202 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 2 Transcript of Public Hearing to Take Comment on 3 Two Proposed Rules: 4 5 1. Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 6 Standards for Particulate Matter 7 8 and 9 10 2. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations 11 12 13 March 8, 2006 14 15 Courtyard Marriott San Francisco Downtown 16 299 Second Street 17 San Francisco, California 94105 18 19 20 Reported by: 21 Alderson Reporting 22 Nancy J. Palmer, CERT 00121; and 23 George B. Palmer, CERT 222 24 25 203 Hearing Panel: 1 2 LYDIA WEGMAN, HEARING OFFICER 3 SUSAN STONE, Director, Health and Environmental 4 Impacts Division 5 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 6 Ambient Standards Group 7 TIM HANLEY, Office of Air Quality Planning 8 and Standards Ambient Air Monitoring Group 9 JOHN HANNON, Office of General Counsel 10 11 S P E A K E R S: 12 13 Carl Pope, private citizen 14 Larry Greene, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 15 Management District 16 John Balbus, M. D., Environmental Defense 17 Robert Gould, M. D., Kaiser Hospital, San Francisco Bay 18 Area Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility 19 Bart Ostro, Office of Environmental Health Hazard 20 Assessment, California EPA 21 Lisa Chamberlain, M. D., Packard Children's Hospital 22 Laurie Bauer, Ravenswood City School District 23 Bridgette Tollstrup, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 24 Management District 25 204 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Gina Solomon, M. D., Natural Resources Defense Council; 3 U. C. San Francisco, Pediatric Environmental Health 4 Specialty Unit 5 Sarah Jackson ( for Theodore Schade, Air Pollution Control 6 Officer for the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 7 Control District) 8 Kevin Hamilton, Asthma Program at Community Medical 9 Centers 10 Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment 11 John Balmes, M. D., University of California 12 Tom Politeo, Sierra Club Harbor Vision Task Force 13 Anthony Gerber, M. D., University of California San 14 Francisco 15 Jonah Ramirez, ten years old, American Lung Association 16 Richard Bode, California Air Resources Board 17 Rajiv Bhatia, M. D., Director of Environmental Health, 18 City of San Francisco 19 Michael Lipsett, M. D. 20 John Sakamoto, Eichleay Engineers of California 21 Marcie Keever, Esq., Our Children's Earth Foundation 22 Linda Weiner, American Lung Association of California, 23 San Francisco Bay Area Clean Air Task Force 24 Laura Fultz, private citizen 25 205 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Kent Bransford, M. D., Physicians for Social 3 Responsibility 4 Brian Linde, M. D., Northern California Chapter of the 5 American Academy of Pediatrics 6 Mary Cranley, Nurse Practitioner 7 Gordon Fung, M. D., San Francisco Medical Society, UCSF 8 Medical Center 9 Teri Shore, Bluewater Network, Friends of the Earth 10 Dawn Sanders Koepke, McHugh & Associates, California 11 Manufacturers and Technology Association 12 Tony Hansen, Ph. D. 13 Francisco Da Costa, Environmental Justice Advocacy, Muwek 14 Maohlone 15 Isaac Bloom, Environment California for Northern 16 California 17 Anthony Myers, Environment California 18 Carolina Simunovic, Fresno Metro Ministry, Environmental 19 Health Program 20 Isabella Simunovic, infant daughter 21 Daniela Simunovic, Fresno Metro Ministry, Environmental 22 Health Program 23 Ray Leon, Latino Issues Forum 24 25 206 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Sarah Janssen, M. D., San Francisco Physicians for Social 3 Responsibility 4 Mark Oldenkamp, United Egg Producers 5 David Schonbrunn, Transportation Solutions Defense and 6 Education Fund 7 Molly Martin, private citizen 8 Norah Schwartz, M. D., El Colegio de la Frontera Norte 9 Brent Newell, Esq., Center on Race, Poverty, and the 10 Environment; the Center's San Joaquin Valley Air Quality 11 Project 12 Sandy Garcia, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 13 Esther Martinez, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 14 Rolio Martinez, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 15 Santos Valenzuela, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 16 David Pepper, M. D. 17 Blakeman Early, American Lung Association 18 Paul Cort, Esq., EarthJustice 19 Judy Levin, private citizen 20 Elmer Grossman, M. D. 21 Matthew Hodges, National Petrochemical and Refiners 22 Association 23 24 25 207 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Eric Meyer, for Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, Chair of the 3 California Assembly Natural Resources Committee 4 David Chatfield, Californians for Pesticide Reform ( and 5 for Teresa DeAnda, CPR) 6 Dennis Bolt, Western States Petroleum Association 7 Frances Spivy Weber, Policy at the Mono Lake Committee 8 Matt Mengarelli, private citizen 9 Patricia Monahan, Union of Concerned Scientists 10 Emily Lee, Pacific Institute 11 Anna Mills, Mono Lake Committee member 12 Kelly Runyan, Mono Lake Committee member 13 Mel Zeldin, California Air Pollution Control Officers 14 Association 15 Seth Silverman, Students for a Sustainable Stanford 16 Kaitlin Sanford, Students for a Sustainable Stanford 17 Samantha Staley, Center on Environment and Energy, 18 Stanford Chapter of the Roosevelt Institution 19 Jonas Ketterle, Center on Environment and Energy, 20 Stanford Chapter of the Roosevelt Institution 21 Marc Geller, Plug In America 22 Jenny Bard, American Lung Association of California, 23 Redwood Empire Branch 24 25 208 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Bruce Young, private citizen 3 Karen Robertson Strain, American Heart Association, 4 Health Network for Clean Air member 5 Andy Reimers, private citizen 6 Dennis Ransel, Clark County of Nevada Department of Air 7 Quality and Environmental Management 8 Everett Olsen, retired science teacher 9 Carolyn Casavan, Southern California Rocks Product 10 Association 11 Dorothy Alther, Owens Valley Indian Water Commission 12 Paula Stigler, Air Quality Specialist, Pala Band of 13 Mission Indians 14 Monique Sullivan, Environment California 15 Kirsten Clemmensen, Environment California 16 Mauricio Garzon, Environment California 17 Laura Kowler, Environment California 18 David Wyman, citizen, Environment California 19 Jessica Giannini, CALPIRG 20 Reverend Sally Bingham, Environmental Minister, Grace 21 Cathedral 22 Moira Chapin, Environment California 23 Adam Harper, California Mining Association 24 25 209 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Ron Wyzga, Ph. D., Electric Power Research Institute 3 Lee Jones, private citizen 4 Michelle Steele, Environment California 5 John Kisman, Edison Electric Institute 6 Janis Kim, M. D. 7 Douglas Kerr, M. D. 8 Annemarie Donjacour, private citizen 9 Harold Farber, M. D. 10 Kathleen Foree, Social Responsibility Committee at 11 Epiphany Parish, member 12 Tamara Theis, National Cattlemen's Beef Association 13 Scott Nester, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 14 Control District 15 Margaret Gordon, West Oakland Environmental Indicators 16 Project 17 Karen Lindholdt, Safe Air for Everyone 18 Larry Alba, private citizen 19 Darrel Sweet, private citizen 20 Gordon Matassa, Mono Lake Committee member 21 Cosette Dudley, private citizen 22 Steve Ziman, Ph. D., American Petroleum Institute 23 Marcie Pinkard, M. D. 24 25 210 S P E A K E R S continued: 1 2 Tommaso Boggia, California Public Interest Research Group 3 Diane Vornoli, private citizen, Mono Lake Committee 4 member 5 Mercedes Corbell, M. D. 6 Aubrry Stone, California Black Chamber of Commerce 7 Neal Desai, Nonpartisan National Parks Conservation 8 Association 9 Lauri Tanner, private citizen 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 211 AFTERNOON SESSION 1 2: 08 p. m. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: A couple of things. 3 We are conducting our Public Hearing on our PM 4 National Ambient Air Quality Proposal. That's our 5 proposal for our Particulate Matter Standards and on 6 our Air Monitoring Network Proposal. 7 I very much appreciate everybody taking the 8 time to come and participate in this Public Hearing. 9 I know some of you have traveled many miles and I 10 very much appreciate the effort made on everyone's 11 part to come and participate in this hearing. 12 I am the Chair of the hearing panel. My 13 name is Lydia Wegman. Susan Stone, Tim Hanley, and 14 John Hannon are also on the panel and we're all with 15 the Environmental Protection Agency. 16 One favor to ask. We are having some 17 problem with the audio system here because some 18 BlackBerries and cellphones are causing frequency 19 problems that interfere with the system. So if you 20 have a BlackBerry or any other handheld device, 21 please turn it off while you are in the room and then 22 you can turn it on when you leave. Thank you. 23 The way we work the hearing is we have 24 folks come forward two at a time and each person has 25 212 five minutes to speak. So when you come forward, 1 please come as a pair and then wait until the other 2 person is finished speaking. And when you're both 3 done then we'll move onto the next witnesses. 4 So Brent Newell and Sandy Garcia are our 5 next two witnesses. And actually those mics need to 6 stay together. One is for the court reporter, so if 7 you can just, yeah, take turns using both of them. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. NEWELL: Thank you. My name is Brent 10 Newell. I am an attorney at the Center on Race, 11 Poverty, and the Environment. I'm also the Director 12 of the Center's San Joaquin Valley Air Quality 13 Project. 14 I'm here on behalf of the Association of 15 Irritated Residents, which is an unincorporated 16 association of Kern, Tulare, Fresno, and Stanislaus 17 County residents. The term " Irritated" in their name 18 has two meanings. It expresses their irritation with 19 government that either is unwilling or unable to 20 protect them. It also expresses the state of their 21 lungs as irritated from air pollution. 22 The proposal to establish these National 23 Ambient Air Quality Standards and exempt rural areas 24 from that protection would violate rural Americans' 25 213 constitutional right to due process of law. Since 1 EPA is a federal agency the Fifth Amendment guaranty 2 applies to your action. 3 Substantive due process under the Fifth 4 Amendment embodies the principle of equal protection 5 of the law. Your proposed action here discriminates 6 against rural Americans by subjecting them to no 7 protection from the Course Particle Standard and no 8 monitoring of course particle pollution in their 9 communities. Urban residents enjoy this protection. 10 EPA has no rational basis for 11 distinguishing and discriminating against these 12 residents. Rural crustal material is not just dirt, 13 as you would think. Dirt emissions from agricultural 14 fields treated with pesticides contain pesticide 15 residue. 16 Emissions from factory farms likewise are 17 not just dirt. Now let me qualify the term " factory 18 farm" as a concentrated animal feeding operation, 19 stationary source within the term of the Clean Air 20 Act than the meaning of the Clean Air Act. That's 21 not just dirt, as the National Beef Cattlemen's 22 Association would have you believe. Emissions from 23 feedlots and chicken operations and dairies, that's 24 compacted and pulverized manure. Breathing manure is 25 214 not breathing dirt. 1 Emissions from factory farms have been 2 found to contain antibiotic resistant bacteria. 3 Having an antibiotic staph infection is not a 4 pleasant thing. And it's not just breathing dirt. 5 Constituents of animal manure contain 6 pathogens, heavy metals like arsenic and selenium. 7 That's not just dirt. You have no basis for this 8 discrimination. 9 Likewise, airborne emissions from mining 10 waste is not just dirt. 11 That's all I have to say. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. If you do 13 have any information, Mr. Newell, supporting the  14 MR. NEWELL: We'll be submitting full 15 written comments supported  16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay, good. 17 MR. NEWELL:  by evidence. Thank you. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 19 MR. GARCIA ( in Spanish:) ( Insert Spanish 20 portion here:) 21 22 23 24 25 215 THE REPORTER: Hearing Officer, we will not 1 be able to transcribe that. If they had a translator 2 then we could do it. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Right, I understand. 4 And you don't have a translator with you. Do you 5 know, Mr. Newell, if a translator is available? 6 MR. NEWELL: I would ask you that question. 7 why isn't there a translator here available for 8 translating someone who doesn't speak English? 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: As far  10 MR. HANNON: We have recorded it, though. 11 MR. NEWELL: I would  I would suggest 12 that you hire a certified translator to transcribe 13 those portions of the transcript to which she's 14 testified. 15 ( Applause.) 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: We could have 17 provided a translator had we known in advance. We 18 weren't aware that we were going to have other folks 19 coming, so  20 MR. NEWELL: I read  I read your notice 21 that you published in the Federal Register in 22 English. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Um hum. 24 MR. NEWELL: And it didn't say anything 25 216 about notifying you about needs for a translator. So 1 in the future where you're going to be concocting 2 policy that's going to affect rural Americans, you 3 know, rural Californians aren't just English 4 speakers. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Well, thank 6 you. I'm sorry we don't have a translator available. 7 Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker is 8 Esther Martinez and Rolio Martinez. 9 MS. MARTINEZ ( in Spanish): ( Insert Spanish 10 portion here:) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 217 MR. MARTINEZ ( in Spanish): ( Insert Spanish 1 portion here:) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 218 THE HEARING OFFICER: Gracias. 1 Santos Valenzuela and David Pepper. 2 MR. VALENZUELA ( in Spanish): ( Insert Spanish 3 portion here:) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 219 THE HEARING OFFICER: Gracias. 1 DR. PEPPER: I can translate a little. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 3 DR. PEPPER: Basically the last three of 4 them said that they live in the Valley. He has lived 5 there eight years. Concerns about tractors, concerns 6 about cows, concerns about dairy. The caca de vaca 7 is the " shit of the cow." And they're just very 8 concerned and hope you can do everything you can. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. We will 10 also make an effort to get a translation. We are 11 tape recording this and we will make an effort to get 12 a translation so that we have that for the record. 13 DR. PEPPER: Good afternoon. Thank you for 14 having me. My name is David Pepper. I'm a 15 physician. I practiced for 15 years in Fresno with 16 the University of California San Francisco and with 17 U. C. Davis. I was part of the founding group for 18 MAHA, Medical Advocate for Healthy Air, who basically 19 brought a number of the suits against EPA trying to 20 help you guys do your job. 21 I have a number of pictures. They're all 22 on a laptop, and I'm going to whiz through. 23 Basically three issues: People; 24 particulates; and then something nobody's mentioned, 25 220 the precautionary principle, which is the idea that 1 we should take the tightest. And basically I would 2 support the 12 and 25 microgram as well as probably 3 25 or 30 on the particulates  because we have to 4 protect health. And a lot of the stories, if you 5 look at tobacco, if you look at chemicals we have not 6 done that. And we end up paying for it in the end, 7 and I think we're starting to see that change. 8 The Fresno Unified School District over the 9 last 15 years, we have reported this data to the CDC, 10 basically a pretty meteoric rise. The top red line 11 is asthma. The one in six number for children has 12 been thrown out. We're actually about one in five. 13 This is asthma in elementary school 14 children throughout California. You'll see the 20 15 percent there on the right. In fact it's not just 16 poor children. Fresno, which is the big spike in the 17 center, actually has rich children having much higher 18 levels of asthma, as high as 35 percent. This is 19 some of the work in some of the areas, so we're 20 really looking at sort of crisis levels. 21 I think the Fresno area, I had the 22 privilege to work there, still connected, is the 23 canary in the cage. And a lot of what you're doing 24 is you're protecting the future of not only them but 25 221 of everybody in our country. 1 This is work out of community hospitals. 2 We analyzed, this is four years. The black lines 3 represent each winter. And the pink lines are ozone. 4 And I think we now know, in fact the red line is 5 visits for respiratory diseases and the blue line is 6 carbon monoxide. And the yellow line is particulate 7 matter. So basically what you've been here, a lot of 8 carbonaceous particles in all forms, which is really 9 what we're dealing with. 10 I actually have my own theory. I think 11 carbon dioxide is one of the major causes of asthma, 12 but I have yet to prove that. 13 This is PM2.5 average concentrations across 14 the United States. This is EPA data. Mean 15 concentrations. You will note that the farmer in 16 Texas or Nebraska or the middle of the country has 17 little to be concerned about compared with the 18 Central Valley and the rest of California. East 19 Coast obviously has some issues, too. 20 So we now know and I think the plethora 21 data shows that particulates are of major concern. 22 This is work from Tom Cahill on the bottom, 23 a particle scientist a U. C. Davis, and myself, for 24 Fresno area emissions. We see again November, 25 222 December, January: Large increases for asthmatic 1 visits, coincident to the particulate spikes. And 2 these are not  this is the EPA 24 Hour Standard, 3 you will note on the bottom, is not always exceeded. 4 So even at levels below the 65 we're seeing rises in 5 asthma. And asthma is one in five children now in 6 Fresno. 7 As you well know the small particles, the 8 ultrafine particles which Tom has really focused on, 9 not only get into the lung, get into the blood, go to 10 the heart, cause strokes, cause cancer. 11 Mrs. Reeves died this morning. Christopher 12 Reeves' wife. She was 44. She had a heart attack. 13 She never smoked. I'm curious what air she breathed. 14 This is diesel fine particle health 15 impacts. Premature deaths, lung cancer, emergency 16 visits, nonfatal heart attacks, bronchitis, work 17 days, loss and restricted activity days. And I think 18 people talk about the cost, and you've heard a couple 19 people from industry inappropriately bring that 20 issue. We need to think about paying for this, 21 because we're going to pay for it in the end if we 22 don't pay for it now. 23 You are giving us an opportunity to 24 consider public health and the precautionary 25 223 principle, and I urge you to take that. 1 It's not just the Central Valley. This is 2 hospitalizations, OSHPD data for the east part of the 3 Bay. And people think, oh, there's a big asthma 4 problem because all these kids get hospitalized in 5 the north end of the Bay. Oh, they're all poor and 6 black. 7 In fact if you look at ER visits it's 8 pretty distributed and if you look at use of 9 maintenance medications, in fact you get the rest of 10 the story which is that children, this is all 11 children, basically the richer kids get put on drugs. 12 And we say they don't have asthma problems because 13 we control it. So the same companies, in a way, that 14 pollute then, you know Exxon owns pharmaceutical 15 companies or own shares, either way people are not 16 being considered in the decisions we're making. 17 Somebody mentioned the smoke plumes 18 earlier. These are the smoke plumes, I brought this 19 slide in, during the L. A. fires. And I think we look 20 at things in a crisis setting. We say, oh, my 21 goodness, there's a fire going on. We have a low 22 grade, smoldering fire in this country, particularly 23 in the Central Valley and in Southern California. 24 And we have the opportunity both here in California 25 224 and through the auspices of the EPA to stop that fire 1 now. 2 Why clean air? I have in addition to the 3 3500 patients, children I've taken care of over the 4 years, I have a son who's an asthmatic. We recently 5 moved. I relocated back here to San Francisco where 6 I'm from. My son is at U. C. Santa Cruz. He's off 7 his medications. He's like, " I'm not going back, 8 dad." And that is a harboring. You saw data that 9 it's not just  you know, it's the eastern side of 10 San Francisco. It's everywhere we live. 11 So the Central Valley, where I had the 12 privilege to practice, I say was the canary in the 13 cage, but I think you'll see that the work you're 14 doing, I certainly hope that the work you're doing 15 and the challenges you face, and I honor those 16 because I know the political pressures and the tough 17 job you have, but I hope you treat it seriously and 18 do everything you can for us. Thank you. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much, 20 Dr. Pepper. 21 Go ahead. 22 MR. HANNON: Well, two things. I notice 23 one of your slides had a reference to it. Could you 24 just make sure that as it's submitted it'll have  25 225 it had a number 7. 1 The others in your intro, you mentioned the 2 idea of a precautionary principle. 3 DR. PEPPER: Yes. 4 MR. HANNON: Did you want to comment 5 specifically on that? 6 DR. PEPPER: A precautionary principle is 7 out of public health data. And what it basically 8 says  and a lot of it, if you think about tobacco, 9 there were multiple concerns waived when we looked at 10 tobacco. We're smoking something, it's going to our 11 lungs. People started questioning it. And industry 12 said there's no science and waited and waited and 13 waited until the science was overwhelming. 14 When I got involved in this in 1997 98 15 there wasn't much science, but people alluded to the 16 paper yesterday, there have been a thousand papers 17 out in the last really four to five years. The 18 precautionary principle would say that we have to 19 understand that we're probably just seeing the tip of 20 the iceberg. 21 And rather than wait till the boat hits the 22 iceberg, we have to do something before that. Slow 23 the boat down, expose the iceberg, send people out 24 ahead of us, but don't send our children and don't 25 226 sacrifice public health waiting for all of the 1 science to be in. 2 Does that answer the question? 3 MR. HANNON: Yes. 4 DR. PEPPER: Thank you. 5 MR. HANLEY: And my question with regard to 6 the carbon monoxide data, you pulled this data down 7 or was this from Tom Cahill's or the  8 DR. PEPPER: The PM data, this is actually 9 fine PM data, this is Tom Cahill's data. 10 MR. HANLEY: Okay. 11 DR. PEPPER: The carbon monoxide data was 12 EPA data. 13 MR. HANLEY: Was EPA data from  14 DR. PEPPER: Yeah, that was EPA's data. So 15 what we merely did was correlate the health data that 16 we saw, this is unpublished data, as I say we're 17 working on it, for the area hospitals in Fresno, in 18 and around in the community hospital systems, and 19 correlated the overlap between the rises in the 20 carbon monoxide and the carbonaceous particles, it 21 was PM10 at that point, and hospital visits. 22 MR. HANLEY: So my question is was to say 23 general characterizations, CL monitor, or was this a 24 monitor like at a street corner we might say  25 227 DR. PEPPER: EPA Superfund Site First 1 Street in Fresno. 2 MR. HANLEY: Okay. Okay, so it's a general 3 characterization. 4 DR. PEPPER: Yeah. 5 MR. HANLEY: Thank you. 6 DR. PEPPER: You're welcome. Thank you. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Will you be able to 8 submit these data with your testimony? 9 DR. PEPPER: I'm going to leave them on the 10 laptop. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 12 DR. PEPPER: I'm a picture person. I'm a 13 doctor, you know an M. D. We don't write, we just 14 scribble, but I am sure  so the pictures I hope 15 will tell a piece of the story. And I would 16 encourage you to include those because people do 17 understand pictures. I'll try to get some written 18 supplements to those. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. If you are 20 able to write some explanatory material or have 21 someone write it for you,  22 DR. PEPPER: Okay. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER:  that would be very 24 helpful. 25 228 DR. PEPPER: Wonderful. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 2 DR. PEPPER: Thank you. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Blakeman Early and 4 Paul Cort are next. 5 MR. EARLY: I have copies. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure, we'd be happy 7 to take them. Do you have extras? Thank you. 8 MR. EARLY: I'm Blakeman Early on behalf of 9 the American Lung Association. And I'm happy I'm 10 appearing right after Dr. Pepper because you're 11 hearing a lot of the same thing over and over again, 12 and I'm going to try to make things provide a little 13 new information, or it might not be new to you, 14 particularly but it certainly is new in terms of 15 needing additional emphasis. 16 We believe that the Administrator's 17 fundamentally failing to set a course in fine 18 particle standards in a way that's required by the 19 Clean Air Act, and the heart of the disagreement is 20 quite clearly what level the Clean Air Act requires 21 in order to set a level that's requisite to protect 22 sensitive groups with an adequate margin of safety. 23 The Administrator has placed great emphasis 24 on the need to establish a standard that is neither 25 229 too stringent nor too weak, the baloney must be 1 sliced neither too thin nor too thick. We believe 2 this concern has led the Administrator away from the 3 core consideration of the margin of safety. 4 They didn't call it a precautionary 5 principle in 1970 when the Clean Air Act was enacted, 6 but the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 7 Report accompanying the original Clean Air Act in 8 1970 said, quote: 9 Margins of safety are essential to any 10 health related environmental standards if a 11 reasonable degree of protection against 12 hazards which research has not yet 13 identified, unquote. 14 In 1970 Congress knew that the research was 15 not sufficient to identify the nature and the level 16 of hazards posed by air pollution. The large body of 17 research which has been conducted since 1997, when 18 the Fine Particle Standard was first established, 19 well illustrates the soundness of this principle. 20 The Administrator acknowledges there are 21 adverse health effects that have been identified 22 among populations exposed to levels of fine particle 23 and course particle pollution below the standard. 24 That these public health impacts are very large, much 25 230 larger than was understood before, that groups of 1 sensitive populations, new groups of sensitive 2 populations are affected, including people with 3 cardiovascular disease and diabetes. 4 The Administrator uses this information to 5 find that the current Ambient Air Quality Standard is 6 not sufficient to protect public health, but it 7 doesn't lead him to select a new standard that is 8 below the level where research shows an association 9 with adverse health effects. 10 Inherent in the concept of a margin of 11 safety is to set the Air Quality Standard at a level 12 where research is not finding adverse effects. The 13 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 14 understood this, and in their report they have 15 provided the following guidance. Quote: 16 Ambient air quality is sufficient to 17 protect the health of such persons whenever 18 there is an absence of adverse effects on 19 the health of a statistically related 20 sample of persons in sensitive groups from 21 exposure to the ambient air. 22 This is not a new concept. Dr. Pepper 23 called it a precautionary principle, but they 24 understood it very well. The Administrator is not 25 231 doing that. 1 Right now the Administrator is talking 2 about setting the standard at an area where shortterm 3 exposure is likely to cause  or unlikely to cause 4 serious adverse effects. We think the Clean Air Act 5 clearly shows that he must set a standard where it is 6 not going to cause adverse effects, not unlikely 7 effects. 8 The longterm standard, the Administrator 9 talks about the uncertainty of data in a limited 10 number of studies as a basis for setting a level 11 lower than the current standard. But the 12 administrator essentially asserts that the effects 13 might or might not be occurring at 15 micrograms. 14 The Clean Air Act requires that any uncertainty 15 should be resolved in favor of setting the standard 16 lower and protecting people. 17 The Administrator applies the risk 18 assessment to assess the adequacy of the new 19 standards  or the old standards and finds them 20 inadequate, but when he applies the risk assessment 21 he doesn't look at applying the risk assessment to 22 the new standard. Any application of the risk 23 assessment that was done, applying it to the Proposed 24 Standard the Administrator has chosen, shows that 25 232 there may be perhaps no reduction in risk on the 1 standard that the Administrator has chosen. This is 2 clearly inconsistent with the mandate of the Clean 3 Air Act, with the guidance that was provided by the 4 authors of the Clean Air Act. 5 We urge the Administrator to set a standard 6 that is at a level below where effects are shown. 7 That's what the Clean Air Act requires, and that is 8 what public health really needs and what the American 9 public demands. Thank you. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 11 Mr. Cort. 12 MR. CORT: Good afternoon. My name is Paul 13 Cort. I am a Staff Attorney for EarthJustice in the 14 Oakland Regional Office. 15 EarthJustice has been working for many 16 years with the Latino Issues Forum, Medical Advocates 17 for Healthy Air, and the Sierra Club to fight the 18 deliberate Agency failures to address the terrible 19 air quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley. 20 Through the litigation efforts of these groups we 21 have been successful in turning the tide and finally 22 forcing EPA and the Air District to take action in 23 the Valley. 24 EPA's proposal for course particulate 25 233 matter threatens to undo many of these hard fought 1 gains just when progress appeared to be underway. 2 You've already heard today complaints about 3 the illegality of EPA's Proposed PM10 Standards and 4 about EPA's transparent attempt to promote political 5 science over sound science. I would like to spend my 6 few minutes this afternoon to reflect on how far EPA 7 has fallen in its mission to protect public health. 8 To me this is manifest most clearly in EPA's response 9 to scientific uncertainty and the Proposed PM Course 10 Standards. 11 Once upon a time EPA took a precautionary 12 approach to protecting public health in the face of 13 uncertainty. It is hard to believe that not that 14 long ago there was debate about the need for a 15 national ambient air quality standard for lead. In 16 setting the Lead Standard EPA noted the ongoing 17 disagreement over several issues, including the 18 exposure levels at which harmful impacts occur. 19 Industry argued that EPA only had authority 20 to set standards to protect health against effects 21 that are known to be clearly harmful. EPA argued, 22 and the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that 23 uncertainty about health effects is inevitable and 24 that Congress, quote: 25 234 Specifically directed the Administrator to 1 allow an adequate margin of safety to 2 protect against effects which have not yet 3 been uncovered by research and effects 4 whose medical significance is a matter of 5 disagreement. 6 Noting the precautionary and preventive 7 nature of the Clean Air Act, the Court added, quote: 8 As we read the statutory provisions and the 9 legislative history, Congress directed the 10 Administrator to err on the side of caution 11 in making necessary decisions. 12 Somewhere along the way EPA lost its 13 direction. Little by little EPA began to abuse the 14 early court decisions, upholding the Agency's 15 discretion to make difficult, technical decisions. 16 We have seen EPA frequently try to hide behind 17 uncertainty, to sidestep politically difficult 18 issues. 19 The common strategy to avoid moving forward 20 was to refuse to put effort and resources in to 21 collecting information. As long as the record was 22 empty, EPA could claim things were too uncertain to 23 support change. 24 EPA counted on the fact that resources to 25 235 generate this information reside primarily with the 1 government and industry. As long as they did nothing 2 to resolve uncertainty, the status quo could be 3 maintained. 4 As disgraceful as this was it did not stoop 5 to the new lows in this proposal. The new strategy 6 is to invent and create uncertainty and then ensure 7 that new information will not be collected. 8 The prior strategy of doing nothing is no 9 longer sufficient: 1, Because EPA is faced with a 10 record that is not empty; and, 2, Because EPA and 11 industry are no longer satisfied with maintaining the 12 status quo. 13 Rollbacks and relaxations are the new 14 order. The lengths to which EPA will go to mangle 15 the record, to generate uncertainty is boldly 16 transport. EPA tries to argue that the health 17 impacts of rural dust are uncertain. This attempt to 18 feign ignorance is unsupported by the record or by 19 common sense. 20 We know that epidemiologic studies in 21 Coachella and Phoenix link exposure of course 22 particulates to health impacts. EPA admits this 23 much. We also know that these studies were conducted 24 in areas with emissions dominated by rural sources. 25 236 We know that rural dust from farms and 1 mines is nothing like " uncontaminated volcanic ash." 2 We know this dust contains pesticide residues, toxic 3 metals, radionucleids, not to mention biological 4 agents that everyone knows are linked to diseases 5 like Valley Fever. 6 We know that rural areas have the same 7 sources that are found in urban areas. Likewise, we 8 know that in many western urban areas the dust being 9 disturbed today is the same earth that was only 10 recently being farmed or mined in rural areas. 11 We know that CASAC never recommended 12 exempted agricultural and mining sources or leaving 13 rural areas unprotected and unmonitored. EPA knows 14 all of this, too. Yet EPA says there is an 15 insufficient basis for setting a standard that covers 16 rural sources of dust and directs states to remove 17 the monitors from rural areas. The two conclusions 18 do not make any sense together. 19 If there is uncertainty why would anyone 20 think it is rational to stop collecting ambient air 21 quality data? But we all know that this is not 22 really about uncertainty. 23 Given the record and the precautionary 24 directive of the Clean Air Act, there is more than 25 237 enough content to set a course PM standard that 1 applies to all sources in all areas the same way that 2 all NAAQS have done in the past. Today's proposal is 3 unlawful, a clear abuse of discretion, and arbitrary 4 and capricious in the extreme. And we all know this. 5 Thank you. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any questions? 7 Thank you both very much. 8 Judy Levin and Elmer Grossman. 9 MS. LEVIN: Hi. My name is Judy Levin and 10 I'm not part of any organization. I'm just here as a 11 concerned human being. I'm the mother of two and I 12 took time out of my schedule today to let you know 13 how concerned I am about the quality of air and the 14 Proposed Standards for Particulate Pollution. 15 As we know, air is the basis of life. And 16 yet the quality of the air that we breathe cannot be 17 controlled by myself, by any individual, or even by 18 our community. So we rely upon our government to 19 protect our air so that we can breathe healthfully. 20 And yet the Air Quality Standards that are being 21 proposed by the Bush Administration are not 22 sufficient to protect the public health. 23 Over the last several years study after 24 study has confirmed the damaging health effects of 25 238 particle pollution, even at levels well below the 1 Current Annual and 24 Hour Standards. 2 In 2005 both the Administration's 3 Independent Science Advisors on Clean Air issues and 4 the EPA Staff Scientists concluded that adverse 5 health effects occur at levels well below the Current 6 Fine Particle Standards. They recommended that the 7 Administration strengthen the standards to protect 8 public health. And yet in December the Bush 9 Administration rejected these recommendations and 10 proposed standards that would have little positive 11 effect on public health. 12 It is unprecedented for an administration 13 to disregard the recommendations of its Independent 14 Clean Air Science Advisors. 15 Particle pollution places our most 16 vulnerable population, such as children with asthma, 17 elderly, and people with heart and lung disease at 18 great risk. The health costs and the social costs 19 are great as particle pollution cuts short the lives 20 of thousands, tens of thousands of Americans each 21 year and results in increased hospitalizations. 22 Air Quality Standards are the foundations 23 for reducing air pollution nationwide. So the 24 decision that you make on Fine Particle Pollution 25 239 Standards is one of the most important decisions this 1 Administration will make on air pollution. The Bush 2 Administration must strengthen the standards to 3 protect its citizens. An Annual Standard no higher 4 than 12 micrograms per cubic meter and a Daily 5 Standard no higher than 25 micrograms per cubic meter 6 are a necessity. 7 Let's make it so that when we say, " I'm 8 going out to get a breath of air," that's actually a 9 good thing. 10 Thank you. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 12 Mr. Grossman. 13 DR. GROSSMAN: Good afternoon. My name's 14 Elmer Grossman. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good afternoon. 16 DR. GROSSMAN: I'm a pediatrician who had 17 33 years of practicing in Berkeley and teaching part 18 time at the School of Medicine at the University of 19 California in San Francisco, where I'm Clinical 20 Professor of Pediatrics Emeritus. 21 A few years ago I was asked to serve on the 22 City of Berkeley's Environmental Protection 23 Commission. At that time the Commission had become 24 interested in the question of wood smoke pollution 25 240 and its effect on our air quality and our health. 1 And as a physician I was asked to look at this and 2 report back to the Commission. 3 I had a general familiarity with the 4 problems of air pollution and its effect on health, 5 but I must say that I was skeptical that anything as 6 benign seeming as a fireplace wood smoke would have 7 any major impact on health. But I began to look at 8 the data which even then in the year 2000 was very 9 considerable. And it soon became apparent, as you 10 all know and as the EPA attests, that air pollution 11 is a very major factor impacting our health acutely. 12 And I was amazed at how much data there was and how 13 consistent it was and how important it was. 14 It's clear that fine particle air pollution 15 increases our risk of acute respiratory disease. 16 That was nothing new and that was expected. What was 17 unclear to me before was that even very small 18 increases, well within the limits previously set by 19 the EPA as likely to be safe, were followed by 20 dramatic increases in emergency room visits and 21 hospital visits and doctor office visits and for 22 pneumonia, for asthma and for other diseases. 23 And even more surprising to me was the fact 24 that it soon became apparent the death rates 25 241 increased when there was even as little as a 10 1 microgram per cubic meter increase in fine particle 2 pollution. The 20 City Study, which is a beautiful 3 study, including Oakland across the Bay, showed that 4 there was over a half percent increase in mortality 5 with every 10 microgram increase per cubic meter of 6 pollution. This was mostly due to unexpected cardiac 7 death. 8 In Oakland, by the way, there was a two 9 percent increase in mortality with this quite small 10 increase in pollution. 11 The next thing that was surprising to me 12 was that there were chronic effects on developing 13 lungs in children and adolescents. Studies done in 14 Los Angeles have shown the longterm effects are quite 15 predictably linear: The dirtier the air breathed by 16 children and teenagers during their growing up period 17 the worse their lung function is when they become 18 adults. 19 Returning to the work that our little 20 Commission did, it was clear that there wasn't much 21 we could do in the City of Berkeley to protect our 22 public health from polluted air. We asked the City 23 Council to pass rules to decrease the wood smoke 24 pollution that we looked at initially, and they did 25 242 so. But this is an overarching problem and only the 1 EPA, the steward of our air, can do anything 2 significant to help our public health and protect us 3 both from the acute and the chronic effects of air 4 pollution. 5 The Expert Committee gave you modest but 6 very good advice, suggesting that there be changes in 7 allowable levels both annually and 24 hour levels of 8 pollutants. It's terribly important that this be 9 followed, that you do not follow the advice of 10 stopping the monitoring in the sparsely populated 11 areas, and that you continue to have mining and 12 agricultural air pollution monitored. 13 In California where the Central Valley is a 14 major source both of pollution and a major source of 15 disease these days because of it, it's particularly 16 important as you've already heard today from several 17 people that we continue to have agriculture and 18 mining pollutants included in the pollutants that the 19 EPA covers. 20 Thank you very much. You have the 21 opportunity to make a major contribution to the 22 health of our children and of our observes. And I do 23 hope that you will follow up and do so. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. 25 243 Grossman. Just one question. 1 DR. GROSSMAN: Yes. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: You mentioned the 3 death rate increases. Were those from studies that 4 are already in our record, the information  5 DR. GROSSMAN: Oh, my, yes. The 20 Cities 6 Study was published in the year 2000. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah, okay. I just 8 wanted to make sure we  9 DR. GROSSMAN: You've got it. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 11 Wafaa Aborashed. Not here, okay. 12 Is Gabrielle Weeks here? Andrew Browne? 13 Let me just check where we are. 14 Is Andrew Browne  15 MR. BROWNE: Well, I am, but I have decided 16 that what I was going to say has already been said 17 very well and in fact better than I can say it. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All right. 19 Thank you. 20 Is Matthew Hodges here? 21 MR. HODGES: Good afternoon. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good afternoon. 23 MR. HODGES: My name is Matthew Hodges and 24 I am speaking today on behalf of NPRA, the National 25 244 Petrochemical and Refiners Association. NPRA is a 1 national trade association representing more than 450 2 companies, including virtually all U. S. refiners and 3 petrochemical manufacturers. 4 Our members supply consumers with a wide 5 variety of products and services that are used daily 6 in homes and businesses. These products include: 7 Gasoline; home heating oil; jet fuel; asphalt 8 products; and chemicals that serve as building blocks 9 in making clothing, medicine, computers, and 10 countless other products. 11 Because our member companies own and 12 operate facilities which would be subject to the 13 Proposed PM Standard, we appreciate the opportunity 14 the EPA has provided today to offer comments on this 15 important issue. 16 On January 17th, 2006 the U. S. EPA proposed 17 revisions to the existing National Ambient Air 18 Quality Standard for Fine Particulate Matter. This 19 provision would greatly increase the stringency of 20 the Fine Particulate NAAQS at a time when 21 implementation of the current Standard is just 22 beginning and despite the fact that key uncertainties 23 remain regarding the underlying science. 24 By way of background, air quality is good 25 245 and getting significantly better even as our economy 1 grows. Moreover, EPA rules currently in place 2 combined with future EPA actions will continue to 3 achieve improvements. 4 Between 1970 and 2004 U. S. gross domestic 5 product increased 187 percent. Vehicle miles 6 traveled increased 171 percent. Energy consumption 7 increased 47 percent. And U. S. population grew by 40 8 percent. 9 During this same time period total 10 emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped 11 by 54 percent. All new cars and light trucks now 12 comply with the Tier II Program which establishes 13 tighter tailpipe standards and limits the amount of 14 sulfur in gasoline. These new standards require 15 passenger vehicles to be 77 to 95 percent cleaner 16 than those produced before 2004. 17 The Clean Air Interstate Rule addresses 18 power plant emissions in 29 eastern states plus the 19 District of Columbia. CARE would cut SO2 by 70 20 percent and NOx emissions by 60 percent from today's 21 levels when fully implemented. 22 In light of this progress it is 23 unreasonable to consider to moving the goal posts 24 with a newly revised standard before the states even 25 246 begin to comply with the existing Fine Particulate 1 Standard. 2 States are just beginning to design 3 emission reduction tools to reach the existing Fine 4 Particulate Standard which they must meet by 2010. 5 EPA has not yet finalized any rules or guidance to 6 instruct states as to exactly how to meet the current 7 Fine Particulate NAAQS. After those rules are issued 8 states must submit attainment plans for the current 9 Fine Particulate Standard by April 2008. 10 If EPA finalizes its proposed revisions to 11 the existing Fine Particulate Standard it would 12 unfairly burden states with a new and more difficult 13 target even before states submit attainment plans for 14 the current standard. 15 Additionally, the science developed behind 16 the first Fine Particulate Standard does not 17 sufficiently support revising the standard. EPA is 18 required to set NAAQS at a level that is requisite to 19 protect the public health. But in reality EPA's 20 analysis shows that the ' 97 Fine Particulate Standard 21 to be more protective than EPA had assumed when it 22 first issued that standard in 1997. 23 EPA's 2006 Risk Assessment Estimates 24 generally lower risk upon attainment of the ' 97 Fine 25 247 Particulate NAAQS than EPA estimated and when it sets 1 those Standards in ' 97. 2 The key studies relied upon by EPA still do 3 not adequately explain the cause and effect between 4 fine particulate and health effects. EPA has 5 cherrypicked certain epidemiologic studies that claim 6 an association between fine particulate and health 7 effects. Other studies do not support this claim and 8 in fact show no relationship between fine particulate 9 and health effects. 10 The Fine Particulate Standard is not 11 chemical specific, like other NAAQS. It includes 12 everything from dust to sea salt. We still do not 13 adequately understand how fine particulate might 14 cause health effects or even what portion of the 15 total fine particulate mix might be the problematic 16 driver. In the face of this uncertainty it would be 17 premature to change the standard. 18 Finally, new nonattainment areas will hurt 19 both large and small businesses and prevent expansion 20 and growth in many urban and suburban counties. 21 Under one estimate the proposed new Fine Particulate 22 Standard would result in 75 new nonattainment areas. 23 Being designated a nonattainment area makes 24 it significantly more difficult for a community to 25 248 attack new businesses or expand existing plants. New 1 or expanded plants must obtain emission offsets from 2 their new activities by reducing emissions at 3 existing facilities by an even greater amount. This 4 requirement pushes development away from urban and 5 suburban areas into green fields. 6 Air permits in nonattainment areas contain 7 more complicated and costly measures, again driving 8 development away from urban and suburban areas. 9 In closing, NPRA has serious concerns about 10 how state agencies and affected industries can 11 implement control strategies when those standards 12 could change on the rapid time line currently 13 envisioned. Further review of the scientific basis 14 for these standards is necessary to ensure that the 15 risks and health effects have been adequately 16 characterized. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Your time is up, so 18 if you can wrap up, please. 19 MR. HODGES: As always, NRPA and its 20 members are prepared to work with the Agency to 21 further the common goals of reducing pollution and 22 protecting the environment while promoting economic 23 growth. 24 Thank you. 25 249 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Just one 1 question. When you said that the ' 97 Standard is 2 more protective than it was expected to be, do you 3 have materials that support that? 4 MR. HODGES: We will providing that with 5 the written comments to the record, yes. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 7 MR. HODGES: Thank you. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 9 Is Eric Meyer here? 10 MR. MEYER: Good afternoon. My name is 11 Eric Meyer. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good afternoon. 13 MR. MEYER: And I am reading a statement 14 from Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, who is Chair of the 15 Assembly Natural Resources Committee. 16 " Dear Committee Members, 17 " I appreciate the opportunity to address 18 you today on the Environmental Protection Agency's 19 Proposal to revise Quality Standards for Fine and 20 Course particulates. It is particularly important 21 that this hearing is being held in San Francisco, 22 since California suffers from some of the worst 23 particle pollution in the nation. 24 " Particle pollution is both dangerous and 25 250 pervasive, posing serious and costly public health 1 problems. It causes asthma attacks, heart attacks, 2 strokes, and lung cancer, and cuts short the lives of 3 tens of thousands of Americans. 4 " Strong national particle standards are 5 crucial to fighting this proven killer and to 6 fulfilling our responsibility to reduce air pollution 7 and protect our citizens. 8 " The National Air Quality Standards set by 9 EPA drive all of the work we do to reduce air 10 pollution. Weak standards handicap our ability to 11 fulfill our responsibility to reduce air pollution. 12 Since particle pollution can travel long distances 13 from its source, states cannot solve this problem on 14 their own. Strong national standards are required. 15 " The Clean Air Act requires that Air 16 Quality Standards be based solely on the health 17 effects of air pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act 18 Air Quality Standards must be set at levels that 19 protect public health, including the health of 20 sensitive populations: The elderly, young children, 21 and people with lung and heart disease and diabetes 22 with an adequate margin of safety. 23 " The Administration Proposal, which largely 24 maintains the status quo for fine particle pollution, 25 251 is inadequate to protect possible health. EPA's own 1 analysis shows that the Proposed Fine Particle 2 Standards will leave millions of Americans 3 unprotected. The Administration's decision to reject 4 the recommendations of its own Independent Science 5 Advisors to strengthen both the Annual and Daily 6 Standards is very troubling. It is unprecedented for 7 an Administration to disregard the recommendations of 8 the Independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory 9 Committee. 10 " As the Committee concluded, both the 11 Annual and Daily Standards need to be substantially 12 threatened to protect public health. 13 " I am asking the Administration to issue 14 strong final standards for fine particle pollution 15 that protect public health and comply with the law. 16 In addition, the Administration should issue 17 standards and monitoring requirements for course 18 particle pollution that protect all Americans. 19 " Thank you for conducting these public 20 hearings on such an important public issue. 21 " Respectfully, Loni Hancock, Assemblywoman, 22 14th Assembly District." 23 Thank you. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Mr. 25 252 Meyer, one question. Does Assemblywoman Hancock have 1 any specific recommendations? Is she endorsing those 2 of the American Lung Association? Do you... 3 MR. MEYER: I do not know. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 5 MR. MEYER: I'm sure at this point she's 6 keeping her options open. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 8 MR. MEYER: Thank you. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 10 David Chatfield and Dennis Bolt. 11 MR. CHATFIELD: Hi. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: And, let's say, is 13 this Dennis Bolt? 14 MR. CHATFIELD: David Chatfield. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. And we're 16 doing these two at a time. If Dennis Bolt here I 17 would like to just get him seated as well. 18 MR. CHATFIELD: Shall I go first? 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, please. 20 MR. CHATFIELD: My name is David Chatfield. 21 I am the Executive Director of Californians for 22 Pesticide Reform. CPR is a coalition of 180 23 organizations that works on pesticides. 24 I'm not coming to you today with technical 25 253 commentary. I'm here for one of my colleagues from 1 the San Joaquin Valley. But I will say that 2 pesticides and air quality are directly linked. 3 They're a major component of the volatile chemicals 4 that cause smog, particularly in the Valley, and they 5 are part of the  they're kind of an exotic spice 6 that attaches itself to the dust stew in the Valley 7 and gives people double jeopardy in terms of their 8 health. 9 Pesticides are a big draft problem and 10 they're part of the  become part of the dust 11 problem when they're picked up and moved from where 12 they're supposed to be to where they end up. 13 I grew up in the San Joaquin Valley myself 14 around Bakersfield. That was some time ago, and I 15 remember there was a lot of dust, but it was 16 considerably less laced with these modern 17 contaminants from diesel and pesticide sources 18 compared to what is there now. 19 I think that rural residents have been 20 denied equal protection from environmental problems 21 in too many situations. And to relax clean air 22 protection in the face of an asthma epidemic in the 23 Valley now is simply wrong. I'm sure you've heard a 24 great deal about that from former people who have 25 254 been here, but I think relaxing standards will 1 exacerbate the problem, are going to create 2 significant costs downstream to our society. 3 Mainly I'm here to speak on behalf of 4 Teresa DeAnda, who is Californians for Pesticide 5 Reform's San Joaquin Valley Representative. She's 6 worked with us for three years. She has been the 7 victim of pesticide drift. She lives right in the 8 middle of the most contaminated of the San Joaquin 9 Valley. She is the mother of six children and the 10 grandmother of three. And she couldn't be here 11 because of illness in the family, and I promised her 12 I would come and say what she had to say and so these 13 are her words: 14 " When I grew up and began learning of air 15 pollution I learned dirt and dust had another matter, 16 which is particulate matter. Who would have known 17 the dirt I played in as a child could actually be 18 harmful to our lungs. 19 " As a Valley resident who lives in an rural 20 community named Earlimart, 70 miles south of Fresno 21 in the Central Valley, that is surrounded by dirt, I 22 am very dismayed that the particulate matter from 23 rural areas will be"  in her word " overlooked. The 24 numbers should be measured even more carefully, not 25 255 taken off the slate. 1 " Our cars are covered in dust every 2 morning. Our swamp coolers are laden with dirt. Our 3 children suffer from asthma. There are very many 4 young people dying from heart attacks. The dust 5 comes into our homes ever so more prevalently than in 6 city homes. The carburetor filters on our cars are 7 more frequently full of dust and need to be changed 8 all the time. 9 " When it's summer the inflatable pool in my 10 backyard has a film of dust over it. And it has one 11 more added ingredient mixed into the dust: The 12 pesticides that are applied onto the surrounding 13 agricultural fields in this area. We know this from 14 the pungent smell. 15 " Our roads are full of potholes because the 16 pavement is missing. And at dusk coming down 17 southward on Freeway 99, you pass Fresno, you near 18 Tulare, and you begin to see the haze thicken from 19 the fields and dairies. 20 " When you pass Pixley and get into 21 Earlimart, which is cut in half by Freeway 99, you 22 see a cloud of foggy like haze which is the dust 23 which has risen from cars driving on the pavement 24 missing streets and from the surrounding agriculture. 25 256 " I think about what this haze is doing to 1 our children and I cry. My son has asthma. He 2 misses school, as so many children here do. They get 3 farther behind in school. They get a worse 4 education. Then they're not prepared for society, 5 and that costs us all. 6 " Do not remove rural standards for 7 particulate matter. We desperately need more 8 protection, not less." 9 Thank you very much for hearing this and 10 what Teresa had to say as well. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. And 12 please thank her for us, for  13 MR. CHATFIELD: I will. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're sorry she 15 couldn't be here, but thank you for  16 MR. CHATFIELD: I am, too. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER:  being here in her 18 stead. 19 Mr. Bolt. 20 MR. BOLT: Good afternoon. I'm Dennis Bolt 21 with the Western States Petroleum Association. Thank 22 you for holding the forum this afternoon and hearing 23 this broad range of comments. 24 The Western States Petroleum Association 25 257 represents more than 30 companies in the six western 1 states, including California, that explore for, 2 produce, transport, refine, and market petroleum and 3 petroleum related products. 4 The WSPA, as we're known, understand the 5 importance of improving and protecting  improving 6 Air Quality Standards and protecting public health. 7 For over 30 years we have partnered with state, 8 local, and regional government as well as your own 9 Agency to reduce emissions across the board. 10 Just taking the Bay Area for an example, 11 we're breathing the cleanest air that we've breathed 12 in over 50 years. Every air quality measurement has 13 been reduced. And the leader for those reasons, 14 although we've reduced stationary sources 50 to 75 15 percent across the state, it's cleaner burning 16 gasoline. The world's cleanest burning gasoline. 17 And we're coming out this year, the ultra low sulfur 18 diesel is coming onto the market. That will bring 19 dramatic impacts. 20 Because all of this, this proposal is 21 midstream to some dramatic efforts, we question 22 whether or not government should be turned on a dime 23 and a whole new planning process started, like we are 24 with the 8 Hour Ozone Standard, when everything that 25 258 is being done to reduce PM is being done and progress 1 is being made. 2 Despite the fact that these disease stats 3 have been represented today is increasing, emissions 4 are going down. And they will go down even more 5 dramatically in the future. 6 We agreed with NPRA that your own studies 7 indicate that the current standard is more protective 8 of public health than why originally thought. And we 9 think calling for pause, re evaluating those studies 10 and the benefits already being delivered to society 11 and delaying the implementation of the standard until 12 the last standard is implemented is the right public 13 policy approach, and here's why. 14 Implementing this standard is going to be 15 disruptive to the regulatory processes in California. 16 I'll give an example of that. Last year the Air 17 Resources Board implemented a toxics rule on certain 18 sources. And then this year the Bay Area District 19 said they were going to implement a PM control on the 20 same sources. We're going to have to refit those 21 sources twice or do some kind of forward planning in 22 capital waste so that just adopting a new standard, 23 there's a lot of overlapping and redundant government 24 involved in that. Plus it requires, as I said, a 25 259 whole new planning process. Rather than implementing 1 the last plan we'll be doing the next plan. 2 The permitting process in California  the 3 California Energy Commission has already said that 4 permitting time lines in California are a barrier to 5 having energy to meet the demands of the future in 6 the state. So another NSR permitting barrier to new 7 sources will be disruptive to California businesses, 8 either expanding or siting here. We don't have the 9 offsets to support this standard in the future, or 10 we're concerned that they cannot be obtained. And 11 that issue really, really needs to be addressed lest 12 it be disrupted. 13 The Fine Particle Standard comes at a time 14 when the PM standards both here in California and in 15 states across the country, as I mentioned, have not 16 been fully implemented. And so we request for you to 17 take a step back, evaluate your current studies, but 18 also evaluate what is on the table and the benefits 19 that will come from that and let us go through this 20 job. And then let's get some new sound science on 21 the table and make the next right public policy 22 decision. 23 Thank you for your consideration today. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Bolt. 25 260 I'm sorry. Yeah. 1 MR. HANNON: Just one question. You have 2 identified several policy concerns with going forward 3 at this time. Do you have any comments on the legal 4 authority of the Agency to not conduct this review? 5 MR. BOLT: We will be addressing any of 6 those issues in our written comments, Mr. Hannon. 7 Thank you. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 9 Matt Mengarelli and Frances Spivy Weber. 10 MR. MENGARELLI: Hi. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Hello. 12 MR. MENGARELLI: Right here? 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. Either spot. 14 We do these two at a time usually if two people are 15 here. And we do have a second person. 16 THE REPORTER: Could I get a spelling on 17 these names? I don't seem to have them. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Would you mind 19 spelling your name for the court reporter? 20 Who's going to go first? Okay. 21 MS. SPIVY WEBER: Frances Spivy Weber, F r 22 a n c e s S p i v y hyphen Weber, with one b. 23 MR. MENGARELLI: Hi. Matt, M a t t. 24 Mengarelli is M e n g a r e l l i. 25 261 THE REPORTER: Thank you. 1 MS. SPIVY WEBER: I am the Executive 2 Director for Policy at the Mono Lake Committee and 3 I'm here to speak specifically to the PM10 element of 4 the proposed change. 5 I think you know already and probably have 6 heard today, if you haven't you certainly will be 7 hearing later today, that the two most  the two 8 dirtiest places in terms of PM10 are in the Owens 9 Valley area and at Mono Lake. 10 We have of the 100 highest dusty days that 11 occurred in the entire United States during the five 12 year period from 2000 through to 2004, 99 of those 13 100 days occurred at Owens and Mono Lake. 14 During the five year period, some period, 15 2000 to 2004, the Federal PM Standards were violated 16 247 days in the Owens Valley and Mono Lake 17 Nonattainment Areas. That's essentially seven weeks 18 per year. 19 We need to have the rules in place, as your 20 immediate previous speaker said, because we are 21 starting to actually make some progress on 22 controlling the dust at Mono Lake. We're getting 23 water back from the Los Angeles Department of Water 24 and Power. It is controlling the dust at Mono Lake 25 262 and they're starting to control it at Owens Lake. 1 If you throw out the PM10 Standards you 2 will set that whole process back to square one. And 3 it will not only be a health problem, because this is 4 not just dust, again as one of your previous speakers 5 said, there are many toxic elements in the dust. 6 There are elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, 7 nickel, and sulfate salts. 8 The proposed rule on PM10 discriminates 9 against rural areas, against areas of the country 10 where there is harmful dust, but not large 11 populations. Interestingly, however, it's an area 12 that's very popular to urban people coming for 13 recreation. So in fact urban populations would be 14 affected as well. 15 So I'm here briefly to ask you to not make 16 any change and, particularly, not to areas that would 17 be affected by PM10 and, particularly, to the Mono 18 Lake, Owens Lake area, because they are the worst in 19 the country. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Ms. Spivy 21 Weber. As I said earlier when somebody was here this 22 morning, to the extent you have any information to 23 support or to explicate the metals and other 24 materials that are in the dust, that would be helpful 25 263 to us to have. 1 MS. SPIVY WEBER: We will certainly provide 2 that. Thank you so much. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 4 Another question? 5 MR. HANLEY: In a follow up question, so I 6 understand. You said a couple things there. You 7 said you support to not make any change regard  and 8 I expect that's with regard to the protection the 9 current PM10 network provides  10 MS. SPIVY WEBER: Correct. 11 MR. HANLEY:  for your area. And I 12 mentioned earlier in the morning, that's one of the 13 alternative proposals, is to possibly have the 14 existing PM10 standard in place, but we currently are 15  and then you also offered to have the equal 16 protection in the rural areas, and those are sort of 17 two different versions of what might be in the 18 proposal or what could be interpreted to be in the 19 proposal. So I just wanted to make sure I understood 20 what your preference was in terms of a 21 recommendation. 22 MS. SPIVY WEBER: Our current preference is 23 the keep in place the PM10 standard that has been 24 used for setting regulations for controlling dust in 25 264 the Owens and Mono area. 1 MR. HANLEY: Thank you. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 3 Mr. Mengarelli. 4 MR. MENGARELLI: Hello. Thank you for 5 providing this opportunity for us. And I just 6 represent basically myself, my two daughters, their 7 friends, family members of mine, people I see on the 8 street. 9 I've taken pictures and I view the panorama 10 of the Bay a lot and its very dense with obvious 11 haze, which is smog. And I'm just concerned that 12 there is no real protection coming from the 13 Environmental Protection Agency. 14 It seems like George Bush is allowing 15 outside contractors to handle things that a governed 16 board should. And if that happens we're going to be 17 in a worse place than we are now. 18 I see decline in the protection ability of 19 our government to protect the people. And this 20 concerns me greatly, because we're all people. We're 21 the same people breathing the same air. We should be 22 responsible for the people we take care. 23 And the tax money that goes to pay for the 24 organization such as EPA should be used for the 25 265 people. 1 I'm worried about my daughters' future and 2 it's in your hands to do something about that. You 3 are responsible. Certain citizens I know try and 4 stand up and make a difference, and they are not 5 allowed to do so. So, again, it falls in your hands 6 to do so. So we hope you do that for us and for 7 yourself. 8 And if I can help in any way I want to 9 continue to do my part to help. And that's all I 10 have to say. Thank you. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 12 MR. MENGARELLI: And tell George Bush I 13 said hi. 14 ( Laughter.) 15 MR. MENGARELLI: Thank you. Like to meet 16 him, too. Thank you. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 18 Patricia Monahan and Emily Lee. Are they 19 in the room? 20 MS. MONAHAN: Good afternoon. My name is 21 Patricia Monahan. I'm a Senior Analyst with the 22 Union of Concerned Scientists. 23 I thank you for the opportunity to respond 24 to EPA's Proposed particulate Matter Standards. 25 266 These standards are critically important to public 1 health, particularly for the most vulnerable members 2 of our society: The sick, the aged, and the young. 3 The public health and scientific community 4 is united in support of stricter Fine and Course 5 Particulate Matter Standards than EPA has proposed at 6 this time. In fact, EPA's Proposal is contrary to 7 hundreds of peer reviewed studies and EPA Staff 8 research on the health impacts of particulate 9 pollution, as well as to the legal requirements and 10 the spirit of the Clean Air Act. 11 Many epidemiologic studies have linked fine 12 particles with a variety of serious cardiovascular 13 and respiratory illnesses and even to premature 14 death. EPA utilized these studies in its recent 15 Rulemaking for Nonroad Diesel Equipment. The Agency 16 estimates that the public health benefits of 17 particulate matter control exceed costs by 40 to 1. 18 EPA estimates the annual health benefits of PM 19 control from nonroad engines to be $ 80 billion by 20 2030. 21 In adults, concentrations below the current 22 Fine Particle Standards have been associated with 23 premature death from heart and lung disease. Studies 24 show increased risk down to the lowest levels 25 267 investigated. There is also increasing evidence that 1 course particles contribute to increased 2 hospitalizations for heart and lung disease, 3 decreased lung function, and increased respiratory 4 symptoms. 5 Course PM may have as strong shortterm 6 effects as fine PM on pulmonary disease, asthma, and 7 respiratory ailments. 8 Compared with adults, children may have 9 higher sensitivity to air pollution due to 10 physiologic differences, higher activity levels, and 11 greater exposure to outdoor air pollution. Their 12 developing bodies do not have the full range of 13 defense mechanisms that can protect against harmful 14 exposures. 15 Recent studies have linked longterm 16 exposure to fine particles with deficits in lung 17 growth, asthma exacerbations, and hospitalizations, 18 and even the possible development of asthma in 19 otherwise healthy children. 20 Even in areas that meet the current Annual 21 Fine Particle Standard researchers have found that 22 children experience increased cough, higher cases of 23 bronchitis, and decreased lung function. 24 Now the Clean Air Act requirements here are 25 268 clear. By law, the EPA Administrator must establish 1 health based standards without regard to costs or 2 political pressures. By proposing weak Daily and 3 Annual Particle Matter Standards, the Agency is 4 rejecting the scientific recommendations of its own 5 Clean Air Science Advisors as well as the American 6 Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of 7 Cardiology, the American Thoracic Society, and 8 hundreds of other medical professionals and 9 organizations. 10 There is no sound scientific justification 11 for limiting the Course Particle Standard to urban 12 areas or to exempt any sector or industry, like 13 agriculture or mining. The Clean Air Act clearly 14 specifies that public health and sound science should 15 shape National Air Quality Standards, not powerful 16 lobbying interests. 17 We support an Annual Daily PM2.5 Standard 18 at California's current level, 25 micrograms per 19 cubic meter, and a Daily Standard no higher than 25 20 micrograms per cubic meter. 21 In addition, the Course Particle Standard 22 should apply to urban and rural areas alike without 23 blanket exemptions for high polluting sources. we 24 urge EPA to follow the advice of the medical and 25 269 scientific community in developing stricter standards 1 for particulate matter. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to deliver 3 these comments. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 5 Ms. Lee. 6 MS. LEE: Hi. My name is Emily Lee. I am 7 a Program Associate with the Pacific Institute. 8 We're a nonprofit research institute based in Oakland 9 and we have been working since 1995 to partner with 10 local Environmental Justice communities in the Bay 11 Area to do research and studies around 12 disproportionate impacts of pollution. 13 And I want to talk today about some of the 14 recent research we've done in the past couple years 15 around diesel pollution and how it's a very big 16 concern of the Environmental Justice communities in 17 the Bay Area. 18 We've conducted two research studies, two 19 diesel pollution research studies in two communities 20 in the Bay Area. One was in 2003 in west Oakland. 21 The other one was just last summer  actually it was 22  yeah, 2005 in west Contra Costa County. And we 23 found some really shocking results and disturbing 24 results, as you can imagine, of the disproportionate 25 270 amount of diesel pollution in those communities. 1 So just to give you a little bit of an idea 2 of what we found. In our west Oakland study, 3 Clearing the Air, we found that some residents in 4 west Oakland are exposed to five times more diesel 5 particulate matter than other homes in Oakland. And 6 we also found that on average residents are exposed 7 to 90 times more diesel particulates per square mile 8 per year in west Oakland than in the whole state of 9 California. 10 So this is also a community where asthma is 11 a huge problem, where children in west Oakland are 12 seven times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma 13 then the average child in California. So I'm sure 14 you already know this, but diesel particulate matter 15 has been linked to cancer, to exacerbating asthma, 16 and even some links to causing asthma, as well as 17 more serious illnesses: Cancer, premature death, 18 heart disease. 19 And our recent study in west Contra Costa 20 County, Deluged by Diesel, we found that  which was 21 conducted with several community partners, we found 22 that diesel emissions in west Contra Costa County are 23 40 times higher per area than the California average. 24 And this community is also one that suffers 25 271 from a disproportionate amount of asthma cases, 1 asthma hospitalizations, and also one where trains 2 idling from homes less than 50 feet away, where 3 railyards are cris crossed throughout the 4 neighborhood, train tracks, and severe impacts from 5 the ports in both of these communities. Both of them 6 have ports nearby. 7 So I think that when you're talking about 8 particulate matter standards, you really need to be 9 considerate of these communities that are 10 disproportionately impacted and the ones who are 11 facing the extreme end of the burden in these hot 12 spots. And I strongly urge the EPA to adopt much 13 stronger standards to protect public health, and 14 especially the health of those populations who are 15 already highly impacted from particulate matter 16 pollution. 17 These are low income communities, these are 18 communities of color. And the children in these 19 communities deserve better than, I think, status quo. 20 I think we need to go beyond that to protect the 21 health of the children living there, of the seniors 22 who are also exposed on a daily basis. 23 I have these reports if you guys are 24 interested in viewing them, so. 25 272 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. 1 MS. LEE: Okay. Thank you. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any questions? 3 MR. HANLEY: Make sure you submit the 4 report for the docket. The west Oakland diesel 5 exposure levels, was that an area that's already 6 above the NAAQS for PM, fine PM, do you know? 7 MS. LEE: Yeah, I believe so. 8 MR. HANLEY: Okay. 9 MS. LEE: I mean there is just  if you 10 look at that community, it's got three freeways 11 surrounding it. There's the Port of Oakland. 12 There's Oakland army base. There's tons of trucking 13 services that are going to the port to make 14 deliveries. There's just so much around it that's 15 already  folks are already saying this is too much 16 and that we can't take anymore. And we need to 17 reduce our levels and we need to get better standards 18 so that we can work with agencies to help enforce it. 19 MR. HANNON: Do you know in your report is 20 there any discussion of the methods that were used 21 for  the analytical methods and how you  22 MS. LEE: Yeah. There's actually  for 23 both of these reports, if you  you can see if you 24 look inside, there's going to be a link to a 25 273 technical report. 1 MR. HANNON: Okay. 2 MS. LEE: So basically that's are kind of 3 executive summaries of technical documents that were 4 compiled. And there were a couple different methods 5 used. One is a limited indoor air monitoring study 6 where we use an aethalometer to measure the amount of 7 soot as a proxy for diesel pollution. 8 And we also looked at the diesel emissions 9 inventory, we were looking at previous studies having 10 been conducted to get a general sense of the 11 background of research that's already shown how much 12 diesel pollution is emitted. 13 So for both of these reports you can see 14 the technical reports online. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. In order to 16 have them in our docket we actually need to have the 17 reports themselves. 18 MS. LEE: Okay. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: So if you can make 20 hard copies of the technical reports and get them to 21 our docket. You can leave those with us today  22 MS. LEE: Okay. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER:  and we'll get them 24 into the docket,  25 274 MS. LEE: Sure. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER:  but hard copies of 2 the technical reports would be very  3 MS. LEE: And is there  what's the 4 deadline? 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's April 17th, is 6 the  7 MS. LEE: Okay. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER:  close of the 9 public comment period. And outside there is an 10 information sheet that explains how to submit 11 materials to the docket. 12 MS. LEE: Great. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 14 MS. LEE: Thank you. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you both very 16 much. 17 Anna Mills and Kelly Runyan. Either one. 18 MS. MILLS: Good afternoon. My name is 19 Anna Mills and I'm speaking as a member of the Mono 20 Lake Committee. I am an English instructor at City 21 College of San Francisco. And I've been visiting the 22 Mono Lake area with my family and with summer camp 23 groups for 15 years, every summer. 24 This is, in brief, the wildest and most 25 275 beautiful land that I know. And I'm not sure that I 1 could sustain myself through the year without such a 2 place to return to. 3 I always think that I'm looking at a 4 moonscape as I come down through Tioga Pass and see a 5 silver blue lake in a great gray bowl. Its vastness 6 humbles me. But I know that it is far from barren. 7 It is full of seagulls and fried egg poppies, and 8 pinion pines, blazing rabbit brush and sagebrush that 9 sense the air when it rains. 10 I've watched lightening play over the 11 black and white volcanic islands. I've spread my 12 arms to the hills around the lake and drawn in the 13 freshest, emptiest air I could imagine. 14 Now I learn that this air could become one 15 of the worst toxicity in America and indeed it may 16 already be one of the worst sources. 17 I hope we can ensure that this basin 18 remains a sanctuary and not a bowl of dust to poison 19 us. 20 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 22 MR. RUNYAN: Hello. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Hello. 24 MR. RUNYAN: My name is Kelly Runyan. I am 25 276 an engineer working and living in San Francisco, but 1 I've been visiting the Mono Lake area for over 30 2 years. I'm a Mono Lake Committee member. I'm 3 speaking on my own behalf and I think to some extent 4 on behalf of the 50,000 Mono Lake Committee members 5 who care about that region. 6 Like Anna, I appreciate what I see there. 7 I won't repeat the details, but it's a wonderful 8 place to go. 9 I think the PM standard, particularly the 10 part that would be relaxed for rural areas, I think 11 that should be reconsidered so that this place 12 retains the protections that it has, because those 13 protections are really the underpinnings of decisions 14 and regulations that are restoring the lake. In the 15 30 years that I've been looking at it, it's improved 16 dramatically and I would hate to see that be 17 reversed. 18 So thank you very much for the chance to 19 tell you these things. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much 21 for taking the time to come and share your views with 22 us. 23 Mel Zeldin and Seth Silverman. 24 THE REPORTER: I don't seem to have any of 25 277 these on my list. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. Some of these 2 are  Mel Zeldin, I think you were scheduled to 3 speak this evening; is that right? 4 MR. ZELDIN: Yeah, I'm scheduled at 8: 40, 5 but since you're moving up, they're letting me go 6 ahead. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's fine. It's 8 just  it's just fine. I just wanted to  9 MR. ZELDIN: If you look at 8: 40, that's 10 me. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER:  help our court 12 reporter. 13 THE REPORTER: How about Telly, was that T 14 e l l y? 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: I believe it was 16 K e l l y and then Runyan, R u n y a n. 17 And are you two together? 18 All right. Let's hear Melvin. 19 MR. ZELDIN: Hi. I'm Mel Zeldin and I'm 20 the Technical Consultant to CAPCOA, the California 21 Air Pollution Control Officers Association, which 22 represents all 35 local air pollution control 23 officers within California, and I'm here today on 24 their behalf. 25 278 California is home to some 38 million 1 people and has some of the worst particle pollution, 2 both fine and course. While EPA deserves a lot of 3 credit for implementing regulations and policies 4 which have served as the basis for improving 5 particulate air quality in California, we're very 6 much concerned that the current proposals are ill 7 conceived, not supported by the best science, are 8 inconsistent with EPA's own standard setting process, 9 and will leave millions of Californians unprotected 10 from the deadly effects of particulate pollution. 11 Point 1. We're extremely concerned about 12 the precedent setting proposal to only consider urban 13 course particles and not particles in rural areas. 14 We recognize that certain toxic materials from motor 15 vehicles can coat course particles, however EPA must 16 also recognize that such effects also occur in rural 17 areas, in addition to asbestos laden serpentine dusty 18 and other toxic particles. Taken together, there may 19 be as much if not more health risk in some rural 20 areas because of the combined effects from these 21 influences. 22 In trying to justify the basis for an 23 urban versus rural health concern EPA ignored several 24 studies which found health effects in nonurban areas 25 279 and relied primarily on studies which did not. This 1 is selective science and selective science has no 2 place in any governmental regulatory agency. Rather, 3 best science should be the standard. 4 This coupled with the proposed monitoring 5 regulations which would require PM course monitors in 6 urban areas with populations greater than 100,000 7 would essentially perpetuate a dearth of data in 8 rural areas so that it would be difficult for EPA to 9 reassess in the future. 10 Point 2. The Urban Course Particulate 11 Standard coupled with the revocation of the existing 12 PM10 Standards would leave no particulate protection 13 for rural areas. EPA has a statutory responsibility 14 to protect the nation's population from the health 15 effects of air population. Congress has required 16 that standards be set with an adequate margin of 17 safety. If EPA believes that there are insufficient 18 data at this time to conclude that there is a health 19 risk to rural residents, it has the mandate to err on 20 the side of safety and protection. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: A battery change 22 here. 23 ( Discussion regarding the public address 24 microphone.) 25 280 THE HEARING OFFICER: Should he put the mic 1 back? 2 MR. [ SPEAKER]: Yes. 3 MR. ZELDIN: I'm not going to any sound 4 here. 5 Thank you. 6 If EPA believes that there insufficient 7 data at this time to conclude that there is a health 8 risk to rural residents, it has the mandate to err on 9 the side of safety and protection and not leave 10 people exposed to harm. 11 At a minimum EPA should keep some level of 12 PM Course Ambient Air Quality Standard in place for 13 all areas until it can be conclusively proven that 14 rural particulates are safe to breathe. 15 A case in point is the town of Keeler, not 16 far from the periphery of Owens Lake. Imagine 17 telling people who live there that when the wind 18 blows and course particulate levels are thousands of 19 micrograms per cubic meter and visibility is poor 20 from dust that it is safe to go outside and breathe 21 the clean air. That's essentially what you're 22 telling those people and others in many rural areas. 23 Point 3. Another poor precedent setting 24 aspect of this proposal is the specific exclusion of 25 281 agricultural and mining sources. Health based 1 standards should be based on exposure data specific 2 to a pollutant. And then air management agencies 3 determine the industries contributing or not 4 contributing to the pollutant in their specific area. 5 EPA's proposal also leads to many unworkable aspects 6 of SIP preparation. In areas such as the San Joaquin 7 Valley agriculture is adjacent to populated urban 8 areas and wind blown dust off of agricultural fields 9 impacts urban areas. 10 There are no good scientific techniques 11 available that would allow us to identify a course 12 particle emanating from an agriculture field versus a 13 local crustal source. In some situations course 14 particle exceedences could be caused solely from 15 agricultural particles blown into an urban area and 16 then resuspended by urban vehicles. EPA in previous 17 guidance to states has always preferred preventive 18 actions as opposed to mitigative actions. For this 19 example control actions would have to rely primarily 20 on mitigative actions, and such mitigative actions 21 may never be fully sufficient to reduce PM course 22 concentrations to acceptable levels. 23 It should be noted too that California 24 agriculture has notably reduced their PM10 emissions 25 282 in recent years, and rollbacks are not wanted. 1 Lastly, it's important to note that 2 proposed monitoring regulation changes to support in 3 part the national monitoring strategy were based on a 4 key underlying principle: No budget changes in air 5 monitoring. 6 The current proposed budget shows 7 significant cuts to air monitoring programs which 8 will impact California air districts' abilities to 9 maintain their air monitoring networks consistent 10 with the strategy. Therefore, we urge EPA to re 11 evaluate and reconstruct the proposed air monitoring 12 of Particulate Standard Regulations before you 13 finalize them. 14 Thanks for the opportunity to comment. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Zeldin, one 16 question. 17 MR. ZELDIN: Yeah. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Will you be giving us 19 some specific ideas on how to re evaluate and 20 reconstruct the monitoring rules in written testimony 21 or  in written comments? 22 MR. ZELDIN: CAPCOA will probably be 23 providing specific written comments before the 24 deadline. 25 283 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 1 Any other questions? 2 MR. HANLEY: Do we have both these names? 3 We have Seth's? 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah, Seth Silverman. 5 MR. HANLEY: And Kaitlin Sanford. 6 THE REPORTER: What was your name? 7 MS. SANFORD: Kaitlin Sanford. 8 THE REPORTER: Could you spell that? 9 MS. SANFORD: K a i t l i n S a n f o r d. 10 THE REPORTER: And? 11 MS. SANFORD: Seth Silverman. 12 MR. HANLEY: He's on the list. 13 THE REPORTER: Oh, okay. 14 MR. HANLEY: Go ahead. 15 MR. SILVERMAN: Thanks. The proposed 16 revisions to the Clean Air Act's regulations of 17 particulates represent a conscious decision to ignore 18 a certain and continual threat to the American 19 people. We are here representing Students for a 20 Sustainable Stanford, the campus environmental group 21 at Stanford University. We're here today to object 22 publicly to this failure to protect and specifically 23 to the weak revisions of the Clean Air Act offered by 24 EPA. 25 284 Particle pollution is composed of soot from 1 industrial smoke stacks; diesel exhaust; fine 2 aerosols; and toxic metals including lead, copper, 3 nickels, and cadmium. Particulates are extremely 4 harmful to human health, as they cause chronic 5 asthma, heart attacks, strokes, and lung cancer. 6 According to EPA data from 1997, 7 particulates cause premature death in 35,000 8 Americans annually. Here in California where we 9 suffer from some of the worst particulate emissions, 10 over 2600 people perish prematurely each and every 11 year as a result of the unnecessary allowance of 12 hazardous concentrations of particulate emissions. 13 For each increase of 10 micrograms per 14 cubic meter of fine particles in the air, the risk of 15 death from any cause increases by 11 to 17 percent. 16 Empirical evidence shows that the brunt of the health 17 risk associated with particulates is borne 18 disproportionately by low income and minority 19 communities, making this an Environmental Justice 20 concern. Forty six percent of the nation's public 21 housing units are located within about a mile of 22 factories that have reported toxic emissions to the 23 EPA. 24 And low income communities in New York 25 285 City, where buses and trucks cris cross neighborhoods 1 and industrial facilities dot the landscape, 2 hospitalization rates due to asthma were 21 percent 3 higher in low income communities than in other 4 communities. 5 Black Americans are 79 percent more likely 6 than white Americans to live in neighborhoods where 7 industrial pollution is suspected of posing the 8 greatest health danger. In 19 states blacks were 9 more than twice as likely as whites to live in 10 neighborhoods were air pollution seems to have posed 11 the greatest health danger. 12 Here in California communities of color are 13 almost three times more likely to breathe heavily 14 polluted air and low income residents are exposed to 15 17 percent more particulate matter than better 16 resource communities. 17 Just as the burdens of current pollution 18 fall disproportionately on low income and minority 19 communities, the benefits of stronger regulation will 20 make the most significant impact on them as well. 21 Instead, however, the reservation to the Clean Air 22 Act offered by this EPA further institutionalizes 23 this environmental injustice, not to mention the fact 24 that it directly contradicts Executive Order 12898 25 286 issued by President Clinton in 1994 to address 1 environmental injustice in the United States. 2 This weak revision would of course not be 3 the first time in the past year that this federal 4 government has knowingly abandoned low income 5 communities and communities of color in the face of 6 environmental hazards. And sadly it seems that it 7 will not be the last. 8 MS. SANFORD: Power plants and diesel 9 engines are the most substantial polluters with 10 regards to particulates. One way to begin to address 11 these concerns about particulates is to change the 12 fuel we use from a petroleum based diesel to a 13 biodiesel. 14 We have begun such a project at Stanford, 15 where our campus shuttles are run with a blend of 16 five percent biodiesel, which is derived from waste 17 cooking oil. Replacing petroleum diesel with 18 biodiesel reduces particulates by 47 percent. 19 The Clean Air Act instructs that a 20 prescriptive air regulation be determined solely 21 based on the protection of public health. The 22 current revision did not account for what is supposed 23 to be the singular concern for public health. Such a 24 revision, therefore, runs in direct contradiction 25 287 with the prescriptions for the Clean Air Act, which 1 along with the Clean Water Act, NEPA, FIFRA, CRCLA, 2 and the Endangered Species Act form the bedrock of 3 environmental protections of the United States. 4 Unfortunately the revision in question is 5 not the first time the federal government has worked 6 aggressively to undermine the environmental 7 safeguards that have protected Americans and our 8 environment for the past three and a half decades. 9 Such an assault on the foundational 10 environmental law has been routine for the Bush 11 Administration, which in its first five years of 12 office has engaged in flagrant and unrestrained 13 attack on virtually every environmental protection 14 safeguarding U. S. citizens and our environment. 15 Regardless of this trend, the EPA must strengthen 16 regulation of particulate standards before this 17 revision of the Clean Air Act is finalized. 18 The standard should be set at the most 19 protective levels based on the recommendations of the 20 scientific review of particulate emissions. This 21 level of protection would mean standards limited to 22 12 micrograms per cubic meter and Daily Standards of 23 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 24 Students for a Sustainable Stanford thank 25 288 you for considering our public comment. We urge you 1 to strengthen the current revision to the Clean Air 2 Act before it is finalized in September. 3 MR. HANNON: Just a question to just make 4 sure I understand. So those recommendations are on 5 behalf of your organization and not just to you as 6 individuals, that's right? 7 MR. SILVERMAN: Yes, that's correct. 8 MR. HANNON: Great. Thank you. 9 MR. SILVERMAN: Thanks so much. 10 MR. HANNON: Okay. Samantha Staley. Okay, 11 and you have someone with you. 12 MR. KETTERLE: And I am Jonas Ketterle. 13 MR. HANNON: Okay. 14 MS. STALEY: And he should be on that 15 docket as well. 16 Good afternoon. We are here speaking on 17 behalf of the Center on Environment and Energy of the 18 Stanford Chapter of the Roosevelt Institution, a 19 national thinktank of student led policy research. 20 In regards to EPA's Proposed Particulate Matter 21 Standard changes, we have two pressing concerns. 22 First, that the EPA has not portrayed a 23 high commitment to scientific integrity in relation 24 to air quality in the present Administration and is 25 289 under scrutiny by its own Scientific Advisors. And, 1 second, that recent research indicates that 2 particulates may be the second leading cause of 3 global warming. 4 While it is encouraging that the EPA is 5 considering stricter standards, stricter does not 6 automatically translate to sufficient. Indeed, there 7 exists substantial evidence to indicate that EPA 8 actions under the present Administration warrant 9 scrutiny. 10 The Union of Concerned Scientists in its 11 2004 Scientific Integrity and Policymaking Report 12 criticized the EPA for withholding an analysis 13 showing the benefits of a bipartisan alternative to 14 President Bush's Clear Skies Act. Political 15 motivations interfered with the communication of 16 clear objective science in a timely manner. 17 Given this precedent it is hard to ignore 18 an NPR report indicating substantial disagreement 19 between the EPA's Scientific Advisors and its present 20 Administrator Stephen Johnson. After Johnson 21 announced the proposed revisions to Particulate 22 Matter Standards, the Chair of EPA's Clean Air 23 Scientific Advisory Board challenged his decision to 24 override the Board's consensus, a consensus that 25 290 called for both stricter maximum Daily and Annual 1 Particulate Matter Exposure Standards. 2 The Board's consensus was based upon 3 extensive review of the scientific literature and 4 hearings with public health advocates. As they stand 5 now, the proposals only call for changes in Daily 6 Exposure levels but leave Annual Exposure maximums 7 unchanged, but under this status quo and these 8 continued particulate matter levels thousands of 9 Americans will continue to suffer from the 10 corresponding heart disease, stroke, and respiratory 11 failure. 12 Commenting on Johnson's decision, Professor 13 of Epidemiology at Harvard University, Joe Schwartz 14 stated, quote: What the science has been saying 15 about the particles, if it is that that particular 16 decision is going to kill thousands of people per 17 year, it's not that the science isn't there. They're 18 just ignoring it, end quote. 19 We challenge the EPA administration to 20 consider the advice of its own Scientific Advisory 21 Board and to commit to lower Annual Particulate 22 Matter Standards, both Course PM10 and Fine PM10 to 23 2.5 24 Thank you. 25 291 THE REPORTER: Could I have your name, 1 please? 2 MS. STALEY: Samantha Staley. 3 THE REPORTER: No, his. 4 MR. KETTERLE: Jonah Ketterle. 5 THE REPORTER: Could you spell it? 6 MR. KETTERLE: Spelled like Jonas, 7 J o n a s. 8 But stricter emissions standards stand to 9 provide even more than these well known public health 10 benefits. Leading research indicates that the 11 restriction of particulate emissions could possibly 12 be the most effective method of slowing global 13 warming. 14 Recent publications in the scientific 15 journal Nature and the Journal of Geophysical 16 Research maintain that black carbon particulate 17 matter is a leading factor in global warming. 18 In the past critics of more stringent 19 particulate matter regulations may have pointed to 20 the fact that many particulates are reflective in 21 nature, thus contributing to overall global cooling. 22 However, new computer modeling developments by 23 leading EPA funded climatologists show that black 24 carbon absorbs more radiation than it reflects, 25 292 contrary to previous belief. 1 Indeed, the global warming effect of black 2 carbon is enough to counter the cooling effect of 3 other particulates. Soot containing black carbon has 4 an atmospheric lifetime of only a few weeks, yet 5 since it is continuously emitted black carbon 6 particulates are constantly in the atmosphere. In 7 comparison, greenhouse gases CO2 and methane have 8 atmospheric lifetime of 10 to 100 years. Therefore, 9 more stringent particulate matter emissions standards 10 would have a more immediate effect on slowing global 11 climate change than targeting CO2 and methane. 12 To quantify this change Professor Mark 13 Jacobson of Stanford University, Civil and 14 Environmental Engineer, estimates that: 15 " Eliminating all fossil fuel black carbon 16 and associated organic matter could 17 eliminate 20 to 45 percent of such net 18 warming within three to five years if no 19 other change occurred. Reducing CO2 20 emissions by a third would have the same 21 effect, but after 50 to 200 years." 22 As part of the EPA's mission to protect the 23 public welfare, taking a more aggressive approach on 24 regulating particulates is in line, especially 25 293 considering the results of the most advance climate 1 models that take black carbon particulates into 2 account and that predict significant potential for 3 slowing of global warming under stricter emissions 4 standards. 5 We appreciate your time and thank you for 6 your consideration. 7 MR. HANNON: One question. A witness this 8 morning also spoke about the reflective capacity of 9 black carbon, a doctor from MAGI Scientific 10 ( phonetic), and I asked him as well to reference in 11 the written comments any studies that you have that 12 you'd like us to review. 13 You will need to give them to us and we'll 14 see that they're in the record. If you have written 15 testimony, you submit later, that would be important 16 to reference that as well. 17 If that covers all the studies that you 18 mentioned. You said there was a Nature journal and I 19 forget the other journal, if you have those then 20 that's fine. We'd be happy to take them. 21 MR. KETTERLE: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. HANLEY: Next up is Marc Geller and 23 Jenny Bard. 24 MR. GELLER: Hello. My name is Marc 25 294 Geller. I'm a photographer and I work in the solar 1 PV industry and I'm here representing Plug In 2 America, a group that advocates the use of plug in 3 cars, plug in electric cars and plug in hybrid 4 vehicles to reduce our dependency on oil and to 5 attain a better, cleaner environment. 6 In brief my point is simply: Certainly we 7 support all efforts to deal with the particulate 8 matter question, but the issue really becomes 9 mitigation versus prevention. And we have electric 10 drive technologies for motor vehicle that are zero 11 emission, require simply electricity. 12 We know this works because the zero 13 emission vehicle mandate in California led to the 14 production of thousands of electric cars that worked 15 perfectly fine, that the people who drove loved, but 16 they were taken away by the car companies and the 17 government basically in California caved into their 18 desire not to produce such vehicles. 19 But I drove here in one of those cars 20 today, and it's got 34,000 miles on it. I know 21 people who have the exact same car that has 91,000 22 miles on it and it still works perfectly well. 23 If we don't want to be sitting here and 24 having these conversations into the future forever 25 295 about mitigating the problems of motor vehicle 1 transportation what we must do is begin the process 2 of transitioning to technologies that allow us to 3 drive without creating these problems. 4 We can regulate and we have done the 5 emissions out of power plants, and they are getting 6 cleaner all the time. And states are continuing to 7 make efforts to make the  make the grid ever 8 greener and ever more renewable. And we need to make 9 a synergy between transportation and the grid. And 10 plug in hybrids, a technology that President Bush 11 recently announced his support for in Milwaukee is 12 one of the things that can get us to the point where 13 people can drive their cars and not cause the 14 problems that we're talking about today. 15 If you have any questions I'd be happy to 16 answer them, but thank you very much. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 18 MS. BARD: Hello. My name is Jenny Bard. 19 I work with the American Lung Association of 20 California, Redwood Empire Branch. Our office is in 21 Santa Rosa, and we cover seven counties, from Marin 22 to the Oregon border. I direct Clean Air Programs 23 and the 12 Better Breather Club Support Groups for 24 individuals with chronic lung disease. 25 296 We have an estimated 150,000 residents with 1 chronic lung disease, including asthma, emphysema, 2 and lung cancer. Our office represents largely rural 3 counties, where air pollution from wood smoke and 4 agricultural burning are our number one clean air 5 problem, air pollution problem. 6 We receive calls regularly from individuals 7 who cannot go outside in the wintertime due to high 8 levels of wood smoke pollution and/ or agricultural 9 burning in their neighborhoods. Currently there is 10 no regulation that protects neighbors from polluting 11 their neighbors day in and day out with harmful wood 12 smoke. These individuals literally become prisoners 13 in their own homes. 14 So on behalf of those we serve we urge you 15 to adopt toughest and most health protective 16 standards recommended by your own health experts that 17 will protect our population from the high levels of 18 particle pollution they are experiencing currently. 19 We also urge you to maintain a strong 20 course particle standard for rural areas. There's 21 absolutely no reason why rural residents would have 22 to suffer more air pollution than urban residents. 23 Per your classification, I think most of 24 our cities would fall into the rural definition and 25 297 then would be therefore excluded from the health 1 protections that you're extending to other 2 communities. 3 I'm sure you've heard all about the health 4 effects of breathing particulate pollution, so I'll 5 just go on the record as saying that it's been 6 expressed by others from the American Lung 7 Association today. So I won't take time on that. 8 I do want to say that many of our counties 9 don't have PM2.5 monitors. Sonoma County, for 10 instance, which has almost half a million residents 11 now, the southern portion of it. Marin County, Napa 12 County, none of these have PM2.5 monitors. So along 13 with the regulations we really need to see more of 14 these monitors in all of the counties in order to 15 determine whether these counties are meeting the 16 regulations and the Air Quality Standards. 17 We have been advocating with our local Air 18 Districts for PM2.5 monitors, particularly because 19 the PM10 monitors are showing exceedences. And we 20 know the finer particle, the finer particles are the 21 most dangerous, so we certainly want to know what the 22 levels are. 23 The standards that you set will provide the 24 mandate for the local Air Districts to write 25 298 regulations that are going to improve air quality. 1 Right now we have no recourse because there are no 2 regulations protecting from these level of 3 particulate pollution that we're experiencing. 4 So we have been working closely with our 5 Air Districts, and certainly the Lung Association 6 looks forward to working with EPA and local Air 7 Districts and our communities to educate them about 8 air pollution and the health impacts and the need for 9 more regulation. 10 Our residents already know that breathing 11 air containing wood smoke can harm their lungs. What 12 they need now from U. S. EPA are Clean Air Standards 13 that are healthful for their families and their 14 children. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking 15 to you today. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Just one question for 17 you, Ms. Bard. 18 MS. BARD: Yes. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are there PM10 20 monitors now in the counties  21 MS. BARD: Yes. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER:  you mentioned? 23 But no PM2.5 monitors? 24 MS. BARD: Yes. 25 299 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 1 MS. BARD: There's one 2.5 in northern 2 Sonoma County, not in the southern. There are PM10s 3 in Marin and Napa. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 5 MS. BARD: Thanks. 6 MS. STONE: I have a question. 7 Mr. Geller, does your organization have any 8 specific recommendations about levels for the 9 Standards or do you support the ALA? 10 MR. GELLER: On Particulate Standards? 11 MS. STONE: Yes. 12 MR. GELLER: No particular recommendations. 13 I mean we would like to not have to deal with that 14 particular problem by having vehicles that don't 15 create it. 16 MS. STONE: Okay. Thank you. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Thank you 18 both. 19 Is Bruce Young here? 20 Hi, Mr. Young. 21 MR. YOUNG: I get the spot all by myself 22 here? 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: You do. Right now we 24 have a little lull and so the floor is yours. 25 300 MR. YOUNG: Okay. My name is Bruce Young. 1 I am a private citizen or mostly private, for the 2 most part. 3 Now I know that you've seen the reports by 4 your own EPA scientists and the other science and 5 independent panels that say that the current 6 particulate and soot levels are at a dangerous 7 health challenging level. And I know that you're 8 aware also of a thousand or 2, medically peer 9 reviewed studies which show that there are health 10 challenges and that people are suffering and dying 11 from the particulates and soot from asthma, stroke, 12 heart attack, and cancer. 13 And we know that soot particles are coming 14 from engines and power plants and that sort of thing. 15 And we also have the technology to create less of 16 those particulates. 17 And we also have read polls and the 18 articles which show that citizens and people of many 19 different countries and certainly of the U. S. favor 20 cleaner air and are willing to put up with a little 21 higher cost and a little bit more inconvenience in 22 order to have a cleaner and healthier environment. 23 One of my own personal perspectives on this 24 issue is from when I lived in San Francisco in a 25 301 couple of different places and apartments usually on 1 a couple floors up on city streets. And every 2 morning when I got up I'd look at the window, which 3 I'd leave open most of the time for some air, and I'd 4 find this gray, black powder always on the window 5 sill. 6 So I'd clean it off. Check it later, there 7 it was again. So it was a continuing thing. And you 8 know it always gave me a little bit of a weird 9 feeling to imagine, okay, so if all this black stuff 10 is landing on the window sill it's also floating 11 around in the room, I'm breathing it all day long, 12 all night long. It can't be good for me. So it's an 13 issue. 14 And I just really  I'm here primarily 15 just to urge you to strengthen the standards for 16 particulate emissions, which is to say to reduce the 17 amount of allowable soot and particulate emissions. 18 This is to protect our health, my health, 19 your health, the people who live nextdoor, the truck 20 driver, bus driver, farmer, plant worker, everybody. 21 We're all in this big together. This is one big 22 family. We are interdependent. We have no place to 23 go. And soot and particulates don't care who we are 24 or what the borders are, so we've got to do what we 25 302 can. 1 I think it's the time to act. We have the 2 ability to act. And it's the right thing to do. So 3 I just urge you to take a strong stand for reducing 4 particulates as you can. And it makes a lot of 5 difference. 6 Thank you. Thanks for your attention. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Thank 8 you. Thank you for taking the time to come. 9 Appreciate that. 10 No questions. Thank you. 11 MR. YOUNG: All right. Thank you. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: We understand your 13 point very  14 MR. YOUNG: Okay. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER:  very well. 16 At this point we don't have anybody else 17 who's actually registered to speak. Is there anyone 18 in the room who does want to speak but hasn't 19 registered yet? 20 Okay. In that event we're going to take a 21 short break until we have some more folks show up to 22 speak. We actually have people signed up  no, we 23 do have somebody? Okay, we do have a speaker. So we 24 will not take a break. 25 303 Andy Reimers and Karen Robertson Strain  1 is it? 2 MS. ROBERTSON STRAIN: Yes. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: We have two at a 4 time, so if you don't mind coming up at the same 5 time. 6 MS. ROBERTSON STRAIN: Good afternoon. My 7 name is Karen Robertson Strain and I'm speaking on 8 behalf of the American Heart Association as a member 9 of the Health Network for Clean Air. 10 I urge the EPA to adopt much stronger 11 standards that protect public health, including the 12 health of sensitive populations, especially children 13 and the elderly, with an adequate margin of safety. 14 Longterm exposure to air pollution has caused an 15 increase to asthma and cardiac related diseases. 16 On severe air pollution days, EMS calls, 17 that's the emergency medical services calls for 18 asthma and cardiac related problems or for anyone 19 with weakened immune systems or fragile health and 20 living condition show a significant raise in needed 21 responses. 22 Exposure to air pollution increases the 23 risk of heart attack, hospitalization for heart 24 failure, and the triggering of implantable 25 304 cardioverter defibrillators, the electronic devices 1 that shock the heart to  in dangerous heartbeat 2 disturbances. 3 Longterm effects of constant air pollution 4 increase the incidents of asthma and cardiovascular 5 disease, while affecting patients at an earlier age. 6 In addition, recently published studies in 7 the October Stroke Journal showed that air pollution 8 increases the risk of stroke. And all the relative 9 risk may be small, the absolute risk in terms of 10 excess number of strokes can be quite high, 11 especially when you realize that someone in the 12 United States has a stroke every 45 seconds. 13 Particles are so small that they can bypass 14 the body's natural defenses, coughing and sneezing, 15 and lodge deep within the lungs, and can enter the 16 bloodstream. The issue is that this is the first 17 time, after 35 years, that the EPA has rejected 18 recommendations of the Independent Clean Air 19 Scientific Advisory Committee, which concludes that 20 both the Annual and the Daily Standards for Fine 21 Particle Pollution can be substantially strengthened 22 to protect public health. 23 There is no precedent for EPA's proposal to 24 limit standards for course particle pollution to 25 305 urban areas and issue blanket exemptions for major 1 industrial sectors, such as mining and agriculture. 2 Air Quality Standards are set to protect all 3 Americans, not selected portions. 4 The law states that under the Clean Air Act 5 Air Quality Standards must be set at levels that 6 protect public health with an adequate margin of 7 safety, including vulnerable populations: Children, 8 elderly, and people with heart disease and diabetes. 9 More than 100 leading air quality 10 scientists and physicians across the country have 11 called on EPA to propose substantially more 12 protective Air Quality Standards for particulates. 13 More than 2,000 studies confirm the relationship 14 between particles and illness, hospitalizations and 15 premature death, and that these deaths occur at 16 levels well below current standards. For these 17 reasons I am urging the California EPA to adopt 18 stronger standards for air particle pollution. I 19 urge the following be adopted: 20 An Annual Standard for Fine Particle 21 Pollution no higher than 12 micrograms per cubic 22 meter. A Daily Standard no higher than 25 micrograms 23 per cubic meter. And a Strong Course Particle 24 Standard and monitoring requirement that protects all 25 306 Americans, in urban and rural communities. 1 Thank you. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 3 Just one request. The October issue of 4 Stroke that you mentioned, do you have or can you 5 submit for the docket a copy of that study? 6 MS. ROBERTSON STRAIN: I don't have it, but 7 I can submit. Who would I contact or talk to to... 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: There's a sheet 9 outside that tells you how to submit to the docket. 10 The comment period's open until April 17th, so 11 there's no huge rush. 12 MS. ROBERTSON STRAIN: I will submit that. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: But it would be 14 helpful to have that study in the record. 15 MS. ROBERTSON STRAIN: Absolutely. Thank 16 you. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 18 MR. REIMERS: Thank you for having me. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 20 MR. REIMERS: My name is Andy Reimers and I 21 am just a public citizen who wanted to comment. 22 I believe that science is clear that 23 particulate pollution is a major health concern. Our 24 country spends billions of dollars protecting our 25 307 citizens through military action, but yet seems to 1 ignore some of the more common problems that are 2 really facing us, some of the more serious threats. 3 I think one of the things that is really a 4 travesty is this is not a technologically unsolvable 5 problem. There is countless forms of renewable 6 energy that do not cause particulate pollution, 7 including solar and wind. 8 And I believe that our nation needs to 9 commit to those renewable sources and help save 10 countless people from unnecessary suffering and cost 11 through all of the complications that are caused by 12 particulate pollution. And that's all I have to say. 13 Thank you. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much 15 for coming. Appreciate that. 16 THE REPORTER: Could you spell your last 17 name for me? 18 MR. REIMERS: My last name is Reimers, 19 R e i m e r s. 20 Thank you. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, both. 22 Dennis Ransel. 23 MR. RANSEL: I was going to say, " Good 24 evening." It's not quite yet. It's good afternoon. 25 308 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you for coming. 1 MR. RANSEL: My name is Dennis Ransel and I 2 am the Planning Manager for the Clark County of 3 Nevada  which is located in Las Vegas  Department 4 of Air Quality and Environmental Management. 5 First of all, our Department is an active 6 participant in the STAPPA ALAPCO Organization. And I 7 want to express our concurrence with the comments 8 that were provided this morning by Mr. Larry Greene 9 on behalf of the STAPPA ALAPCO. 10 In addition Clark County has the following 11 comment concerning the Proposed PM Coarse Standard. 12 EPA is choosing to use population as the 13 determinant of health risk instead of scientific 14 criteria, which ignores the composition and toxicity 15 of the particles themselves and sends the message 16 that the health of people living in smaller rural 17 population centers does not matter. 18 Additionally, it excludes collecting 19 monitoring data that could positively determine the 20 health effects of those areas. This message is that 21 the health of people in smaller population centers is 22 determined to be not at risk and therefore no effort 23 will be made in the future to assess the health risks 24 to those individuals. 25 309 The proposal excluded mining and 1 agricultural sources of PM coarse particles from 2 regulation and does not retain a secondary standard 3 to prevent unacceptable effects on the public 4 welfare, damage to crops and vegetation, buildings 5 and properties, and ecosystems. 6 Excluding mining and agricultural sources 7 implies that the emissions from these sources are 8 benign, without health risk, but there is not 9 sufficient evidence to support this premise. 10 As a matter of policy, the EPA proposal 11 does not address the contamination of coarse 12 particles from agricultural and mining sources by 13 pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers, heavy metal, 14 cyanide, carbon black, fuels, diesel exhaust, et 15 cetera, and urban toxic materials. 16 It does not address the contribution and 17 effects of coarse particles from mining and 18 agricultural sources located upwind of the urban 19 centers that the Proposed Standard is designed to 20 protect. Mining and agricultural sources located on 21 the fringe and within the boundaries of fast growing 22 urban areas, like Las Vegas, will be uncontrolled. 23 The exclusion of mining sources leads to 24 the unrealistic situation where the mere act of 25 310 transporting benign mining materials, for example 1 from an aggregate plant, onto an urban construction 2 site, making those materials now urban coarse and a 3 health risk. 4 Human lungs cannot distinguish between PM 5 coarse particles generated by mining, agricultural, 6 or urban sources. By deregulating mining and 7 agricultural sources and not protecting people living 8 in smaller population centers, air quality and public 9 health will suffer. 10 Now regarding the monitoring proposal, the 11 Clark County monitoring network currently includes a 12 total of 17 PM10 continuous type federal reference 13 method equivalent samples. Of these 13 are located 14 in the PM10 monitoring area, the Las Vegas Valley, 15 and four are located at attainment areas of Clark 16 County. 17 Although we believe that the Clark County 18 PM10 monitoring network is adequate for assessing 19 County compliance with the PM NAAQS, we have received 20 many public comments to the contrary during SIP 21 development and rural development workshops. 22 In addition, adverse comments have been 23 independently made to the press, and the press has 24 taken these public concerns very seriously and 25 311 published a number of unfavorable articles in both 1 print and broadcast media. 2 Finally, the monitoring network adequacy 3 issue is a key component of litigation over EPA 4 approval of Clark County's PM10 SIP. Under the 5 provision of the Proposed 4 CFR 53 and 58, Clark 6 County is entitled to only four federally supported 7 coarse fraction samples. Given previous public 8 comments on the sufficiency of our current PM network 9 of 17 samplers, we anticipate very adverse public 10 press and comments if Clark County is mandated to 11 implement these revisions to the CFR in conjunction 12 with the proposed Section 105 and 103 budget cuts. 13 In addition to the public concerns, 14 redesign of the Clark County PM monitoring network to 15 comply with the proposed CFR revisions could form the 16 basis for legally challenging future air quality 17 programs in Clark County. 18 We urge EPA to reconsider these issues as 19 they move forward with the new PM Coarse Standard. 20 Thank you. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: John. 22 MR. HANNON: I have one question. 23 You mentioned the concern about mining and 24 ag sources that are upwind of what would be an urban 25 312 coarse area. 1 MR. RANSEL: Yes. 2 MR. HANNON: Could you amplify on that? I 3 didn't understand the concern. 4 MR. RANSEL: Primarily we're talking, you 5 know, about sand and gravel, aggregate plants. Fix, 6 in Las Vegas Valley, they surround the Valley. There 7 are some that have been grandfathered that remain in 8 the Valley. We are able to control them under our 9 PM10 controls now. And should we lose the ability to 10 do that, to have permits on these sources that would 11 leave them uncontrolled and could be a significant 12 source of particulate coarse, in this case, blowing 13 into the Las Vegas area, the high population, dense 14 area. 15 And that would be a significant problem and 16 really kind of reverse a lot of the work that we have 17 accomplished with PM10 controls and the progress 18 we've made towards attaining the PM NAAQS in Las 19 Vegas. 20 MR. HANNON: So that's a transport issue 21 basically. 22 MR. RANSEL: Well, some of it  you know 23 it's a little bit of both, because you have, in the 24 fringes of the Valley, in other words fringes of a 25 313 developed area, these aggregate plants. 1 And they're in, you know, low density areas 2 presently but they're within the Las Vegas Valley. 3 Some of them are still located closer to construction 4 sites in the developing areas. So as the development 5 spreads, what we're going to do is transfer the 6 responsibility to the construction sites which are 7 very well controlled to date and away from these 8 aggregate plants. And that would be a significant 9 problem. 10 MR. HANLEY: I have a question also. 11 In the proposal which you cited, the 53 58 12 proposal, basically as provided for Clark County 13 would be a candidate for four  14 MR. RANSEL: Four. 15 MR. HANLEY:  monitoring sites under the 16 PM10 2.5 network design. And that, of course, 17 is based upon population and some estimates of the 18 value  19 MR. RANSEL: Right. 20 MR. HANLEY:  relative to what the 21 standard might be. Do you have any ideas or do you 22 have any thoughts that you want to share with the 23 Agency regarding other criteria that the Agency might 24 consider to get to a larger number of monitors? 25 314 You cited that in your SIP process you took 1 some criticism because people said you didn't have an 2 adequate monitoring system in place yet. 3 MR. RANSEL: It, you know,  4 MR. HANLEY: It seemed like you had a 5 pretty robust network, just looking at the numbers. 6 So can you  7 MR. RANSEL: I think we do have a robust  8 MR. HANLEY:  can you give me some more 9 information on that that would be helpful for us to 10 consider? 11 MR. RANSEL: I think I could characterize 12 the criticism as basically saying as the Valley has 13 expanded  our growth is rather dramatic and as it 14 expands out from the urban core out into the outer 15 reaches of the Valley, the criticism would be that 16 the monitors aren't moving with the population 17 growth. 18 And if we end up with a total of four 19 monitors, that would obviously very much restrict 20 where we could put monitors and how we  you know, 21 restrict the ability actually to move monitors with 22 the growth. 23 MR. HANLEY: That's helpful. Thank you. 24 MR. RANSEL: And that is basically it. 25 315 MR. HANLEY: Okay, thank you. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Just one other thing, 2 Mr. Ransel. 3 You talk about the contamination of rural 4 particles. If you do have any information about 5 that,  6 MR. RANSEL: I know, we don't. And that's 7 why I say I think the science is a little bit shy on 8 that area. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. 10 MR. RANSEL: And our concern is  we 11 obviously have rural areas in Clark County that are 12 affected, and we do have some monitors in the rural 13 areas. And we're concerned that we would not have 14 any monitors under this new criteria, and so we 15 wouldn't know,  16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. 17 MR. RANSEL:  would not have the ability 18 to find out. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 20 MR. RANSEL: Okay. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you for that 22 clarification. 23 MR. RANSEL: Is that it? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. Thank you very 25 316 much. 1 MR. RANSEL: Thank you, again. I 2 appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you for coming. 4 Everett Olsen. 5 MR. OLSEN: I am Everett Olsen. I am a 6 retired science teacher of physics, chemistry, 7 biology. I didn't want to make a comment at the 8 beginning because I wanted to find out what other 9 people are saying so I didn't have to say anything 10 they did. So I'm stuck with the questions that 11 nobody's raised. 12 The first one is you have said that you're 13 talking about a population of a hundred thousand in 14 an area. What constitutes an area? Now it happens 15 I'm from Monterey. And Monterey has got several 16 cities of 3,000 and less nearby. And when  there's 17 a long distance. And on the other side of Fort Ord 18 is Marina. And there's some other little areas. And 19 if you add it all up you might end up with a hundred 20 thousand if you want to go  but maybe you wouldn't. 21 And so the question is: How are you going to make 22 this decision? 23 And none of the literature that I've seen 24 so far has come up with an answer to that. So I pose 25 317 that as a question for you to tell me how you're 1 going to figure that out. Okay. 2 The second thing that seems to be really 3 missing  and I'm really thinking about they  4 there's various military material on Fort Ord., and 5 it's hidden in brush. And they have decided that 6 it's economical to burn it, which means basically 7 they spend a small amount of the fuel, maybe 20 8 percent, 30 percent, something like that, and 70 9 percent of it goes up in the air in big chunks of 10 black stuff which rains down on the rest of us. 11 Now, I'm sorry, I don't know the sizes of 12 that. That's  you know, that's  I leave that to 13 you to figure out what the sizes are. But all 14 particles are not the same. And in reading your 15 documents it sounds like they are. 16 I maintain that a glob of sand, I don't 17 really want that in my lung because of silicosis. 18 Okay. Arsenic would be pretty fast in dealing with 19 me if I got very much of that, so I don't want that. 20 A pesticide that is a nerve poison, I'm not 21 interested in that. But that all could be in the 22 stuff that's equal. 23 I tried to think of something non  a 24 chunk of dust in making flour probably wouldn't do me 25 318 a lot of harm. I mean I could probably ignore that. 1 I'm not being urgent, but my body would somehow deal 2 with it somehow and it would go away. 3 In Fort Ord we've got beryllium and 4 apparently we've got some radioactive materials as 5 well and, you know, I don't know that I want those in 6 my lung, either. 7 And from my science I might point out, and 8 I don't see anyone pointing this, in order to get air 9 into the lungs essentially you're bringing the blood 10 as close as you can to this same kind of air. And 11 the lungs are not smart enough only to pull in the 12 air but they get whatever is on the other  in that 13 that air that's on the other side. So I would like 14 you to be proactive in protecting that. 15 Now the other thing with regard to Fort Ord 16 that's very important is that they're saying it's 17 cheaper for them  they're shifting the cost. And I 18 would like to have one o