesel
trucks,
buses,
cars,
power
plants,
industry
10
and
many
other
sources.
Many
of
the
people
who
live
in
11
south
and
southwest
Philadelphia
are
elderly,
retired
12
and
minority
residents
who
can't
afford
to
relocate
to
a
13
more
healthy
location.
14
To
protect
the
public
health,
the
residents
15
of
south
and
southwest
Philadelphia
want
the
16
administration
to
adopt
an
annual
standard
no
higher
17
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
from
the
present
15.
18
And
a
daily
standard
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
19
cubic
meter
from
the
existing
65.
I
want
to
thank
you
20
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
here
today.
21
MS.
KURNES:
I
say
Amen
to
everything
he
22
said.
I
won't
even
take
five
minutes.
If
you
look
at
23
me,
this
is
what
pollution
does
to
the
human
body.
I
24
could
scoop
up
off
of
my
window
sills
in
my
house,
what
25
320
looks
like,
a
man
with
a
black
beard
used
an
electric
1
shaver.
It's
all
little,
little,
tiny
black
hairs.
2
That's
what
it
looks
like.
But
the
air
management
3
people
in
Philadelphia
tell
me
it's
household
dust.
So,
4
now,
just
who
are
we
fighting?
The
people
that
should
5
be
concerned
with
people's
health
are
telling
me
it's
6
household
dust.
That
is
not
household
dust.
It's
come
7
from
the
Sunoco
refinery.
And
I
even
have
storm
8
windows,
but
it
still
comes
in
my
house.
So
I
don't
9
even
have
to
be
outside
to
be
harmed
by
it.
It
comes
10
into
my
home,
and
it
has
taken
my
health
away
from
me.
11
There's
21
houses
on
the
street
that
I
live,
12
and
five
people
have
had
heart
surgery.
That
just
can't
13
be
their
diet
or
their
nationality.
It's
because
of
the
14
street
that
I
live
on.
It's
like
we're
retarded.
But
15
what
do
you
do
when
the
air
management
people
deny
it?
16
I
hope
that
you
people
are
going
to
be
able
to
do
17
something
about
it.
Thank
you.
18
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
19
testimony.
Next
we
have
Dr.
Gregory
Kane.
20
DR.
KANE:
My
name
is
Gregory
Kane.
I'm
21
going
to
just
speak
from
the
cuff,
not
with
prepared
22
remarks.
I've
just
come
from
Jefferson
Hospital
where
I
23
teach
residents
and
students
and
have
an
active
patient
24
practice.
In
the
hospital
right
now,
I
have
seven
25
321
patients
that
are
suffering
from
either
emphysema
or
1
asthma
and
are
in
the
hospital
because
of
exacerbations.
2
All
but
two
of
these
patients
have
quit
smoking
3
cigarettes.
So
their
exacerbations
are
no
longer
4
related
to
tobacco
products,
but
the
are
related
to
the
5
air
that
we
breathe
and
the
quality
of
the
environment
6
that
we
live
in.
7
In
my
outpatient
office
this
afternoon
I
saw
8
a
young
woman
in
her
early
40s
who
has
suspected
lung
9
cancer,
and
she's
never
smoked
a
cigarette
a
day
in
her
10
life.
As
I
see
her
and
think
about
the
potential
11
causes,
one
of
the
things
that
weighs
heavily
on
my
mind
12
is,
what
role
did
the
environment
that
we
live
in
and
13
the
quality
of
air
that
we
breathe
is
playing
in
14
contributing
to
the
etiology
for
this
devastating
15
disease
that
could
conceivably
take
her
life
at
a
very
16
premature
age.
17
Without
getting
into
the
details,
my
point,
18
as
a
physician
caring
for
residents
in
Philadelphia,
19
residents
in
the
suburbs,
residents
in
south
Jersey,
is
20
to
ask
you
to
advocate
for
the
toughest
quality
of
air
21
standards
that
we
could
possibly
achieve.
Anything
that
22
we
do
now
is
only
going
to
benefit
future
generations
of
23
current
patients,
the
next
generation,
our
children,
and
24
their
offspring.
So
I'm
hopeful
that
anything
you
can
25
322
do
in
this
regard
would
be
advocated
in
the
strongest
1
possible
terms.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
2
might
have
for
me.
3
MR.
BACHMANN:
Do
you
have
any
­­
obviously,
4
since
you
care
for
these
folks,
do
you
have
any
­­
are
5
there
other
anecdotal
observations
of
your
career
that
6
lead
you
to
believe
that
these
people
have
a
worse
time
7
on
days
that
are
not
so
good
for
air
quality
or
not?
8
DR.
KANE:
Absolutely.
Today,
in
early
9
March,
the
air
is
really
not
too
terribly
bad;
it's
a
10
good
temperature
outside.
When
the
summer
months
roll
11
around,
when
we
get
to
July
and
August
and
my
patients
12
who
live
in
the
city
are
dealing
with
the
exhaust
from
13
motor
vehicles,
or
dealing
with
exhaust
from
industry
in
14
their
own
neighborhoods
in
south
or
southwest
15
Philadelphia,
I
can
tell
you
the
number
of
calls
that
I
16
get
for
patients
that
need
to
be
seen
in
the
office,
or
17
who
are
struggling
to
breathe
and
feel
that
they
need
to
18
be
seen
in
the
emergency
room
goes
up
dramatically.
And
19
it
is
a
cycle
that
I
think
those
of
us
who
take
care
of
20
patients
with
lung
disease,
sort
of,
get
used
to
and
21
believe
that
it's
just
part
of
what's
expected,
but
I
22
think
if
you
step
back
and
look
at
the
bigger
picture,
23
you
probably
would
realize
that
we
could
do
a
lot
better
24
to
improve
the
air
quality
during
these
hazy,
hot
summer
25
323
days
when
the
pollution
lays
low
and
contributes
with
1
the
humidity
to
really
making
it
difficult
for
our
2
patients
to
breathe.
3
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
very
much.
The
4
next
will
be
Dr.
David
Masland.
5
DR.
MASLAND:
I'm
Dr.
David
Masland
of
6
Carlisle,
Pennsylvania,
born
and
raised
in
that
county.
7
I
was
trained
here
in
Philadelphia
at
Jefferson
and
8
across
the
river
in
Camden.
In
those
days,
even
this
9
area
was
not
so
bad.
Today,
when
I
look
at
my
valley,
10
my
beautiful
valley,
I
see
nothing
but
smog.
We
have
11
one
of
the
largest
truck
depots
in
the
country.
12
Recently
we
battled
another
home
depot
for
13
trucks
in
Carlisle
and
the
people
would
spoke
there,
I
14
think,
have
probably
spoken
here
today.
And
they
15
awakened
me
to
the
cause
and
effect
of
some
of
the
16
diseases
which
I
have
seen
in
my
career
and
the
17
increasing
incidence
of
asthma
in
our
valley,
and
the
18
increasing
deaths
from
asthma
in
our
valley,
and
the
19
reason
why
I
can't
any
longer
see
across
my
valley
about
20
half
the
time.
21
When
I
was
child,
you
could
stand
on
one
22
mountain
and
look
14
miles
away
and
count
the
trees
on
23
the
other
mountain.
Today,
half
the
time,
you
can't
see
24
it.
Because
of
this
and
because
of
what
I
learned
from
25
324
some
of
the
speakers
you
had
today
about
the
diesel
1
pollution,
I
became
interested
in
it,
and
I
spoke
to
one
2
of
our
pulmonologists
in
Carlisle,
Dr.
Phil
Carey
3
(
phonetic),
and
you
have
his
letter
"
When
You
Can't
4
Breathe
Nothing
Else
Matters,"
which
is
something
we've
5
lifted
from
the
American
Lung
Association,
and
he
has
6
written,
here,
a
letter,
which
I
sent
to
them,
to
all
of
7
the
physicians,
in
the
Cumberland
County.
This,
and
the
8
other
letters
I
have
at
home,
represents
a
75
percent
9
response
from
that
one
letter
that
I
sent
to
­­
and
the
10
doctor
signed
this.
There's
over
a
hundred
physicians
11
here
and
another
hundred
here,
and
there
were
about
20
12
who
were
not
included,
because,
one,
I
couldn't
read
13
their
names,
and
two,
they
came
in
too
late
to
be
14
included
in
the
advertisement.
We
put
this
in
two
15
advertisements
in
two
papers,
and,
then,
following
that,
16
there
were
articles
written
by
the
newspapers,
which
you
17
have
a
copy
of
there,
which
is
one
of
the
articles
which
18
was
written.
There
were
several,
and
there
were
many
19
letters
to
the
editor
written
supporting
our
point
of
20
view.
21
At
that
point,
I
started
studying
the
22
subject
and
looking
into
it
a
little
deeper,
and
I
23
talked
to
Dr.
Carey,
who
has
written
this
article,
and
24
asked
him
if
he
has
seen
­­
he's
been
there
for
25
years
25
325
­­
if
he
has
also
seen
an
increasing
incidence
of
asthma
1
and
increasing
difficulty
in
treating
it,
and
he
said,
2
yes,
he
has.
3
I,
then,
just,
fortuitously
­­
you
might
4
guess
that
at
my
age
I'm
retired.
I
retired
last
year
5
at
the
age
of
81.
That's
not
anything
that
I'm
all
that
6
proud
about.
I
would
love
to
be
back
working,
but
I
7
couldn't
any
longer
continue
for
several
reasons.
I
do
8
still
read
the
journals
and
I
have
a
copy
of
the
9
December
JAMA
article.
If
you
gentlemen
are
interested
10
in
this
subject,
as
I
presume
you
are,
and
you
probably
11
have
read
or
had
this
article
pointed
out
to
you
before.
12
They
used
mice
in
this
and
they
exposed
different
mice
13
to
different
degrees
of
pollution.
They
could
not
find
14
any
safe
level.
No
matter
what
level
it
is,
there
was
15
no
safe
level
unless
the
air
was
completely
free
of
16
PM2.5.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is,
the
higher
­­
it's
a
17
linear
curve
and
it
goes
straight
up
and
like
that,
no
18
bumps,
no
jumps
in
it.
It
just
goes
straight
up.
The
19
higher
the
degree
of
pollution
the
higher
degree
of
20
damage
to
the
blood
vessels.
And
they
sacrificed
all
21
these
mice
and
looked
at
their
blood
vessels,
looked
at
22
their
lung,
and
they
saw
damage
in
both
areas.
23
As
you
know,
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
a
24
lot
of
science
in
the
subject,
but
that
was
just
25
326
fortuitously
published
in
December
of
this
year,
in
1
JAMA.
And
I
have
used
this
article
at
home
with
groups
2
who
were
less
sophisticated
in
this
material
that
I'm
3
sure
you
all
are.
4
The
last
thing
I
would
like
to
say
is,
5
PM2.5,
you've
heard
about
today,
and
you
may
have
had
6
this
pointed
out
to
you
before,
but
if
you
haven't,
I
7
think
it's
worth
doing.
Dr.
Carey,
when
he
came
to
8
speak
to
one
of
the
groups
that
I
asked
him
to
speak
to
9
­­
and
he,
by
the
way,
can't
be
here
because
he's
a
busy
10
practicing
physician,
and
he
had
appointments
scheduled
11
at
this
time
even
before
this
meeting
was
set.
When
you
12
use
a
nebulizer,
you
will
notice
that
­­
when
you
use
a
13
nebulizer,
what
size
does
the
manufacturer
make
these
14
particles?
2.5,
because
that's
what
it
takes
to
the
get
15
to
the
lowest
recesses
of
your
lung,
and,
therefore,
16
they
use
this.
17
MR.
BACHMANN:
I
did
want
to
make
sure
that
18
you
got
that
demonstration
in.
I
suspected
that's
what
19
you
were
going
to
do.
It's
certainly
worth
knowing.
20
Thank
you
very
much.
21
Dr.
Turner.
22
DR.
TURNER:
Thank
you.
My
name
is
William
23
Turner,
Vice
President
of
the
Clean
Air
Board
of
Central
24
Pennsylvania.
I
appreciate
the
time
to
testify
in
front
25
327
of
the
panel.
1
In
central
Pennsylvania,
especially
in
the
2
Carlisle
area
where
Route
81
and
the
Pennsylvania
3
Turnpike
intersect,
soot
from
diesel
engines
operating
4
and
idling
day
and
night
is
a
very
clear
and
persistent
5
threat
to
the
health
of
residents.
In
the
6
Harrisburg/
Carlisle
metro
service
area,
the
lifetime
7
cancer
risk
level
is
currently
412
times
greater
than
8
the
EPA's
acceptable
level
of
one
in
a
million.
And
for
9
the
record,
I
don't
know
how
there
can
ever
be
an
10
acceptable
level
for
risk
for
cancer,
but
be
that
as
it
11
may,
at
these
levels
I
would
suggest
that
our
12
community's
cancer
risk
is
lethal.
And
our
air
quality
13
can
only
get
worse,
because
as
the
transportation
14
industry
knows,
from
Carlisle
you
can
reach
two­
thirds
15
of
the
population
of
the
United
States
within
one
day's
16
drive.
So
more
trucks
and
more
warehousing
for
trucking
17
activities
are
coming.
18
Right
now
over
700
truck
parking
spaces
19
exist
in
truck
stops
in
one
township
east
of
Carlisle,
20
Pennsylvania.
An
estimated
600
of
these
spaces
are
home
21
to
trucks
that
idle
an
average
of
ten
hours
per
day
to
22
comply
with
safe
driving
regulations.
In
addition,
23
several
million
square
feet
of
warehousing
now
exists
in
24
Cumberland
County,
which
surrounds
Carlisle,
and
several
25
328
million
more
square
feet
or
planned.
Each
day
thousands
1
of
trucks
accelerate
and
decelerate
to
and
from
loading
2
and
unloading
activities
throughout
the
plethora
of
3
warehouses
that
exist,
the
distribution
centers
that
4
exist,
and
the
trucking
terminals,
and
they
do
so
5
spewing
and
spreading
toxic
fumes
wherever
they
go.
6
In
August
2004,
24­
hour
PM2.5
data
gathered
7
by
an
industrial
hygienist
at
two
points
near
the
truck
8
stops
I
just
described
outside
Carlisle,
indicated
9
readings
of
56.4
and
63.2
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
10
four
times
your
current
daily
health
limits.
And
last
11
month
on
February
16th,
in
the
Harrisburg
metro
service
12
area,
we
experienced
the
worst
air
quality
in
the
entire
13
U.
S.
New
diesel
engines
that
require
ultra
low
sulfur
14
fuel
will
take
decades
to
have
an
impact
on
this
15
problem.
16
That
is
why
the
Clean
Air
Board
is
working
17
with
local,
county,
and
state
officials
to
address
this
18
deadly
problem
now
before
breathing
becomes
more
19
hazardous.
20
Truck
Chaplin
Dan
Dilehi
(
phonetic)
who
21
walks
these
lots
every
day
tells
me
the
smell
really
22
don't
bother
him
much
anymore.
The
stresses
of
driving
23
a
truck
are
significant,
and
Dan
knows
that
regardless
24
of
the
air
quality
that
the
driver's
spiritual
and
25
329
mental
health
needs
his
attention.
With
one
vehicle
per
1
second
passing
through
the
Pasture's
Carlisle
Parish,
he
2
certainly
has
a
lot
of
healing
to
do.
3
The
physical
health
of
these
drivers
and
of
4
the
residents
who
are
largely
unaware
of
the
hazards
5
that
this
booming
transportation
economy
brings
requires
6
your
diligence
in
setting
the
safest
possible
air
7
quality
standards.
Your
very
name
mandates
that
the
EPA
8
protects
U.
S.
citizens.
9
Therefore,
the
Clean
Air
Board
of
Central
10
Pennsylvania
asks
you
to
lower
the
EPA's
ambient
air
11
quality
standards
for
PM2.5
soot
pollution
to
12
12
micrograms
per
day
for
the
daily
limit
and
to
25
13
micrograms
annually
to
reflect
your
acknowledgment
of
14
the
most
recent
comprehensive
scientific
evidence
15
presented
to
you,
and
in
so
doing,
you
will
save
lives
16
as
well
as
protect
the
children,
the
elderly,
and
other
17
sensitive
people
in
central
Pennsylvania
and
throughout
18
the
nation.
Thank
you.
19
MR.
BACHMANN:
Just
to
be
clear.
I
just
20
want
to
make
sure.
Did
you
really
mean
12
micrograms
21
annually
and
25
daily?
22
DR.
TURNER:
I
probably
had
that
flipped;
23
I'm
sorry.
24
MS.
HASSETT­
SIPPLE:
Just
another
point
of
25
330
clarification,
the
monitoring
levels
that
you
talked
1
about
by
the
truck
stop,
56.4
and
63.2,
those
were
2
24­
hour
monitor
values.
3
DR.
TURNER:
Those
were
24­
hour
and
I
have
4
cited
the
reference
there
in
my
document,
which
has
been
5
presented
to
your
staff
out
front.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
But
that
means
they
were
four
7
times
the
annual
standard
level
and
close
to
the
current
8
level
and
certainly
above
the
proposed
level.
Just
to
9
be
clear
for
everybody.
Any
questions?
10
Dr.
Masland,
I
also
want
to
be
clear,
I
11
think
you
sort
of
answered
it,
and
I
did
the
math,
but
12
it
was
the
1930s
and
'
40s
when
you
could
see
across
that
13
area,
across
that
particle
area.
14
DR.
MASLAND:
I
was
away
from
home
for
a
15
long
period
of
time.
I
suspect
you're
a
physician
as
16
well,
and
you
know
you
spend
a
long
time
in
training.
17
So
I
don't
know
what
the
air
was
like
then,
but
I
do
18
know
what
it
was
before
I
left
and
I
know
what
it
was
19
when
I
came
back,
and
I
know
that
it's
gotten
steadily
20
worse.
21
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
very
much.
The
22
next
group
is
Tom
Benjey
and
Reverend
Jennifer
McKenna.
23
REV.
McKENNA:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Jennifer
24
McKenna.
I'm
an
ordained
Presbyterian
minister.
I
25
331
serve
the
Second
Presbyterian
Church
in
Carlisle,
1
Pennsylvania.
I'm
a
native
Pennsylvanian,
and
I
care
2
deeply
about
all
the
people
in
Pennsylvania.
I
have
3
several
nieces
and
nephews
who
have
asthma,
and
I
have
4
people
in
my
church
who
are
suffering
with
all
sorts
of
5
respiratory
diseases.
We
have
one
woman
who's
actually
6
wearing
a
mask
around
town
now.
I
helped
form
the
Clean
7
Air
Board
and
am
currently
serving
as
its
President
in
8
the
response
to
the
alert
that
the
physicians
gave
us
9
about
the
health
dangers
presented
to
us
by
these
unseen
10
particles
in
our
air
from
diesel
emissions.
11
Our
area
is
clearly
out
of
compliance
with
12
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
I'm
determined
to
help
see
that
13
our
community's
risk
to
most
vulnerable
citizens
is
14
eliminated.
15
This
is
our
holy
season
of
Lent.
Lent
is
a
16
time
of
purification.
It's
a
time
when
we
redirect
17
ourselves
to
what
is
most
important
in
life.
Certainly
18
advocating
for
those
who
are
most
vulnerable
is
one
of
19
the
most
important
parts
of
our
call
as
Christians.
We
20
trust
that
the
earth
is
God's
and
we
are
caretakers
of
21
the
earth.
Jesus
has
called
us
to
be
the
salt
and
the
22
light
of
the
world.
One
of
the
qualities
of
salt
is
to
23
preserve
it's
environment.
We
are
called
to
preserve
24
what
is
around
us
today.
25
332
So
I
support
the
adoption
of
the
most
1
protective
options
evaluated
by
EPA
for
fine
particulate
2
matter.
We
oppose
the
weak
standard
proposed
by
EPA.
3
We
urge
you
to
adopt
the
24­
hour
standard
for
coarse
4
particulate
matter
set
well
below
that
which
has
been
5
scientifically
demonstrated
to
have
been
harmful
to
6
human
health.
7
The
EPA
should
close
the
loopholes
excluding
8
rural
areas
from
full
protection
from
soot
pollution,
9
and
we
urge
you
to
eliminate
loopholes
exempting
10
agriculture
and
mining
industry
from
soot
pollution
11
standards.
12
On
behalf
of
the
citizens
of
central
13
Pennsylvania,
we
support
the
EPA
staff
and
Clean
Air
14
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
that
a
secondary
standard
15
protecting
local
urban
visibility
should
be
adopted
as
a
16
supplement
to
rules
protecting
the
regional
visibility.
17
The
religious
and
the
medical
and
the
civic
18
leaders
of
our
community
agree
that
particle
pollution
19
poses
a
serious
health
threat
for
our
community.
Our
20
state
has
some
of
the
worst
pollution
in
the
nation.
We
21
can
and
we
must
do
better.
The
environment
is
a
moral
22
issue.
So
we
ask
you
to
please
do
the
right
thing
for
23
the
future
of
the
children,
that
I
know
and
love,
and
24
also
for
all
of
our
citizens.
25
333
Dietrich
Bonhoeffer
once
stated
that
the
1
only
question
we
face
is
how
will
future
generations
2
live.
Let's
make
decisions
that
my
nieces
and
nephews
3
will
have
a
future
to
be
able
to
breathe
freely.
Thank
4
you.
5
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Mr.
Benjey.
6
MR.
BENJEY:
My
name
is
Tom
Benjey,
and
I'm
7
a
resident
of
Cumberland
County.
Cumberland
County,
as
8
you
know,
is
the
county
at
the
western
most
edge
of
the
9
eastern
block
of
counties
that
are
in
non­
attainment
of
10
the
PM2.5
standards.
And
given
that
the
winds
blow
from
11
the
west
to
the
east,
there's
a
good
chance
that
we
are
12
right
now
breathing
some
of
the
pollution
that
was
13
generated
back
home.
So
I
feel
that
any
improvements
14
that
can
be
made
in
Cumberland
County
are
going
to
15
profit
those
east
of
us,
throughout
Pennsylvania
and
in
16
New
Jersey.
17
PennDot
on
their
I81
­­
currently
I81
has
a
18
very
high
truck
rate
of
truck
traffic.
We're
told
that
19
we're
on
the
corridor
from
Mexico
to
Canada.
Roughly
20
half
of
the
vehicles
on
I81
are
currently
trucks.
And
21
PennDot's
I81
widening
study
­­
because
the
roads
were
22
insufficient
to
handle
current
traffic
­­
projects
a
23
dramatic
increase
of
truck
traffic
over
the
coming
24
years.
So
the
traffic
is
going
to
get
much
worse.
25
334
Now,
I'm
going
to
talk
about
a
topic
that
1
isn't
frequently
talked
about.
It
is
how
this
pollution
2
is
bad
for
business.
We're
told
often
that
the
trucking
3
enterprises
in
Cumberland
County
are
what
is
keeping
our
4
economy
afloat
because
we
do
have
low
employment
in
5
Cumberland
County.
We
also
have
a
brain
drain
that
you
6
here
a
lot
of
wringing
of
hands
about.
A
very
high
7
percentage,
above
80
percent,
of
our
young
people
are
8
going
away
to
college
or
other
technical
schools
and
9
getting
educated,
but
they
don't
return
home.
The
10
reason
they
don't
return
home
to
work
is
quality
jobs
11
are
not
being
created.
And
the
warehousing
industry
12
produces
­­
the
primary
job
is
forklift
operator.
13
People
don't
spend
tens
of
thousands,
in
some
cases,
14
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
college
education
to
15
become
a
forklift
operator.
Also,
industries
that
16
require
­­
let's
say
a
semi­
conductor
manufacturer,
17
requires
clean
air
for
their
process.
So
companies
that
18
require
clean
air
for
their
process
are
not
locating
19
there.
Highly
paid
executives
are
not
­­
and
not
even
20
just
executives,
skilled
workers,
are
not
going
to
bring
21
their
families
into
such
a
polluted
environment.
22
So
the
pollution
is
hurting
the
business
in
23
our
county.
And
a
nearby
county
has
recognized
this
24
fact.
Berks
County
is
currently
having
some
testing
25
335
done,
some
studies
done,
because
the
climate,
the
1
business
climate,
in
Berks
County
is
already
being
2
harmed
by
the
pollution
and
the
knowledge
­­
because
3
they're
also
in
non­
attainment,
that
the
knowledge
is
­­
4
they
feel
the
hurt
already,
the
pinch.
Thank
you.
5
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Daniel
Favre
who
6
is
testifying
on
behalf
of
State
Representative
Mike
7
McGeehan.
8
MR.
FAVRE:
Hello.
My
name
is
Daniel
Favre
9
and
I'm
here
to
testify
from
a
brief
document
from
State
10
Representative
Michael
McGeehan,
that
reads
as
follows:
11
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
submit
12
testimony
on
the
important
issue
of
particulate
13
pollution,
an
issue
that
affects
me,
my
constituents,
14
Pennsylvania,
and
communities
throughout
the
country.
15
I
represent
the
173rd
house
district
of
16
Pennsylvania,
an
area
of
northeast
Philadelphia
whose
17
borders
are
not
too
far
from
where
this
hearing
is
being
18
held
today.
As
is
the
case
for
all
of
Philadelphia,
my
19
district
is
burdened
with
some
of
the
worst
soot
in
the
20
country.
The
health
impacts
of
this
pollution
have
been
21
well
documented,
asthma
attacks,
strokes,
lung
cancer,
22
cancer,
and
premature
death.
And
as
an
elected
23
official,
I
have
an
obligation
to
do
everything
I
can
to
24
eliminate
this
public
health
threat
for
my
constituents.
25
336
That
is
why
I'm
submitting
this
testimony
today.
1
At
the
state
and
local
level
I
have
2
supported
numerous
initiatives
to
protect
the
public
3
health
of
my
constituents
and
of
Pennsylvania
as
a
4
whole.
But
given
that
soot
pollution
can
travel
across
5
state
borders,
and
that
federal
standards
drive
much
of
6
the
work
we
do
to
reduce
air
pollution,
there's
only
so
7
much
we
can
do
at
the
state
level.
8
Strong
particle
pollution
standards
are
9
crucial
to
fulfilling
our
responsibility
to
reduce
air
10
pollution
and
protect
our
citizens.
Given
this,
I
was
11
extremely
disappointed
to
hear
that
the
Agency's
current
12
proposed
fine
particle
pollution
standards
don't
go
far
13
enough
to
protect
public
health.
14
According
to
the
Agency's
own
analysis,
the
15
Bush
Administration's
decision
to
reject
the
16
recommendations
of
its
own
science
advisors
on
this
17
issue
makes
for
bad
policy
at
any
level,
but
it
is
18
inexcusable
given
the
potential
public
health
impacts
of
19
this
decision.
As
the
Agency's
science
advisors
noted,
20
both
the
annual
and
daily
standards
for
particle
21
pollution
need
to
be
substantially
strengthened
to
22
protect
public
health.
My
constituents
deserve
better
23
than
the
Agency's
current
proposal.
24
I
urge
the
Administration
to
adopt
an
annual
25
337
fine
particle
standard
of
no
higher
than
12
micrograms
1
per
cubic
meter,
and
a
daily
standard
of
no
higher
than
2
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
the
standards
that
have
3
been
called
for
by
the
public
health
community.
Thank
4
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
submit
testimony
on
5
this
important
issue.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
We're
going
to
suspend
the
7
hearings
until
we
have
other
witnesses.
We
will
take
a
8
break
at
6
in
any
event.
There
are
number
of
people
who
9
have
signed
up
that
haven't
shown
up
and
they
may
do
so
10
before
that.
Thank
you.
11
(
Whereupon,
a
brief
recess
was
taken
at
5:
09
12
p.
m.)
13
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
resumed
at
5:
31
14
p.
m.)
15
MR.
BACHMANN:
We're
going
to
go
ahead
and
16
open
again.
We've
had
a
couple
folks
who've
shown
up.
17
One
change
from
a
little
earlier
for
the
rest
of
this
18
hearing.
Judy
Katz
from
our
regional
office
in
19
Philadelphia
has
left
and
Carole
Kempker
from
our
20
regional
office,
Atlanta
region,
is
taking
her
place,
21
and
Steve
Silverman
has
left.
22
We
now
have
Zoe
Warner
and
Dennis
Winters.
23
Basically,
if
you
haven't
seen
it,
you
just
come
up
and
24
sit
at
this
microphone;
we
have
two
people
sit
at
a
25
338
time.
We
will
ask
Zoe
to
go
first.
And
each
of
you
1
first
state
your
name
and
spell
it
for
the
stenographer,
2
and
you'll
get
five
minutes.
A
yellow
light
will
come
3
on
when
there's
two
minutes
left,
and
the
red
light
will
4
come
on
when
time
is
up.
We've
been
relatively
strict
5
with
other
people,
there's
very
few
people
now,
so
we'll
6
be
slightly
looser,
but
not
a
lot
looser,
because
the
7
other
folks
only
got
that
amount
of
time.
Okay.
Ms.
8
Warner.
9
MS.
WARNER:
My
name
is
Zoe
Warner,
Z­
O­
E
10
W­
A­
R­
N­
E­
R,
and
I
just
prepared
something,
so
I'll
just
11
read
it.
My
husband
suffers
from
asthma.
We
never
12
realized
how
much
the
air
here
affects
him
until
we
went
13
abroad
for
nine
months.
As
we
traveled
from
the
high
14
altitude
mountains
of
Ecuador
to
the
desert
of
Jordan
15
from
the
coasts
of
West
Africa
to
New
Zealand,
my
16
husband
rarely
needed
his
inhaler.
But
now
that
we
are
17
home,
when
he
walks
out
of
our
suburban
Philadelphia
18
home,
his
inhaler
must
always
be
within
reach.
19
This
is
because
our
great
state
suffers
from
20
some
of
the
worse
particle
pollution
in
the
nation.
21
Aside
from
his
asthma,
my
hundred
is
a
healthy
man,
but
22
it
is
disturbing
to
think
of
how
our
state's
air
effects
23
others
who
struggle
to
breathe,
especially
children
and
24
the
elderly.
In
fact,
particle
pollution
is
so
25
339
dangerous
that
each
year
tens
of
thousands
of
Americans
1
die
prematurely
due
to
pollution
related
ailments.
But
2
for
some
reason
we
resist
strengthening
air
quality
3
standards
that
could
make
a
huge
difference
in
so
many
4
people's
lives.
5
We
hear
about
the
growing
number
of
asthma
6
sufferers
and
rising
health
care
costs,
but
it
seems
the
7
government
is
unwilling
to
recognize
the
connection
8
between
environmental
conditions
and
public
health.
9
According
to
the
Clean
Air
Act,
air
quality
10
standards
must
be
based
solely
on
the
health
effects
of
11
particle
pollution
and
the
EPA
must
have
uniform
air
12
quality
standards
that
protect
all
Americans.
But
13
scientific
studies
clearly
demonstrate
the
current
14
standards
for
particle
pollution
are
far
to
weak
to
15
protect
public
health.
EPA
has
proposed
provisions
to
16
existing
coarse
particle
standards
recommending
a
new
17
size
range
from
2.5
to
10
microns.
18
However,
the
new
standards
would
only
apply
19
to
urban
areas
and
would
exempt
pollution
related
to
20
agriculture
and
mining
activities.
It
has
been
proven
21
that
breathing
coarse
particles
is
associated
with
22
elevated
rates
of
illness,
hospital
admissions,
and
23
premature
death.
In
the
western
United
States
where
24
industrial
activities
include
industrial
agriculture,
25
340
mining,
and
oil
and
gas
development,
many
small
and
mid
1
size
communities
already
have
high
levels
of
coarse
2
particles
in
the
air
they
breathe.
Why
is
EPA
breaking
3
with
standard
practice
to
create
separate
standards
for
4
urban
areas
and
major
industrial
sectors
when
this
could
5
have
the
most
serious
impacts
on
public
health.
6
Additionally,
the
Bush
Administration
has
7
rejected
lowering
the
annual
standard
of
fine
particle
8
pollution
and
has
proposed
only
a
symbolic
reduction
in
9
the
daily
standard.
Going
from
65
to
35
micrograms
per
10
cubic
meter
will
have
little
impact
on
public
health.
11
Even
though
the
Bush
Administration's
12
independent
science
advisors
and
the
EPA
staff
13
scientists
concluded
that
adverse
health
effects
occur
14
at
levels
well
below
the
fine
particle
standards
and
15
have
recommended
these
standards
be
strengthened,
our
16
president
seems
to
prefer
to
simply
maintain
the
status
17
quo.
18
It
is
unprecedented
and
unconscionable
for
19
an
administration
to
override
recommendations
made
by
20
its
independent
clean
air
science
advisors.
Advisors
21
who
are
acting
according
to
the
requirements
of
the
law.
22
Is
this
because
the
current
administration
values
the
23
polluters
over
the
public?
Does
it
support
industries
24
continued
pursuit
of
profit
even
when
it
has
a
negative
25
341
effect
on
the
American
people?
Are
industry
lobbyists
1
simply
that
convincing?
I
certainly
hope
this
is
not
2
the
cause.
3
Rather,
I
hope
the
Administration
4
appreciates
the
damage
that
can
be
caused
by
the
air
we
5
breathe.
I
also
hope
it
recommends
we
adopt
uniform
6
coarse
particle
standards
and
annual
fine
particle
7
standards
no
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
8
with
daily
standards
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
9
cubic
meter.
10
It
is
fundamentally
important
to
remember
11
air
quality
standards
lay
the
ground
work
for
reducing
12
air
pollution
nationwide.
Therefore,
these
decisions
13
are
some
of
the
most
important
decisions
this
14
Administration
will
make
about
air
pollution
and
the
15
health
of
our
nation.
16
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
17
MR.
WINTERS:
My
name
is
Dennis
R.
Winters.
18
I
am
the
Vice
Chair
and
Conservation
Chair
of
the
19
Southeastern
Group
of
the
Sierra
Club.
On
behalf
of
the
20
approximately
10,000
members
of
Sierra
Club
in
Chester,
21
Delaware,
Montgomery
and
Philadelphia
counties,
I
want
22
to
thank
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
23
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
critical
public
24
health
issue.
25
342
The
Southeastern
Pennsylvania
Group
of
the
1
Sierra
Club
would
like
to
add
its
voice
to
others
who
2
are
calling
for
the
most
protective
option
the
EPA
3
evaluated
for
fine
particulate
matter,
that
is,
the
4
12/
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
respectively
annual
and
5
daily
standard.
The
Clean
Air
Act
is
supposed
to
6
guarantee
all
Americans
clean
air.
The
EPA
should
close
7
loopholes
that
exclude
rural
areas
from
full
protection
8
from
soot
pollution;
exempt
mining
and
agriculture
from
9
particulate
standards;
and
excuse
a
week
or
more
of
bad
10
air
from
being
included
in
the
calculation
of
average
11
annual
air
quality.
12
In
addition,
the
Southeastern
Pennsylvania
13
Group
urges
you
to
adopt
a
24­
hour
standard
for
coarse
14
particulate
matter
set
well
below
that
which
has
been
15
scientifically
demonstrated
to
have
been
harmful
to
16
human
health
and
an
annual
standard
comparable
to
17
California's
PM10
standard
of
20
micrograms
per
cubic
18
meter.
We
also
support
the
EPA
staff
and
the
Clean
Air
19
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
proposal
to
adopt
a
20
secondary
standard
protecting
local
urban
visibility
as
21
a
supplement
to
rules
protecting
regional
visibility.
22
Scientists
and
medical
professionals
have
23
urged
the
EPA
to
create
standards
in
keeping
with
the
24
plethora
of
scientific
findings
detailing
the
damaging
25
343
health
effects
of
soot
pollution
on
the
respiratory
and
1
circulatory
systems
and
the
increased
risks
for
illness
2
and
death.
More
than
2,000
scientific
studies
have
3
shown
that
exposure
to
even
smaller
amounts
of
soot
4
cause
serious
health
damage.
We
strongly
urge
the
EPA
5
to
take
actions
essential
to
protect
our
health
from
air
6
pollution.
7
And
I
would
just
like
to
add
that
this
is
8
brief
because
I've
been
involved
in
Clean
Air
Hearings
9
for
over
30
years
since
the
original
enactment
of
the
10
Clean
Air
Act,
and
I
know
you
hear
the
same
things
over
11
and
over
and
over
in
the
course
of
a
hearing,
but
do
not
12
take
the
brevity
of
this
statement
as
a
sign
that
10,000
13
members
of
the
Sierra
Club
in
our
area
do
not
take
this
14
issue
seriously
and
do
not
understand
that
they
already
15
are
breathing
some
of
the
dirtiest
air
in
the
country.
16
We
would
encourage
the
EPA
to
adopt
the
strongest
17
possible
standard
for
particulate
matter.
Thank
you.
18
MR.
LORANG:
I
didn't
follow
the
reference
19
to
California's
PM10
standards,
were
you
recommending
20
for
fine
or
coarse
standard?
21
MR.
WINTERS:
That's
coarse
standard.
22
MR.
LORANG:
As
a
daily
standard?
23
MR.
WINTERS:
Right.
Actually
that's
an
24
annual
standard,
comparable.
25
344
MR.
BACHMANN:
It's
a
coarse
particle
1
equivalent.
I
think
one
other
person
had
recommended
2
that
as
well.
Coarse
particle
equivalent
to
their
PM10.
3
And
Ms.
Warner,
you
don't
have
to
answer
4
this
because
I'm
going
to
ask
about
your
husband's
5
reaction
to
things,
your
travels
included
traveling
to
6
Jordan.
And,
obviously,
in
some
of
these
areas
of
the
7
world
there
is
dust
and
so
forth,
so
I
just
wondered
if
8
in
those
travels
he
experienced
exposure
to
dust
and
had
9
any
issues
with
it
in
any
of
those
places
you
mentioned.
10
Obviously,
things
got
worse
when
he
got
back
here,
but
I
11
was
just
wondering
if
there
was
anecdotal
evidence
from
12
him
or
your
observations
of
him
with
respect
to
that.
13
MS.
WARNER:
When
we
were
Cairo
his
asthma
14
got
really
bad.
15
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
16
also
appreciate
your
­­
especially
at
this
hour
­­
17
appreciation
of
our
day.
Thank
you
very
much.
18
I'm
going
to
suspend
this
hearing
now
until
19
after
our
dinner
break.
We'll
reopen
at
7:
30.
20
(
Whereupon,
a
dinner
break
was
taken
at
5:
42
21
p.
m.)
22
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
resumed
at
7:
30
23
p.
m.)
24
MR.
BACHMANN:
I
am
going
to
formally
open
25
345
this
evening
session,
and
as
was
the
case
in
the
morning
1
session,
the
afternoon
session,
I
need
to
start
out
with
2
a,
roughly,
five,
six
minute
opening
statement,
which
3
I'll
try
to
condense
a
little
bit,
but
this
statement
is
4
being
read
at
the
comparable
times
in
three
different
5
places
across
the
country.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
6
everybody,
at
least,
hears
our
opening
statement
about
7
the
meeting
and
how
it's
run.
So
if
you'll
bear
with
me
8
a
little
bit
before
we
get
you
up.
9
Good
evening
and
thank
you
all
for
attending
10
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
public
hearing
on
11
two
proposed
rules
for
particulate
matter.
I
know
a
lot
12
of
you
have
come
a
long
way
to
get
here,
and
we
13
appreciate
your
effort.
My
name
is
John
Bachmann.
I'm
14
the
Associate
Director
for
Science
and
Policy
and
New
15
Programs
in
EPA's
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
16
Standards.
I'm
going
to
be
chairing
the
hearing
today,
17
and
we're
here
today
to
listen
to
your
comments
on
EPA's
18
proposed
revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
19
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
and
proposed
revisions
20
to
the
Ambient
Air
Quality
Monitoring
Program
and
21
Regulations.
As
a
reminder,
this
is
a
hearing,
an
22
opportunity
for
the
public
to
comment
on
EPA's
proposed
23
rules.
The
panel
members
may
answer
questions
that
seem
24
to
clarify
what
we
propose,
but
the
purpose
of
this
25
346
hearing
is
to
listen
to
your
comments,
not
to
discuss
or
1
debate
the
proposals.
2
Before
we
move
to
the
comment
period,
I'm
3
going
to
do
a
very
brief
summary
of
the
proposed
rules
4
that
are
the
subject
of
today's
hearing.
Both
proposed
5
rules
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
January
6
17th,
2006.
7
The
first
part
of
it
really
defines
what
8
we're
talking
about
here,
the
pollutant
particulate
9
matter,
also
known
as
particle
pollution.
It
includes
a
10
mixture
of
solids
and
liquid
droplets.
The
particles
11
come
in
a
range
of
sizes.
Some
of
are
emitted
directly
12
and
others
are
formed
in
the
atmosphere
when
pollutant
13
emissions
like
sulfur
oxides,
nitrogen
oxides,
ammonia,
14
and
volatile
organic
compounds,
which
are
gases
to
start
15
out
with,
react
together
chemically
to
form
particles.
16
Exposure
to
particles
has
been
associated
with
premature
17
death
as
well
as
significant
adverse
cardiovascular
and
18
respiratory
effects.
19
The
proposed
revisions
to
the
National
20
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
21
address
two
categories
of
particles:
fine
particles,
or
22
what
we
call
PM2.5,
which
are
particles
smaller
than
a
23
nominal
2.5
micrometers.
And
the
other
is
inhalable
24
coarse
particles,
which
we
term
PM10­
2.5,
which
25
347
are
those
particles
that
happen
to
be
smaller
than
10
1
micrometers
in
diameter,
but
larger
than
PM2.5.
We've
2
had
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
PM2.5,
or
3
fine
particles,
since
1997,
and
for
particles
10
4
micrograms
or
smaller,
or
PM10
since
1987.
We've
5
proposed,
here,
specific
revisions
to
the
current
PM
6
standard
and
have
requested
comments
on
a
wide
range
of
7
alternative
standards
for
both
fine
and
inhalable
coarse
8
particles.
The
proposed
revisions
address
changes
to
9
both
the
primary
standards
to
protect
public
health
and
10
secondary
standards
to
protect
public
welfare
including
11
visibility
impairment.
12
Now,
without
going
through
every
detail
of
13
this
or
even
a
summary
of
the
details
in
this,
which
you
14
can
find
out
at
the
table,
I'll
just
say
that
there's
15
three
major
components
to
the
action
on
those
standards
16
for
fine
and
coarse
particles.
One
is
to
lower
the
17
24­
hour
standard
from
65
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
to
18
35;
to
keep
the
current
standard
of
15
micrograms
per
19
cubic
meter;
and
to
establish
a
new
standard
for
coarse
20
particles
that
would
replace
eventually
the
old
PM10
21
standard,
and
that
standard
would
be
at
70
micrograms
22
per
cubic
meter
and
be
qualified
to
exclude
certain
23
kinds
of
particles
that
originate
in
more
natural
24
crustal
materials,
like
agriculture,
mining
or
windblown
25
348
dust.
1
And
with
respect
to
secondary
standards
­­
2
by
the
way,
these
standards,
we're
asking
for
comments,
3
not
only
for
what
we
proposed
specifically,
but
also
on
4
a
range
of
options
which
goes
as
high
as
the
current
5
standards
in
some
cases,
and
substantially
lower
numbers
6
for
fine
particles
of
12
for
annual
standards
and
25
for
7
24­
hour
standards,
and
for
coarse
particles
down
to
50
8
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
At
any
rate,
with
respect
9
to
secondary
standards,
we
propose
to
make
the
secondary
10
fine
particle
standards
and
the
secondary
coarse
11
particle
standards
equal
to
the
primary
standard
but
we
12
propose
an
alternative
secondary
standard
that
would
13
have
a
shorter
aggregate
time.
14
So
the
other
point
to
make
now,
because
it
15
would
be
a
while
before
these
standards
could
be
16
implemented
especially
for
inhalable
coarse
particles,
17
we
are
proposing
to
decide
what
to
do
with
the
current
18
PM10
standard
while
we
have
this
interregnum
when
we
are
19
still
monitoring
for
coarse
particles.
And
we
propose
20
that
the
current
scientific
evidence
doesn't
support
an
21
annual
standard
for
inhalable
course
particles,
so
we
22
propose
to
revoke
the
current
annual
PM10
standards
in
23
all
areas
immediately
upon
making
a
final
action
if
we
24
decide
to
go
with
this
approach.
25
349
If
we
finalize
the
24­
hour
primary
standard
1
for
inhalable
coarse
particles,
PM10­
2.5,
we've
2
proposed
to
revoke
the
current
24­
hour
PM10
standard
3
except
in
areas
that
have
at
least
one
monitor
that's
4
located
in
urbanized
areas
with
a
minimum
population
of
5
100,000
people,
and
that
is
measured
in
violation
of
the
6
24­
hour
PM10
standard
based
on
the
most
recent
three
7
years
of
data.
8
Now
the
second
major
rule,
which
I
have
9
already
said
is
about
ambient
air
monitoring
10
requirements
for,
not
just
particulate
matter,
but
all
11
so­
called
criteria
pollutants
that
we
have
air
quality
12
standards
for.
Proposed
changes
would
support
the
13
proposed
revisions
to
the
NAAQS
for
particulate
matter
14
including
new
minimum
monitoring
requirements
for
15
inhalable
coarse
particles,
criteria
for
approval
of
16
applicable
sampling
methods.
These
proposed
changes
17
would
establish
a
new
nationwide
network
of
monitoring
18
stations
and
taking
an
integrated
and
multi­
pollutant
19
approach
to
ambient
air
monitoring
in
support
of
20
multiple
objectives.
The
proposed
amendments
would
21
modify
the
current
requirements
for
ambient
air
monitors
22
by
focusing
them
on
populated
areas
with
air
quality
23
problems.
The
purpose
of
these
proposed
changes
is
to
24
enhance
ambient
air
quality
monitoring
to
better
serve
25
350
current
and
future
air
quality
management
and
research
1
needs.
And,
again,
more
information
on
all
that
in
the
2
proposal
in
the
Federal
Register,
but
also
out
on
the
3
table
there
in
summary
form.
4
So,
let's
talk
about
the
comment
portion
of
5
today's
hearing
­­
this
evening's
part
of
the
hearing.
6
This
is
one
of
three
public
hearings
on
these
matters
7
today
in
San
Francisco,
California,
Chicago,
Illinois,
8
and
of
course
here
in
Philadelphia.
We're
preparing
a
9
written
transcript
of
this
hearing.
The
transcripts
10
will
be
available
as
part
of
the
official
record
for
11
each
rule.
We're
also
accepting
written
comments
from
12
the
two
proposed
rules
until
April
17th,
2006,
and
we
13
have
a
handout
available
at
the
registration
area
with
14
detailed
information
on
how
to
submit
comments.
15
So
let
me
talk
about
how
we
will
proceed
16
from
here
on
for
the
rest
of
the
evening.
I'll
call
the
17
scheduled
speakers
to
the
microphone
in
pairs.
In
this
18
case,
I
think
we
only
have
one
at
this
time,
so
it's
19
just
one.
In
any
case,
when
you
come
up
­­
and,
again
20
we'll
ask
you
to
state
your
name
and
affiliation.
And
21
we
have
a
court
reporter
here
who
is
taking
down
every
22
word
that
goes
into
our
rulemaking
docket,
so
we'd
like
23
you
to
spell
your
name,
if
you
could,
to
make
that
24
easier.
In
order
to
be
fair
to
everyone,
even
though
we
25
351
don't
have
a
full
house
tonight,
we
did
earlier,
and
we
1
limited
people
to
five
minutes
each,
and
we'll
try
to
do
2
that
again
tonight
in
fairness
to
them.
If
there
are
3
two
people,
we'd
like
you
both
to
remain
in
the
pair
4
until
you
are
finished.
After
you
finish
your
5
testimony,
one
of
our
panel
members
up
here,
may
decide
6
to
ask
a
question,
in
which
case
that
won't
be
part
of
7
your
time.
It
will
be
after
your
testimony.
8
As
I
mentioned
already,
we're
transcribing
9
today's
hearing,
and
each
speaker's
oral
testimony
will
10
become
part
of
the
official
record.
So
please
be
sure
11
to
give
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
to
our
staff
at
12
the
registration
table
so
we'll
have
the
full
text
of
13
your
written
comments
in
the
docket
for
you.
14
We
have
a
time
keeping
system,
and
it's
15
right
here,
consisting
of
green,
yellow,
and
red
lights.
16
When
you
begin
speaking,
the
green
light
will
come
on;
17
you'll
have
five
minutes
to
speak.
The
yellow
light
18
will
signal
that
you
have
two
minutes
left
to
speak.
19
We'll
ask
you
to
stop
speaking
when
the
red
light
comes
20
on.
21
We've
had
a
fairly
full
schedule
of
speakers
22
already,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
as
full
a
schedule
23
this
evening.
But
we
will
stay
as
late
as
we
need
to.
24
As
long
as
people
want
to
talk,
we'll
be
here.
We'll
25
352
close
at
9
o'clock
or
once
we
run
out
of
people,
1
whichever
comes
first.
2
If
you'd
like
to
testify
but
you
haven't
3
registered
yet,
you
can
sign
up
right
now
at
the
4
registration
table,
and,
again,
we
do
have
slots
for
the
5
evening.
For
those
of
you
who've
already
registered,
6
we've
tried
to
accommodate
your
request
in
terms
of
7
time.
We
ask
for
your
patience
if
there
are
any
8
problems,
although,
again,
I
doubt
that
there
will
be,
9
we
may
need
to
make
some
minor
adjustment
if
somebody
10
comes
in
at
the
last
second.
11
I'm
going
to
introduce
who
we
have
on
the
12
panel.
To
my
right
is
Carole
Kempker
who
is
with
EPA's
13
Regional
Office
Air
Programs
in
Atlanta,
Georgia,
region
14
4
of
EPA.
On
my
left
is
Phil
Lorang
with
the
Office
of
15
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards'
Ambient
Air
16
Monitoring
Group,
and
Beth
Hasset­
Sipple
who
is
with
the
17
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards'
Ambient
18
Standards
Group.
So
thanks
again
for
all
of
you
who
are
19
participating
today.
20
We
can
get
started
with
our
first
member
who
21
is
Milton
Alter
and
Cindy
Parker.
We'll
take
both
of
22
you
as
a
panel.
And
we'll
start
with
Dr.
Alter.
23
DR.
ALTER:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
of
24
addressing
you.
My
name
is
Milton
Alter.
I'm
a
25
353
clinical
professor
of
neurology
at
Drexel
University
1
Hospital.
My
work
is
in
the
academic
field
as
well
as
2
caring
for
patients,
and
my
research
area
in
particular
3
is
epidemiology
which
is
very
important
for
measuring
4
causes
and
effects.
The
toxins
in
our
environment
are
5
often
subtle
but
nonetheless
deadly.
As
a
physician
I
6
see
many
patients
who
develop
a
disease,
the
cause
of
7
which
is
not
obvious.
8
Let
me
mention
one
that
has
made
the
9
headline
in
the
last
few
days:
Mrs.
Reeve's
lung
10
cancer.
She
was
not
a
smoker.
One
in
six
women
with
11
lung
cancer
have
never
smoked.
Could
she
have
inhaled
a
12
toxin?
This
is
suspected,
and
the
toxin
that
has
been
13
implicated
in
some
cases
is
radon,
sub
particulate
14
perhaps,
but
nonetheless,
very
important.
Radon
is
a
15
known
carcinogen.
Closer
to
my
field
are
brain
tumors.
16
The
cause
of
the
most
common
brain
tumor,
glioblastoma,
17
is
unknown.
Could
a
toxin
play
a
role?
Why
not
have
18
industries
that
are
known
polluters
of
the
atmosphere,
19
oil
refineries
for
example,
put
a
portion
of
the
profits
20
to
research
designed
to
determine
the
effect
of
21
pollutants
and
specific
cancer
risks.
Make
the
22
donations
tax
deductible.
Look
how
much
had
to
be
paid
23
to
individuals
who
developed
diseases
from
asbestos
24
exposure.
How
much
better
it
would
have
been
had
25
354
industry
set
aside
some
profits
to
research
possible
1
toxic
effects
of
their
products.
2
The
industrial
polluters
alter
the
3
environment
in
many
ways,
not
the
least
of
which
­­
very
4
popular
in
discourse
currently
is
global
warming.
5
Thereby
environmental
change
being
considered
as
a
6
possible
cause
of
the
state
of
hurricanes
that
affected
7
the
southern
part
of
our
country,
causing
thousands
of
8
deaths
and
destruction
and
millions
of
dollars,
not
to
9
mention
the
misery
of
displacement
of
many
thousands
10
more.
Could
this,
perhaps,
have
been
avoided
had
11
industry
paid
attention
to
the
possible
effects
on
the
12
environment
of
their
products.
13
Industry
does
not
pay
the
full
cost
of
the
14
damage.
They
don't
pay
any
of
the
cost
of
the
damage
in
15
most
cases.
You
and
I
do
in
the
form
of
taxes.
I
close
16
by
mentioning
the
ill
effects
of
lead
poisoning
among
17
children
who
live
in
homes,
old
homes
in
the
poor
18
sections
of
our
old
city.
Lead­
based
paints
have
been
19
shown
to
cost
10
to
15
IQ
points
in
children
exposed
to
20
lead
powder
that
comes
off
of
the
walls
of
the
paint
in
21
their
homes.
Again,
we
shall
have
to
look
at
industry
22
to
lead
the
charge
against
such
a
toxic
scorch.
Thank
23
you.
24
MR.
BACHMANN:
Cindy
Parker.
25
355
DR.
PARKER:
Good
evening.
I'm
Cindy
1
Parker.
I'm
on
the
faculty
of
the
Johns
Hopkins
2
Bloomberg
School
of
Public
Health
and
the
Department
of
3
Environmental
Health
Sciences.
I'm
also
here
speaking
4
with
the
Baltimore
Chapter
of
Physicians
for
Social
5
Responsibility.
When
thinking
about
what's
really
6
important
here
in
trying
to
decide
how
stringent
these
7
standards
should
be,
I
looked
back
at
the
original
Clean
8
Air
Act
and
what
the
EPA
Administrator
is
charged
to
do,
9
and
as
you're
probably
well
aware
­­
this
has,
kind
of,
10
helped
to
shape
my
thinking
­­
the
two
sections
of
the
11
Clean
Air
Act
that
actually
govern
the
establishment
and
12
revision
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
13
are
Sections
108
and
109.
Section
108
directs
the
14
Administrator
to
identify
pollutants
that
"
may
15
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
endanger
public
health
and
16
welfare,
and
to
issue
air
quality
criteria
for
them."
17
These
air
quality
criteria
are
intended
to
"
accurately
18
reflect
the
latest
scientific
knowledge
useful
in
19
indicating
the
kind
and
extent
of
identifiable
effects
20
on
public
health
or
welfare
pollute
which
may
be
21
expected
from
the
presence
of
a
pollutant
in
ambient
22
air."
23
So
it
was
interesting
that
nowhere
in
24
Section
108
does
it
direct
the
Administrator
to
issue
25
356
air
quality
criteria
for
these
pollutants,
as
long
as
it
1
doesn't
inconvenience
those
who
are
emitting
the
2
dangerous
pollutants.
And,
in
fact,
the
emphasis
of
3
Section
108
is
quite
appropriately
on
protecting
the
4
public
health
and
welfare.
So
that
really
sets
the
tone
5
in
that
this
is
the
job
of
the
Administrator
and
the
EPA
6
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare.
Section
109
7
directs
the
Administrator
to
propose
and
promulgate
8
primary
and
secondary
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
9
Standards
for
pollutants
identified
under
Section
108.
10
Section
109
also
defines
a
primary
standard
as
one,
"
the
11
attainment
and
maintenance
of
which
in
the
judgment
of
12
the
Administrator,
based
on
such
criteria
and
allowing
13
an
adequate
margin
of
safety,
are
requisite
to
protect
14
the
public
health."
So
there's
that
emphasis
again
on
15
protecting
the
public
health.
16
And
then
taken
from
a
variety
of
staff
17
papers
written
over
the
years
for
the
board
NAAQS
18
standards,
there
is,
again,
"
in
selecting
a
margin
of
19
safety
the
EPA
considers
such
factors
as
the
nature
and
20
severity
of
the
health
effects
involved,
the
size
of
the
21
sensitive
population
or
populations
at
risk,
and
the
22
kind
and
degree
of
the
uncertainties
that
must
be
23
addressed."
So
you
probably
have
already
heard
this
­­
24
interesting
timing
that
this
paper
came
out
in
JAMA
just
25
357
this
morning
­­
I'm
sure
you've
already
heard
about
this
1
and
probably
read
it
yourself,
Fine
Particulate
Air
2
Pollution
in
Hospital
Admission
for
Cardiovascular
and
3
Respiratory
Diseases.
And
the
paper's
conclusions
are
4
that
for
every
10
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
reduction
5
in
the
daily
PM2.5
level,
there
are
a
certain
number
of
6
reductions
and
annual
hospital
admissions.
And
so
I
7
would
say
­­
going
back
to
the
statement
about
how
to
8
select
the
margin
of
safety,
it's
mentioned
nature
and
9
severity
of
the
health
effects.
So
the
nature
here
­­
10
just
in
this
one
paper
that
just
came
out,
and
obviously
11
the
Clean
Air
Science
Advisory
Committee
has
looked
at
12
stacks
and
stacks
of
papers
which
all
show
some
fairly
13
negative
effects
with
higher
concentrations
of
14
particulate
matter.
So
the
nature
of
the
health
effects
15
from
this
one
paper,
the
cover
cerebral
vascular
16
disease,
they
cover
peripheral
vascular
disease,
17
ischemic
heart
disease,
heart
rhythm
problems,
heart
18
failure,
chronic
obstructive
pulmonary
disease,
19
respiratory
infections,
all
fairly
serious
health
20
effects.
The
severity
­­
and
you're
probably
well
aware
21
of
some
of
the
numbers
­­
for
every
10
micrograms
of
22
cubic
meter
increase
in
PM2.5,
there
is
an
additional
23
1,836
hospitalizations
for
cerebral
vascular
disease,
24
3,156
additional
admissions
for
heart
failure,
2,085
25
358
additional
admissions
for
respiratory
tract
infections,
1
and
the
point
is
that
these
are
100
percent
preventable
2
hospital
admissions.
If
the
standards
are
tightened
and
3
the
particulate
matter
concentrations
are
decreased,
4
these
are
100
percent
preventable.
And
that
seems
5
fairly
significant
to
me.
6
The
size
of
the
sensitive
populations
­­
7
well,
we're
talking
about
folks
over
65,
so
in
these
204
8
U.
S.
urban
counties,
that
was
11.5
million
people;
9
infants
and
children,
about
60
million
in
this
country;
10
urban
poor,
people
with
asthma,
I
don't
know
how
many,
11
but
quite
a
few.
So
we're
talking
about
a
very
sizable
12
sensitive
population
as
well.
And
the
kind
of
degree
of
13
uncertainties,
well,
there's
a
whole
range
of
those
that
14
we
don't
have
time
to
go
into,
but
there's
a
whole
lot
15
of
folks
who
already
fit
into
these
vulnerable
16
categories
and
a
whole
lot
more
folks
who
we
don't
know
17
which
vulnerable
categories
they
might
fit
into.
So
my
18
­­
19
MR.
BACHMANN:
Actually
­­
I
know
we're
not
20
pressed
for
time
here,
and
it's
almost
silly
to
stop
you
21
in
mid
sentence
at
this
point,
but
since
I
had
to
stop
22
people
when
we
were
crowded,
I
do
have
to
stop
you.
I
23
appreciate
it,
but
I
promise
you
we
have
read
the
paper.
24
DR.
PARKER:
My
recommendation
is
to
lower
25
359
the
annual
standard
to
12
micrograms
and
24­
hour
1
standard
to
25
micrograms.
Thank
you.
2
MR.
BACHMANN:
Any
questions?
I
did
have
3
one
for
Dr.
Parker,
and
that
is,
by
citing
­­
I
know
4
you're
using
the
paper
as
an
example
of
new
information.
5
Obviously
we
haven't
assessed
it
yet
in
any
formal
way.
6
It
certainly
wasn't
part
of
the
criteria.
And
one
of
7
the
issues
in
the
­­
I
don't
know
if
you're
planning
to
8
submit
written
comments
or
not,
but
I'm
sure
the
9
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibilities
at
Large
will,
10
but
one
of
the
issues
for
us
is
how
we
address
in
any
11
direct
or
indirect
way
the
use
of
new
material
that
has
12
come
out
since
the
formal
document,
criteria
document,
13
was
closed,
in
terms
of
papers
and,
obviously,
a
lot
of
14
papers
have
come
in.
So,
without
­­
I
don't
want
to
put
15
you
on
the
spot
to
answer
now,
but
to
the
extent
that
16
you
inform
what
the
group
writes
about,
we
are
17
particularly
interested
in
an
opinion
of
how
we
use
that
18
more
recent
information
or
whether
we
hold
it
over
to
19
the
next
review.
Obviously
there
are
a
lot
of
new
20
studies
that
have
come
out
since
2003
or
so.
Thank
you
21
very
much.
22
Next
up
is
Dr.
Gwen
DuBois
and
Dr.
Lawrence
23
Egbert.
24
DR.
DuBOIS:
I'm
an
internist
in
practice
in
25
360
Baltimore
City.
I'm
also
an
instructor
at
Hopkins
1
School
of
Medicine.
I'm
on
the
Public
Health
Committee
2
of
the
Maryland
Medical
Association,
and
a
National
3
Board
Member
for
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility.
4
Baltimore
City,
like
Philadelphia,
is
an
5
urban
area
with
severe
air
pollution
problems.
Dirty
6
air
translates
into
sick
patients
and
dying
patients.
7
The
costs
are
economic,
emotional,
and
as
a
city,
we're
8
deprived
of
the
richness
of
lives
that
are
taken
from
us
9
prematurely.
46,000
people
in
Baltimore
have
asthma.
10
In
our
area
we
have
six
old
coal­
fired
power
plants
that
11
are
contributing
a
disproportionate
share
of
particulate
12
matter
pollution
to
our
region
and
beyond.
And,
13
interestingly,
on
February
14th
this
year,
Dr.
Levy
from
14
the
Harvard
School
of
Public
Health
published
a
study
15
that
estimated
that
these
six
power
plants,
just
in
our
16
region,
caused
80
deaths
and
4,000
asthma
attacks
in
17
Maryland
yearly,
but
nationally,
contribute
to
600
18
deaths
and
20,000
asthma
attacks
and
600,000
person­
days
19
of
what
he
calls
minor
restrictions
and
activities.
So
20
each
state
has
power
plants
like
this,
like
ours,
21
causing
local
morbidity
and
mortality
but
contributing
22
even
more
to
the
national
state
of
ill
health
for
23
cardiovascular
and
pulmonary
conditions.
Each
state
24
contributes
its
own
share
of
bad
air
because
the
EPA
has
25
361
not
done
what
the
law
mandates,
as
Dr.
Parker
said,
and
1
set
standards
to
protect
public
health.
Dr.
Levy
2
concluded,
"
These
findings
indicate
that
these
power
3
plants
may
have
an
annual
public
health
impact
on
the
4
order
of
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
Maryland
and
5
billions
of
dollars
nationally,
emphasizing
that
further
6
analysis
might
be
warranted
to
determine
the
most
7
appropriate
public
health
measures
to
adopt.
8
Now,
EPA
standards
can
make
a
huge
9
difference.
I
know
because
I've
been
involved
in
10
medical
waste
issues,
and
I
remember
1997,
the
EPA
set
11
regulations
for
medical
waste
incineration.
Now,
12
medical
waste
incineration
was
once
a
major
source
of
13
mercury
and
dioxin
pollution,
but
once
EPA
placed
these
14
standards,
put
medical
waste
incinerators
under
15
regulatory
control,
medical
waste
incinerators
either
16
shut
down
in
favor
of
cleaner
technology
or
retained
the
17
required
scrubbers.
And
the
result
has
been
a
great
18
reduction
in
mercury
and
dioxin
pollution
from
this
19
source.
My
own
hospital
­­
I
was
looking
at
EPA
data
20
that
just
came
out
on
mercury,
for
example,
2002
data's
21
just
come
out.
And
my
hospital
was
fifth
or
sixth
for
22
mercury
pollution
because
it
had
an
incinerator.
My
23
hospital,
Sinai,
closed
its
incinerator
because
of
the
24
EPA
regulations
and
now
they
have
a
cleaner
technology.
25
362
We're
separating
waste
and
that
was
because
of
what
EPA
1
did.
2
And
despite
the
predictions
of
industry
3
people
that
we
would
have
a
medical
waste
crisis,
there
4
has
been
none.
The
air
is
cleaner,
and
we
don't
see
5
medical
waste
washing
up
on
the
shores
of
our
oceans
or
6
rivers.
7
If
EPA
set
the
medical
standards
recommended
8
by
its
own
advisory
board
staff
scientists,
major
9
organizations
like
the
American
Heart
Association,
10
American
Cancer
Society,
the
American
Thoracic
Society
11
and
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility
and
National
12
Environmental
Physicians
Group
­­
which
if
I
said,
I'm
13
on
the
national
board,
then
these
old
power
plants
would
14
add
needed
pollution
controls
or
have
to
shut
down.
15
Vehicles
would
have
to
burn
cleaner
fuel
or
have
higher
16
efficiency
standards.
The
results
would
be
fewer
heart
17
attacks,
fewer
asthma
attacks,
fewer
cases
of
lung
18
cancer,
greater
work
productivity,
fewer
days
missed
of
19
work
for
adults,
fewer
days
missed
of
school
for
20
children.
There
would
be
fewer
visits
to
doctors'
21
offices
and
emergency
rooms,
and
any
cost
to
the
fossil
22
fuel
industry
would
be
offset
by
savings
to
employers
23
and
to
employees
like
the
rest
of
us.
Industry
will
cry
24
that
the
old
power
plants
will
shut
down,
rates
will
go
25
363
up,
brown
outs
will
occur;
the
automobile
industry
may
1
also
predict
the
end
of
domestic
auto
industry.
But
2
like
the
medical
waste
story,
these
industries,
if
they
3
are
robust,
will
make
the
changes
and
we'll
be
in
better
4
shape
to
compete
as
pollution
controls
are
enacted
in
5
Europe
and
the
rests
of
the
world.
Let
us
not
be
the
6
last
nation
to
protect
its
citizens
from
illness
born
of
7
archaic
technology.
Thank
you.
8
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Dr.
Egbert.
9
DR.
EGBERT:
My
name
is
Lawrence
Egbert.
10
I'm
an
Assistant
Visiting
Professor
of
Anesthesiology
in
11
Critical
Care
Medicine
at
the
John
Hopkins
School
of
12
Medicine.
I'm
also
the
current
President
of
Physicians
13
for
Social
Responsibility
for
Baltimore;
she's
the
14
former
President;
and
he
who
is
going
to
follow,
is
also
15
a
former
President
of
the
chapter.
16
I
wish
to
recommend
that
the
Environmental
17
Protection
Agency
adopt
and
average
PM2.5
standard
of
12
18
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard
19
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
20
I
recommend
this
standard
because
under
the
21
present
conditions,
which
are
very
well
documented,
we
22
in
the
United
States
suffer
an
unacceptable
mortality
23
rate
from
heart
disease
and
respiratory
disease
plus
an
24
intolerable
impact
upon
the
health
of
children
and
even
25
364
fetuses,
all
of
which
is
it
well
documented
and
not
1
corrected.
2
On
a
personal
level,
I
have
to
say
that
my
3
personal
asthma
gets
worse
when
wind
is
not
blowing.
4
When
the
wind
comes
up
in
Baltimore
my
asthma
gets
5
better.
6
Much
would
be
accomplished
with
a
tighter
7
restriction
on
what
is
tolerable
for
society
in
terms
of
8
tiny
particle
pollution.
I
should
add
that
I
think
that
9
smaller
communities,
in
particular,
agricultural
10
communities
and
mining
communities
should
not
be
11
exempted
from
this.
12
I
said
when
I
started
that
I
worked
in
13
intensive
care
over
a
number
of
years
and
I
had
an
14
opportunity
a
number
of
years
ago
to
help
write
a
15
textbook
on
intensive
care
respiratory
care,
and
my
part
16
of
the
text
was
to
write
about
preventing
what
leads
to
17
the
less
likelihood
of
getting
into
an
intensive
care
18
unit,
other
factors
being
equal,
and
also
what
leads
to
19
the
likelihood
of
getting
out
of
the
intensive
care
unit
20
alive,
other
things
being
equal.
And
one
of
the
21
biggest,
single
factors
in
the
likelihood
­­
if
you
have
22
something
else
that
goes
wrong
with
you
that
you
need
23
intensive
care,
if
you
get
really
sick
­­
of
getting
24
into
an
intensive
care
unit
breathing
regularly
foreign
25
365
particles
in
the
environment,
and
the
same
thing
applies
1
for
the
likelihood
for
getting
out
of
the
intensive
care
2
unit
alive.
Those
who
are
not
exposed
to
foreign
3
material
were
more
likely
to
get
out
of
intensive
care
4
than
if
they
had
a
head
smashed
in
or
a
big
trauma,
that
5
sort
of
thing,
that
matched
up.
Smoking
was
the
biggest
6
factor
for
them
to
get
into
the
intensive
care
unit
and
7
not
to
get
out
of
it.
Thank
you.
8
DR.
DuBOIS:
I
did
say
that
I
would
9
recommend
that
you
follow
the
recommendations
of
the
10
scientists
who
proposed
this
­­
the
recommendation
of
11
the
Science
Advisory
Committee
with
the
stronger
12
regulations
of
the
20
micrograms
­­
13
MR.
BACHMANN:
Let
me
ask
about
that.
The
14
Clean
Air
Science
Advisory
Committee
made
the
15
recommendations,
and
I
could
ask
both
of
you
the
same
16
question.
What
they
recommended
was
for
the
annual
17
standard,
a
range
of
13
to
14
and
a
24­
hour
standard
18
range
of
30
to
35.
There
were
in
the
staff
paper
ranges
19
as
low
as
12
and
25,
which
a
number
of
commenters
have
20
recommended
here,
but
I
think
it's
important
­­
if
you
21
would
want
to
align
yourself
with
the
Clean
Air
Science
22
Advisory
Committee
recommendations,
those
were
their
23
recommendations.
24
DR.
DuBOIS:
I
would
align
myself
with
the
25
366
strong
regulations
of
12
and
25.
The
American
Cancer
1
Society,
for
the
annual,
for
example,
they
estimated
2
that
for
every
10
micrograms
per
meter
squared
annual
3
2.5
micron
particles,
a
4
percent
increase,
and
all
4
cause
mortality
­­
you
guys
know
this
stuff
­­
6
percent
5
increase
in
cardiovascular
mortality
and
8
percent
6
increase
lung
cancer
mortality.
The
point
is,
the
lower
7
it
is,
the
fewer
people
are
going
to
die.
8
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
both
of
you.
We
9
have
now
Dr.
Richard
Humphrey
and
Dr.
Steven
Shapiro.
10
DR.
HUMPHREY:
My
name
is
Dr.
Richard
11
Humphrey,
and
I'm
on
the
faculty
of
the
Johns
Hopkins
12
University
School
of
Medicine
and
Hospital
and
was
for
a
13
time
on
the
faculty
of
the
Johns
Hopkins
Bloomberg
14
University
School
of
Public
Health.
I've
been
46
years
15
there.
I'm
partially
retired
now,
which
gives
me
the
16
opportunity
to
do
these
kinds
of
public
service
17
activities.
My
specialty
was
in
oncology.
I
trained
in
18
internal
medical
oncology
pathology
and
in
the
School
of
19
Public
Health
Health
Policy
and
Management,
and
as
20
mentioned,
previous
Baltimore
Chapter
Physicians
for
21
Social
Responsibility
President
and
current
Treasurer.
22
My
most
important
criteria
here
is
that
I'm
a
23
grandfather
of
a
beautiful
little
girl
now
a
little
over
24
three
years
of
age.
The
purpose
of
my
testimony
is
to
25
367
add
my
voice
to
the
plea
that
the
EPA
follow
the
1
recommendations
of
their
own
staff
scientists
in
2
relationship
to
particulate
matter
exposures.
3
These
more
stringent
regulations
would
4
reduce
particulate
matter
mortality
by
86
percent,
and
I
5
would
also
like
to
support
the
request
that
these
6
standards
be
applied
uniformly
across
urban
and
rural
7
areas
without
exempting
agricultural
and
mining
8
activities.
9
This
is
not
a
trivial
problem,
this
10
particulate
matter
exposure.
In
a
recent
editorial
in
11
the
American
Journal
of
Respiratory
and
Critical
Care
12
Medicine
World
Health
estimates
that
inhalation
of
13
particulate
matter
causes
500,000
deaths
a
year.
This
14
editorial
was
co­
written
by
a
faculty
member
at
Hopkins
15
in
the
School
of
Public
Health.
As
an
oncologist,
data
16
from
the
American
Cancer
Society
annual
average
exposure
17
for
each
10
microgram
per
cubic
meter
increases
lung
18
cancer
mortality
by
8
percent.
Each
10
micrograms
per
19
cubic
meter
increases
by
8
percent.
In
a
more
recent
20
study
in
Los
Angeles,
mortality
was
nearly
three
times
21
greater
for
particulate
matter
exposure.
The
average
22
shortening
of
life
is
one
to
three
years
by
exposure.
23
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
that
if
I
have
time
in
a
24
moment.
U.
S.
power
plants
particulate
matter
exposure
25
368
more
than
20,000
premature
deaths
annually.
1
Back
to
my
role
as
a
grandfather.
24
2
percent
of
all
infant
deaths
and
16
percent
of
all
3
sudden
infant
death
syndrome
fatalities
are
attributable
4
to
coarse
particulate
matter,
PM10.
And
I
cannot
5
imagine
my
life
without
my
granddaughter.
If
my
life
6
has
been
shortened
by
an
average
of
one
to
three
years,
7
I'd
like
to
have
those
years
back
in
order
to
watch
my
8
granddaughter
grow
up.
We
got
to
make
these
regulations
9
as
stringent
as
we
can.
Thank
you.
10
MR.
BACHMANN:
Dr.
Shapiro.
11
DR.
SHAPIRO:
Hello.
My
name
is
Steve
12
Shapiro.
I'm
a
psychologist
at
Johns
Hopkins
Medical
13
Center.
I
oversee
a
community­
based
program
of
ten
14
employees
that
work
with
children
and
families
in
the
15
community
who
have
mental
health
and
behavioral
16
disorders.
And
I'd
like
to
provide
a
slightly
different
17
perspective,
although
I'm
also
with
the
PSI
Group
from
18
Baltimore.
My
perspective
is
also
a
public
health
one
19
but
it
really
is
focused
on
mental
health.
I
don't
know
20
whether
that's
a
perspective
that
you've
heard
much
21
about.
22
First
let
me
tell
you
what
we
do.
We
work
23
with
indigent
children
and
families
who
live
in
inner
24
city
poor
conditions
in
Baltimore.
They
live
in
25
369
substandard
housing;
they
live
in
areas
­­
we
call
them
1
socially
unjust
areas.
They
are
located
near
highways,
2
located
near
factories,
including
the
Bethlehem
Steel
3
Plant,
that's
where
most
of
these
poor
people
live
in
4
Baltimore.
And
so
they're
susceptible
to
pollutants.
5
And
we'll
get
to
the
research
in
a
minute.
6
But
let
me
tell
you
a
story
about
a
young
7
lady
I
work
with
named
Vicki.
That's
not
her
real
name.
8
She's
12­
years­
old.
She
suffers
from
asthma.
She
has
a
9
whole
variety
of
behavioral
and
mental
health
problems,
10
including
anxiety,
depression
and
she
acts
out
publicly
11
in
school,
at
home,
in
the
community.
The
asthma
12
attacks
that
she
has
which
are
fairly
frequent
­­
they
13
happen
regularly
especially
on
high
pollutant
days
that
14
happen
in
Baltimore
frequently
­­
land
her
in
the
15
emergency
room
at
Johns
Hopkins
Hospital
which
is
close
16
to
her
home.
And
each
time
she
has
asthma,
it
seems
to
17
exacerbate
her
mental
health
symptoms.
There
is
18
evidence
for
that.
She's
just
one
of
the
many
types
of
19
kids
we
work
with
who
have
both
public
health
or
20
physical
health
issues
that
seem
to
exacerbate
their
21
mental
health
issues.
22
There
is
some
scant
research
­­
sadly
it's
23
not
much
research,
but
there
is
some
research
that
links
24
air
pollution
and
what
we're
talking
about
today,
the
25
370
particulates
with
actual
mental
health
problems.
The
1
research
dates
back
to
'
84,
but
there
are
also
some
2
recent
studies.
Psychiatric
and
emergency
room
visits
3
for
mental
health
patients
are
increased
on
higher
4
pollution
days.
That's
been
studied.
The
risk
for
5
schizophrenia,
interestingly,
is
associated
with
6
increased
traffic
air
pollution.
There's
a
correlation
7
between
those.
There
are
several
studies
that
show
that
8
there
are
significant
developmental
delays
for
children
9
who
are
susceptible,
who
are
exposed
to
high
pollution,
10
including
air
pollution.
There's
an
increase
of
11
learning
disabilities
and
the
first
gentleman
who
spoke
12
about
the
lowers
IQs,
in
fact,
lower
IQs
are
also
13
associated
with
increased
pollution.
And
of
course
we
14
talk
about
the
increase
of
the
typical
mental
health
15
disorders:
anxiety,
depression,
behavior
disorders.
16
So
there
is
some
research.
There
are
about
17
15
studies
that
have
taken
place
since
1984
that
make
18
the
connection
between
these.
And
the
costs,
apart
from
19
the
public
health
costs,
the
medical
health
costs,
the
20
public
health
costs
in
terms
of
mental
health
are
21
significant.
So
we're
talking
about
more
emergency
room
22
visits
because
of
air
pollution;
we're
talking
about
23
increased
developmental
delays;
we're
talking
about
24
problems
in
schools;
and
we're
talking
about
behavior
25
371
disorders
with
kids.
So,
I
just
wanted
to
make
you
1
aware
that
there
are
connections
between
what
you're
2
working
on
and
the
issues,
and
how
it
affects
children
3
and
their
families
throughout
Baltimore
and
many
other
4
communities
throughout
the
world.
Thank
you
for
hearing
5
us
out.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
I
want
to
start
7
off
with
­­
I
have
a
feeling,
having
looked
at
a
lot
of
8
the
criteria
documents,
that
we
may
have
completely
9
missed
that
whole
topic,
and
maybe
it's
because
of
the
10
journals
and
EPA
doesn't
routinely
search,
but
I
would
11
appreciate
it
if
you
would
find
some
way
to
send
us
a
12
list
of
­­
13
DR.
SHAPIRO:
Sure.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
I
think
people
have
come
at
15
it
at
from
a
different
angle,
in
terms
of
the
Clean
Air
16
Act
and
the
public
welfare
and
personal
comfort
and
17
well­
being,
which,
sometimes,
we've
taken
to
be
mental
18
health.
You
see
it
in
terms
of
visibility,
but
nothing
19
directly
at
this
kind
of
frank
expression
of
mental
20
disease,
that
I
can
recall
of,
in
any
of
the
stuff
that
21
I've
looked
at.
Thank
you
very
much.
22
Dr.
Steven
Alles
and
Sharon
Wallace.
23
DR.
ALLES:
My
name
is
Steven
Alles.
I'm
a
24
public
health
physician
here
at
the
Philadelphia
25
372
Department
of
Public
Health.
I'm
also
board
certified
1
in
preventative
medicine.
I
need
to
make
it
clear
that
2
my
contribution
to
this
hearing
does
not
necessarily
3
reflect
the
views
and
opinions
of
the
Philadelphia
4
Department
of
Public
Health.
I'm
here
to
represent
the
5
American
College
of
Preventative
Medicine
as
an
active
6
member
of
that
college.
As
such
I
would
like
to
ask
the
7
EPA
to
accept
the
recommendations
for
fine
particulate
8
matter,
lowering
the
standards
to
12
micrograms
and
25
9
micrograms
for
daily
and
annual
standards
that
were
laid
10
out
in
a
letter
proposed
from
the
American
Thoracic
11
Society
that
the
American
College
of
Preventative
12
Medicine
signed
on
to.
13
In
addition,
as
a
resident
at
the
University
14
of
Maryland,
I
conducted
personal
research
looking
at
15
asthma
occurrences
in
hospitals
in
the
greater
Baltimore
16
City.
People
who
went
and
sought
medical
care
at
ERs
17
and
were
admitted
to
hospitals
in
Baltimore
and
looked
18
to
correlate
those
admissions
and
ER
visits
with
fine
19
pollutants
and
elements
in
pollution.
And
what
my
20
literature
review,
at
that
time,
showed
for
me
was
21
multiple
studies
that
looked
at
the
metal
components
in
22
particulate
matter
being
related
to
inflammatory
changes
23
in
lung
tissue
and
animal
studies,
and
also
some
24
observational
studies
in
Spokane,
Washington
and
British
25
373
Columbia
that
linked
zinc
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
1
copper
with
asthma
occurrences
in
those
communities.
2
In
addition,
I
was
an
internal
medicine
3
resident
here
at
Temple
University
Hospital
in
4
Philadelphia
and
as
such
­­
which
serves
a
very
low
5
socioeconomic
status
population
here
in
Philadelphia
­­
6
as
such,
I
treated
and
saw
dozens
of
patients
for
asthma
7
exacerbation
in
the
ER
and
admissions
to
the
internal
8
medicine
unit.
I
asked
numerous
patients
if
they
had
9
any
idea
what
the
triggers
were
for
their
asthma
10
exacerbations
­­
and
these
are
adult
patients
with
adult
11
onset
asthma
­­
and
I
would
say
90
percent
of
the
time
12
or
more
they
didn't
know.
As
Dr.
Alter
pointed
out,
it
13
could
be
air
pollutants,
we
just
don't
really
know
what
14
happened
to
these
people
and
why
they
have
asthma.
15
In
addition,
some
of
the
work
I
do
at
the
16
Philadelphia
Department
of
Public
Health
right
now
is
in
17
disease
surveillance,
and
I
analyze
chief
complaint
data
18
from
the
emergency
departments
from
23
of
the
hospitals
19
of
the
29
here
in
Philadelphia.
Of
approximately
4,000
20
daily
visits
to
the
ER
for
people
who
that
live
in
the
21
city
of
Philadelphia,
approximately
5
percent,
an
annual
22
average,
are
there
for
an
asthma­
related
cause.
5
23
percent
of
4,000
is
about
200
people
per
day.
That's
24
all
I
have.
Thank
you.
25
374
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Ms.
Wallace.
1
MS.
WALLACE:
Good
evening
ladies
and
2
gentleman.
As
you
said,
my
name
is
Sharon
Wallace
and
I
3
am
a
critical
care
nurse.
I
am
pleased
to
be
here
and
4
have
this
opportunity
to
testify
and
share
my
concerns
5
about
the
proposed
changes
to
the
standards
and
6
regulations
for
particulate
matter
and
ambient
air
7
monitoring.
I
am
also
pleased
to
welcome
you
to
the
8
state
of
Pennsylvania.
It
is
because
of
Donora,
9
Pennsylvania
that
the
first
federal
Clean
Air
Act
was
10
passed
in
1955.
For
those
not
familiar
with
the
history
11
of
this
small
town,
buried
chemical
cylinders
started
to
12
emit
a
thick
toxic,
smog.
You
couldn't
see
your
hand
if
13
you
held
it
out
in
front
of
your
face.
Within
five
14
days,
20
people
had
died
and
7,000
became
ill.
15
Since
that
time,
Pennsylvania's
air
quality
16
has
improved.
Yet,
we
are
listed
as
the
fifth
dirtiest
17
or
worst
state
in
the
country.
Clean
air
standards
set
18
by
the
federal
government
have
never
been
met
in
19
Philadelphia.
According
to
AIR
NOW,
a
U.
S.
government
20
web
site,
air
quality
conditions
in
Philadelphia
today
21
are
good.
In
fact,
most
of
the
country
is
rated
as
good
22
or
moderate,
except
two
cities
in
Texas.
The
air
23
quality
in
Beaumont
Port­
Arthur
is
unhealthy
for
24
sensitive
groups.
In
El
Paso,
the
air
quality
is
25
375
categorized
as
unhealthy.
It
is
also
interesting
to
1
note
that
these
hearings
are
being
held
in
California,
2
Chicago,
and
Pennsylvania,
the
top
polluting
states.
I
3
think
there's
a
lesson
here.
4
The
health
risks
of
environmental
air
5
pollutants
and
environmental
toxins
are
well
documented.
6
The
incidence
of
childhood
asthma
and
autism
are
7
skyrocketing.
In
1992,
only
595
cases
of
autism
were
8
reported
in
Pennsylvania.
Today,
nearly
7,200
children
9
are
reported
to
be
autistic.
Infertility
rates
are
at
10
an
all
time
high,
and
patients
with
respiratory
diseases
11
are
sicker
more
often.
12
I
prefer
not
to
cite
statistics.
Each
of
us
13
can
quote
a
study
to
refute
an
opposing
point
of
view,
a
14
point
duly
noted
from
the
EPA
Proposed
Rules
web
site.
15
Instead,
I
would
like
to
offer
and
request
from
you
the
16
wisdom
of
common
sense.
As
a
critical
care
nurse,
the
17
wisdom
of
common
sense
is
to
first
do
not
harm.
For
18
you,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
the
wisdom
of
19
common
sense
is
to
look
before
you
leap
or
better
safe
20
than
sorry.
Either
of
these
precautionary
principles
21
will
suffice.
I
came
to
this
conclusion
after
reviewing
22
the
position
of
various
agencies,
such
as
the
American
23
Lung
Association,
the
Clean
Air
Trust,
or
Clean
Air
24
Watch,
as
well
as
others.
These
agencies
are
committed
25
376
to
protecting
air
quality
for
health
purposes.
Not
one
1
supports
the
proposed
rule
change.
In
fact,
each
agency
2
calls
to
strengthen
standards
and
regulations
required
3
to
improve
air
quality.
Right
now,
as
we
speak,
the
4
children
of
New
Orleans
are
developing
a
cough
that
has
5
been
dubbed
the
"
Katrina
cough".
Dry
sediment
of
6
arsenic,
lead,
dioxin,
chromium,
and
other
chemicals
are
7
forming
clouds
of
dust.
Chemical
levels
vary
by
who's
8
testing
and
who's
reporting.
But
from
a
clinical
9
perspective,
it
seems
the
toxins
lying
dormant
in
the
10
Big
Easy
will
not
go
easy
on
the
lungs
of
the
young
or
11
the
old.
The
toxins
are
already
at
work.
12
The
extreme
environmental
devastation
13
inflicted
by
Katrina
is
a
rare
event.
But
unlike
14
Katrina,
ambient
air
quality
is
about
ordinary
everyday
15
life.
The
rules
and
regulations
that
govern
everyday
16
life
must
be
safe
and
sensible.
To
me,
the
most
17
troubling
aspect
of
the
proposed
and
enacted
18
environmental
protection
rollbacks
is
the
concurrent
and
19
varied
scope
of
the
rollbacks.
It
is
an
experiment
that
20
lacks
controls
and
it
is
contrary
to
a
scientific
21
process.
Our
air,
water,
and
food
are
connected
in
a
22
chain
that
leads
to
you
and
me.
23
When
we
become
toxic
from
environmental
24
chemicals,
how
we
will
know
if
it
was
the
California
25
377
strawberries
or
the
Florida
tomatoes?
Both
are
coated
1
in
methyl
bromide.
Will
it
be
the
emissions
from
idling
2
ship
engines
in
the
ports
of
Long
Beach
and
Los
Angeles,
3
a
leading
source
of
increased
cancer
rates?
Or
will
it
4
be
the
particulate
matter?
Or
will
it
be
a
combination
5
of
the
toxins
that
overwhelm
our
lungs,
our
neurological
6
function,
and
our
immune
system?
Does
it
matter
to
you
7
that
environmental
toxins
have
been
found
in
human
8
breast
milk?
Does
it
matter
to
you
that
we
are
9
toxifying
our
children?
Does
it
matter
that
73
man­
made
10
hazardous
compounds,
including
flame
retardants
and
DDT,
11
are
found
in
the
blood
of
grandmothers,
mothers,
and
12
children
in
12
countries?
It
matters
to
me.
13
MR.
BACHMANN:
Time
is
running
out.
Do
you
14
have
one
summation?
It's
just
fairness
to
all
the
15
people
that
went
earlier
that
didn't
get
longer.
16
MS.
WALLACE:
Absolutely.
Two
sentences.
17
That's
why
I'm
here.
I
request
that
you
strengthen
18
standards
and
regulations
to
protect
our
air
quality.
19
We
must.
Current
standards
to
protect
our
air,
water,
20
and
food
are
not
working.
I
know
that.
I
know
that
21
because
if
they
were
working,
pregnant
women
wouldn't
be
22
restricted
to
a
single
serving
of
tuna
per
week.
Thank
23
you
for
listening.
24
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Interesting
link
25
378
between
Donora
where
people
first
came
up
with
zinc
as
1
an
element
that
came
off
of
the
precipitators
that
are
2
in
particular
agent
as
well
as
sulfur
and
so
forth.
3
I'm
interested,
Dr.
Alles,
in
your
4
assessment
in
­­
I
don't
know
if
you
wrote
it
up
at
all
5
­­
when
you
were
at
the
University
of
Maryland
on
6
looking
a
particular
metals,
which
is
a
fraction
of
7
particles,
which
is
one
of
the
issues
we're
obviously
8
looking
at
right
now.
We
have
proposed
to
keep
9
standards
for
all
particles
no
matter
what
composition
10
at
this
point,
but
people
are
doing
research.
So
if
11
there's
anything
that
you
have
that
is
together
enough,
12
as
far
as
you're
concerned,
to
send
us
to
that
look
at
13
the
literature
that
would
be
nice.
14
DR.
ALLES:
I'd
be
happy
to.
15
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thanks
to
both
of
you
for
16
coming.
Next
we
have
Chris
Thoeny
and
Doug
O'Malley.
17
MR.
THOENY:
First
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
18
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
give
you
my
comments.
19
Just
in
listening
to
her
speak,
I'm
probably
a
little
20
less
statistically
prepared
as
far
as
numbers
and
things
21
go.
My
name
is
Christopher
Thoeny,
T­
H­
O­
E­
N­
Y.
22
Basically,
I
received
an
E­
mail
from
23
PennEnviornmental
who
send
me
a
multitude
of
E­
mails
24
regarding
environmental
concerns,
things
going
on.
And
25
379
when
I
read
it,
I
thought
about
the
subject
matter,
and,
1
basically,
realized
that
it's
something
that
affects
me
2
and
has
affected
me
many
times
in
my
day­
to­
day
life,
3
and
I
think
it's
one
of
the
most
common
sources
of
4
pollution
that
we're
all
exposed
to
in
our
daily
5
activities.
We
walk
the
streets
of
Philadelphia;
we
sit
6
in
its
traffic;
some
of
us
live
next
to
some
very
busy
7
roads.
If
you
know
anyone
who
lives
on
those
roads,
8
they
have
soot
and
dust
from
exhaust
on
their
mantles.
9
So
I
thought
this
was
something
worthwhile
to
speak
10
about.
11
Diesel
soot,
and
I
guess
many
other
things
12
associated
with
exhaust
from
diesel
engines,
are
13
associated
with
cancer.
Soot
is
associated
with
causing
14
asthma
problems,
bronchial
problems.
The
city
of
15
Philadelphia,
I
just
read
on
the
Internet
ranks
16th
in
16
a
study
of
50
cities
for
major
respiratory
problems,
17
that
includes
admission
to
hospitals,
prescriptions
of
18
medicines,
and
doctor
diagnoses.
And
my
understanding
19
of
the
role
of
the
EPA
is
to
protect
the
environment,
20
which
means
protecting
the
citizens
of
this
country,
of
21
this
city,
and
this
region.
I
may
not
be
aware
of
all
22
the
effects,
the
toxicological
effects,
the
breathing
23
effects
of
the
particles
that
we
may
be
exposed
to,
but
24
I
don't
see
no
reason
why
we
can't
make
it
more
25
380
tolerable
to
be
exposed
to
the
exhaust
of
a
diesel
truck
1
when
we're
standing
on
the
corner.
Or,
for
me,
for
2
example,
I
work
around
several
diesel
engines,
and
when
3
someone
carelessly
parks
their
vehicle
in
your
work
4
area,
it's
irritating,
it
makes
you
cough,
gives
you
a
5
headache,
and
it's
very
obvious
to
me
that
whatever
6
standards
the
engines
are
under
right
now
are
probably
7
inadequate
in
this
day
and
age.
I
don't
see
why
we
8
can't
lower
our
exposure
to
something
that's
obviously
9
bad
for
you.
It
just
seems
like
common
sense.
You
10
don't
wait
for
something
bad
to
happen
before
you
lower
11
your
risk
to
it.
You
look
ahead
to
the
future.
You
12
don't
quit
smoking
cigarettes
after
you
get
cancer.
You
13
look
ahead
and
you
realize
this
may
be
a
good
way
to
14
help
yourself.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
it.
15
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Doug
O'Malley.
16
MR.
O'MALLEY:
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
17
panel
for
keeping
the
midnight
oil
burning,
if
not
until
18
midnight,
at
least
until
9
p.
m.
Also,
for
the
fact
that
19
I
know
over
the
course
of
the
day,
you've
heard
a
lot
20
from
doctors
and
scientists
and
health
professionals.
21
In
the
evening,
you
get
a
chance
to
hear
more
from
22
regular
citizens.
I
am
not
a
regular
citizen,
but
I
am
23
here
because
I
do
want
to
give
voice
to
some
of
the
24
citizens
from
New
Jersey.
I
represent
New
Jersey
Public
25
381
Interest
Research
Group,
which
is
a
partner
organization
1
of
PennEnvironment.
I'm
a
member
of
the
working
group
2
from
New
Jersey
DEP
on
our
current
efforts
to
reduce
3
soot
pollution
in
the
state.
I
worked
with
senators
Bob
4
Smith
and
Assemblyman
Jack
McKean
this
spring
to
pass
5
legislation
to
clean
up
diesel
engines
in
our
states,
6
one
of
the
most
comprehensive
pieces
of
legislation
that
7
will
clean
up
diesel
school
buses,
transit
buses,
8
garbage
trucks,
and
other
public
diesel
vehicles
in
the
9
state,
and
then
works
to
educate
the
public
and
to
pass
10
this
initiative
on
the
ballot.
11
That
being
said,
the
total
amount
of
soot
12
reduction
is
only
ten
percent.
And
I
think
it's
13
important
in
our
outreach
efforts
throughout
2005,
we
14
clearly
said
this
was
a
first
step.
And
with
the
work
15
that
New
Jersey
and
other
states
are
doing
right
now
16
with
the
state
limitation
process
is
obviously
the
next
17
step.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
though,
we
need
to
make
18
sure
that
when
we
get
to
the
next
step,
when
ideally
New
19
Jersey
and
Philadelphia,
which
is
going
to
be
a
tough
20
road
to
hope,
get
into
compliance,
that
those
standards
21
are
fully
health
protective.
22
As
you've
heard
from
other
health
23
professionals
throughout
the
day,
we
belive
that
you
24
need
to
have
a
health
protective
standard
of
12
25
382
micrograms
for
the
annual
standard
for
PM.
1
And
I
want
to,
kind
of,
just,
pause
here
2
because
obviously
you've
heard
the
science.
I
want
to
3
give
voice
to
some
of
our
members.
We
have,
as
I
4
mentioned,
over
20,000
members,
and
here
are
some
of
5
their
stories
from
suffering
from
air
pollution
in
New
6
Jersey,
which
as
you
probably
know,
has
13
counties
that
7
are
out
of
compliance.
8
This
is
from
Ann
Marie
Bronoff
from
Toms
9
River,
New
Jersey
in
Ocean
County.
"
My
husband
has
been
10
recently
diagnosed
with
asthma.
He's
a
police
officer
11
who
began
his
career
seven
years
ago
and
was
running
12
five
miles
a
day
on
the
beach
at
the
police
academy.
13
Since
then,
he
has
served
his
community
as
an
officer
at
14
the
Lincoln
Tunnel
and
the
Newark
Liberty
Airport,
15
mainly
in
the
street
as
a
traffic
officer."
Obviously,
16
this
has
put
the
gentleman
at
incredible
exposure
to
17
soot
pollution.
"
A
year
or
so
ago
he
returned
home
18
after
a
shift
not
feeling
well.
A
few
minutes
later
he
19
was
gasping
for
air
and
fallen
on
the
floor.
'
If
I
pass
20
out
before
they
come,
roll
me
onto
my
side,'
he
said.
21
After
that
I
could
recognize
no
words
just
gurgling.
I
22
called
911
that
day
and
one
other
occasion
since.
He
is
23
currently
on
two
medications
and
takes
his
inhaler
24
several
times
a
day.
He
has
no
stamina
and
engages
in
25
383
few
activities.
Consequently,
he's
gained
weight.
He's
1
unable
to
cut
the
lawn
or
carry
storage
in
and
out
of
2
the
attic.
Please
clean
up
our
air
so
my
husband
can
3
have
the
quality
of
life
he
so
deserves
as
he
happily
4
serves
others."
5
Another
story
is
from
an
a
more
elderly
6
citizen
from
south
Jersey,
which,
obviously,
is
impacted
7
not
only
from
the
air
pollution
in
New
Jersey,
but
also
8
by
the
Philadelphia
metro
region.
It's
from
an
elderly
9
citizen.
Obviously,
the
seniors
are
going
to
be
much
10
more
vulnerable.
Her
name
is
Jessie
Weeks,
and
she
11
lives
as
in
Cape
May.
"
At
68
years
of
age
I'm
12
experiencing
more
and
more
deep
affects
from
asthma.
13
Last
winter
I
fainted
in
the
Cherry
Hill
Mall.
Tests
14
have
shown
this
episode
was
caused
by
the
reflex
affect
15
of
asthma.
Fortunately
I
was
not
injured,
but
the
16
results
could
have
been
much
more
serious.
It
is
very
17
difficult
for
me
to
walk
outdoors
when
air
pollution
is
18
severe.
Recently
walking
outdoors
in
the
winter
is
a
19
problem."
Walking
outdoors
in
the
winter
and
summer.
20
That's
unfortunately
a
story
which
we
hear
a
lot.
21
One
of
the
stories
you
do
not
hear
is
the
22
impact
on
school
children.
The
number
one
reason
why
23
kids
in
New
Jersey
miss
school
is
because
of
asthma.
24
Asthma
rates
have
skyrocketed
in
the
state.
It
is
very
25
384
clear
to
us
in
New
Jersey
that
we're
doing
a
lot
to
1
reduce
our
soot
levels.
The
amount
of
time,
effort,
and
2
energy
going
into
this
is
really
quite
impressive.
It
3
is
going
to
take
a
lot
of
work
in
the
regulatory
4
community
to
cut
down
on
soot
levels.
But
we
need
to
5
know
that
the
federal
government
is
setting
levels
that,
6
ultimately,
if
we
get
those
counties
into
compliance,
7
that
they
will
be
health
protected.
And
that's
8
something
that
we
need
EPA
to
be
stronger
on
this
issue.
9
We
need
EPA
to
listen
to
the
signs.
It's
been
out
there
10
for
a
while.
You've
obviously
heard
a
lot
from
it
11
today.
We
need
it,
not
just
for
us,
we
need
it
for
12
people
like
Jessie
and
other
citizens
who
are
suffering.
13
Thank
you.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
Doug,
you
said
it
15
correctly.
Anybody
that
can
come
here
and
tell
us
what
16
they
feel
about
this
is
great.
We're
here
to
hear
all
17
of
this.
It's
not
just
from
docs
who
we
really
want
to
18
hear
from,
and
scientists,
and
other
people
with
19
opinions,
but
I
think
people
who
think
about
it
and
have
20
their
own
reaction
­­
so
we
do
appreciate
everyone
who's
21
come
to
today.
We
particularly
appreciate
Chris
coming
22
and
talking
about
it,
as
well
as
anybody
who's
been
able
23
to
do
it.
Thank
you
again.
24
Eleanor
Vine.
25
385
MS.
VINE:
I
want
to
introduce
myself,
1
Eleanor
Vine,
V­
I­
N­
E.
I
live
in
Collingswood,
New
2
Jersey.
I
work
in
Montgomery
County
in
Norristown
with
3
the
Public
Health
Department
there,
County
Health
4
Department.
So
I
have
a
leg
in
the
two
states,
New
5
Jersey
and
Pennsylvania,
and
I
know
that's
two
different
6
EPA
regions,
but
it's
one
area.
My
work
is
also
7
directed
toward
the
New
Jersey
Environmental
Justice
8
Alliance,
and
our
south
Jersey
membership
is
9
particularly
strong
in
the
Camden
area.
My
hometown
is
10
next
to
Camden.
11
Camden
has
been
recognized
as
an
12
environmental
justice
community
by
the
State
of
New
13
Jersey,
and
the
DEP
has
been
attempting
to
lessen
the
14
disproportionate
burden
of
pollutants
on
the
people
15
living
in
this
community
in
Camden,
but
the
air
quality
16
is
just
very,
very
poor.
The
measurements
that
you
17
adopt
as
the
standards
have
profound
effect
on
what
can
18
be
done
for
a
community
such
as
Camden.
We
have
three
19
air
monitors
and,
believe
me,
we
pay
a
lot
of
attention,
20
and
we
take
those
readings
as
strong
argument
for
why
21
things
have
to
be
changed,
why
industries
have
to
be
22
scaled
back
as
far
as
their
pollutant.
So
it's
real
23
essential
what
gets
decided
at
your
level.
It
can
have
24
tremendous
effect
on
our
arguing
power
and
what
we
can
25
386
do
to
reduce
the
burden
on
people
who
are
living
with
1
most
severely
impacted
air
quality.
2
One
of
the
women
who
is
very
active
in
the
3
Camden
Environmental
Justice
Group
lives
right
by
a
4
factory,
which
is
a
major
source
of
fine
particulates,
5
coarse
particulates.
She's
near
a
major
bus
route.
6
There
are
trucks
all
the
time
coming
in
and
out
to
the
7
factories
in
her
town,
and
her
livelihood
is
in
8
sheltering
special
need
kids.
She
takes
them
to
her
9
home,
gives
them
her
extra
loving
attention,
but
they're
10
in
a
very,
very
poor
air
quality
area.
And
these
are
11
kids
with
a
lot
of
disadvantages
already,
medically
12
sensitive
kids.
So
it's
a
very
difficult
situation.
We
13
see
it
all
the
time.
14
The
other
side
of
that
is
for
people
who
are
15
not
so
oppressed
economically,
or
even
with
high
16
visibility
industry
in
their
neighborhood
­­
but
people
17
here
in
the
city
who
are
just
out
enjoying
a
run
­­
my
18
own
daughter
who
works
at
the
zoo
and
lives
in
Roxboro,
19
participated
in
the
Broad
Street
Run
this
past
year,
and
20
she
can't
even
run
anymore
because
of
the
exposure
of
21
being
out
and
moving
in
the
air,
and
exercising
22
vigorously,
she
now
has
exercise­
induced
asthma.
She's
23
never
had
that
before
in
her
life,
and
her
cousin
who
is
24
here
now
from
Oregon,
living
and
working
in
the
City,
25
387
has
experienced
the
same
difficulty
after
going
out,
1
exercising,
trying
to
keep
herself
healthy,
she's
2
finding
that
she's
short
of
breath
and
can't
go
up
and
3
down
the
steps
easily.
These
are
girls
in
their
20s
so
4
it's
very
worrisome.
And
I
feel
discouraged
that
even
5
when
science
is
supporting
the
need
to
tighten
the
6
standards,
that
there's
hesitation
and
reluctance
at
the
7
top
to
disregard
that
work.
8
In
the
past
few
months
I've
submitted
9
comments
to
the
EPA
for
the
toxic
inventory
that
those
10
standards
not
be
relaxed.
There
was
distress
throughout
11
our
communities
that
instead
of
getting
better
reporting
12
we'll
have
weaker
reporting.
It's
a
very,
very
hard
13
precedent.
We
don't
want
to
see
things
getting
laxer
or
14
easier
for
industry;
we
want
to
be
able
to
account
for
15
what's
going
into
the
bodies
of
our
citizens
and
our
16
friends
and
neighbors.
So
if
we
relax
standards,
we
17
lose
that
ability
to
hold
industry
accountable
and
18
ourselves.
Because,
certainly,
we're
all
driving
more
19
than
we
need
to.
20
I
was
also
very
taken
aback
that
EPA
is
21
considering
different
standards
for
parts
of
the
22
country.
I've
never
seen
that
before,
and
that's,
I
23
think,
just
unconscionable.
How
can
we
say
that
one
24
area
of
the
country
can,
just,
suck
it
up,
basically,
25
388
and
there's
no
justification
for
that
unless
we
are,
1
simply,
in
the
business
of
accommodating
certain
2
commercial
interests.
So
I
urge
you,
please,
keep
one
3
standard
for
all.
Tighten
the
standards,
and
it
really
4
matters
when
we
assess
the
impact
on
affected
5
communities.
It
really
does
make
a
difference.
Science
6
has
gotten
increasingly
good
at
pointing
out
the
effects
7
across
our
population
on
bad
air
quality
days.
And
8
we're
seeing
that
it's
lower
levels
than
we
thought
that
9
trigger
so
many
emergency
room
visits.
So
please
be
10
mindful
and
stand
with
the
science
that
has
been
showing
11
that
we
need
to
tighten
our
standards
and
keep
the
air
12
cleaner
and
healthier.
Thank
you.
13
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
very
much.
Since
14
there's
no
one
else
we
will
suspend
until
9
o'clock.
15
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
recess
at
8:
37
p.
m.)
16
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
resumed
at
9:
00
17
p.
m.)
18
MR.
BACHMANN:
I
hereby
declare
this
public
19
hearing
on
particulate
matter
standards
closed.
20
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
adjourned
at
9:
01
21
p.
m.)
22
23
24
25