1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 9: 09 a. m. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning, 3 everyone. I think we'll get started with our 4 hearing. My name is Lydia Wegman. And I want to 5 thank you all for attending this morning, the 6 Environmental Protection Agency's Public Hearing on 7 our Two Proposed Rules for Particulate Matter. 8 Can everybody hear me all right? First 9 let's just check that. Okay, seeing no problem. 10 I recognize many of you have traveled a 11 good distance to come to this hearing and I 12 appreciate the time you have taken and any money you 13 have spent to be here, because we very much 14 appreciate your interest in these proposed rules. 15 As I said, my name is Lydia Wegman. I'm the 16 Director of the Health and Environmental Impacts 17 Division in the Office of Air Quality Planning and 18 Standards, which is part of the Office of Air and 19 Radiation in North Carolina. 20 I'm going to be the Chair of today's Public 21 Hearing. And we are obviously here to listen to your 22 comments about the National Ambient Air Quality 23 Standards Proposal for Particulate Matter and also 24 our Proposed Revisions to our Ambient Air Monitoring 25 11 Regulations. 1 This of course is an opportunity to comment 2 on our proposed rules. We, the panel, who I will 3 introduce in a minute, may ask you questions to 4 clarify your comments, but we are obviously not here 5 to debate or discuss the proposals. Our chief 6 purpose in being here is to hear your comments on 7 those proposals. 8 I want to take a moment to briefly describe 9 the proposal that are the subject of today's hearing. 10 As I think most of you know, the proposals were 11 published on January 17th. 12 Particulate matter, also known as particle 13 pollution, includes a mixture of solids and liquid 14 droplets. They come in a wide range of sizes. Some 15 are emitted directly and others are formed in the 16 atmosphere when pollutant emissions, such as sulfur 17 oxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, or volatile organic 18 compounds react together chemically. 19 Exposure to such particles has been 20 associated with premature death as well as 21 significant adverse cardiovascular and respiratory 22 effects. 23 Our proposed rules address two categories 24 of particles: First, fine particles or PM2.5 which 25 12 are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller; and 1 inhalable course particles, or PM10 2.5, which 2 are particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter 3 but larger than PM2.5. 4 We've had National Ambient Air Quality 5 Standards for PM2.5 since 1997 and for PM10 since 6 1987. And we of course have proposed revisions to 7 these standards and requested comments on a range of 8 alternative standards for both fine and inhalable 9 course particles. 10 The Proposed Revisions address both Primary 11 Standards, which address public health, and Secondary 12 Standards designed to protect public welfare, 13 including visibility impairment. 14 Our proposal with respect to the two 15 Primary Standards, one, our first proposal was to 16 lower the level of the 24 Hour Fine Particle Standard 17 from the current level of 65 micrograms per cubic 18 meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. And we've 19 requested comment on a range of alternatives, 20 including retaining the current level of the standard 21 at 65 and on levels between 25 and 65 micrograms per 22 cubic meter and on alternative approaches for 23 selecting the level of the standard. 24 As far as the Annual Standard goes we have 25 13 proposed to retain the current level of the Annual 1 Standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and are 2 considering and taking public comment on a range of 3 levels from 15 to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. 4 We are proposing to establish a new 5 indicator for inhalable course particles. And the 6 Proposed New PM10 2.5 Standard has been 7 qualified to include any ambient mix of PM10 minus 8 2.5 where the majority of course particles is 9 resuspended dust from high density traffic on paved 10 roads and particulate matter generated by industrial 11 sources and construction sources. 12 And we are proposing to exclude any ambient 13 mix of PM1025 where the majority of course particles 14 is rural wind blown dust and soils and particulate 15 matter generated by agricultural and mining sources. 16 We propose setting a 24 hour standard for these 17 particles at 70 grams per cubic meter. 18 And our Proposed Regulations for 19 agricultural sources, mining sources, and other 20 similar sources of crustal materials shall not be 21 subject to control in meeting this standard. 22 And we have requested comment on a level 23 down to 50 micrograms per cubic meter and on 24 selecting an unqualified PM1025 indicator. 25 14 We've also asked for comment on whether we 1 should retain the current PM10 standard in place of 2 this Proposed Inhalable Course Particle Standard of 3 PM1025; and on whether or not we should establish a 4 course particle standard at this time, pending the 5 development of a course particle monitoring network 6 and further research on the health effects related to 7 course particles. 8 With respect to the Secondary Standards to 9 protect public welfare, we propose that the Secondary 10 Standards be identical to the primary health based 11 standards and have requested comment on setting a 12 subdaily, four to eight hour averaging time PM2.5 13 standard to address visibility impairment within a 14 range of 20 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter. 15 If we were to set a PM1025 standard the 16 question arises as to what happens to our current 17 PM10 standards. We've proposed that current 18 scientific evidence does not support setting an 19 annual standard for inhalable course particles and 20 have proposed to revoke the current annual PM10 21 standards in all areas. 22 And if we do finalize a 24 hour standard 23 for PM1025, we propose to revoke the current 24 hour 24 PM10 standard except in those areas that have at 25 15 least one monitor located in an urbanized area with a 1 minimum population of 100,000 people and it has 2 measured a violation of the 24 hour PM10 standard 3 based on the most recent three years of data. 4 That's the summary of our proposal on the 5 PM NAAQS, and then we have a second rule on which 6 we've proposed revisions to the Ambient Air 7 Monitoring Requirements for criteria pollutants and 8 those proposed changes would support proposed 9 revisions to the NAAQS, as I've just described, 10 including new minimum monitoring network requirements 11 for the PM1025 particles and criteria for approval of 12 applicable sampling methods. 13 These changes would also establish a new 14 nationwide network of monitoring stations that take 15 an integrated multi pollutant approach to ambient air 16 monitoring. The proposed amendments would modify the 17 current requirements for ambient air monitors and 18 would focus requirements on populated areas with air 19 quality problems. 20 And the aim of these proposed changes is to 21 enhance our ambient air quality monitoring to better 22 serve current and future air quality management and 23 research needs. 24 We have fact sheets on both of these 25 16 proposed rules for those of you who would like some 1 additional information. 2 Turning to today's hearing, this is one of 3 three public hearings we're holding today on these 4 two rules. The other two are in Chicago and 5 Philadelphia. We will be preparing a written 6 transcript of today's hearings. And we have two 7 court reporters here working on that, Nancy and 8 George Palmer, who are helping us out. And we're 9 very appreciative of their efforts. These 10 transcripts will be available as part of the official 11 record for each of these rules. 12 The comment period on these rules is open 13 until April 17th. And if you are interested in 14 submitting written comments, we do have a handout in 15 the registration area that will tell you more about 16 what you need to do to get comments to us. 17 The way we're going to work the hearing 18 today is I'm going to call speakers in pairs of two. 19 And when you come forward, please state your name 20 and your affiliation. And, if you can, spell your 21 name for the court reporters, that would be very 22 helpful. 23 We are asking everyone to please limit your 24 testimony to five minutes. We have a very full day. 25 17 At this point we are scheduled to go till 9: 30 1 tonight. And so we are going to be fairly vigilant 2 in ensuring everybody limits their testimony to five 3 minutes. 4 After you've finished your testimony one of 5 our panel members may ask you clarifying questions. 6 And we of course would give you time to answer those 7 questions. If you do have a written copy of your 8 statement, please give that to the staff at the 9 registration table. And we will put the full text of 10 your written comments into the docket. 11 We have a timekeeping system here of green, 12 yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking the 13 green light will come on. You have five minutes. At 14 the two minute mark the yellow light will come on. 15 And when the five minutes is up, the red light will 16 come on. 17 Let me also say that if you are here and 18 you want to testify please, please, please sign in. 19 We have a system of registration. It's very 20 important to know who is here, who has come, has 21 signed up. And if others have arrived who want to 22 speak and you've not signed up, please do go to the 23 registration table. We plan to stay until everyone 24 is done speaking. So if you have not signed up and 25 18 want to speak, please feel free to do that. 1 We have tried to accommodate everyone's 2 request for specific time slots. Obviously we are 3 not going to match your time slot exactly since we're 4 already running a little late, but please be a little 5 forgiving of us if we're not exactly on time and when 6 you were expecting to speak. And we do appreciate 7 your patience. 8 The other EPA folks on the panel here are 9 Susan Stone. She works with me in the Office of Air 10 Quality Planning and Standards. Tim Hanley, who also 11 works with me in the Office of Air Quality Planning 12 and Standards. And John Hannon, who is with our 13 Office of General Counsel in Washington, D. C. 14 Again, thank you all for participating 15 today. And we will now get started. Our first two 16 witnesses are Carl Pope and Larry Greene. 17 All right, Mr. Pope. 18 MR. POPE: Good morning. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning. 20 MR. POPE: I have submitted a formal 21 statement. I am not going to read it. I am going to 22 speak from the heart. 23 It is conventional to say that you're 24 pleased and honored to be present at hearings like 25 19 this. I am saddened. 1 This rulemaking amounts to a statement by 2 the government of the United States, which is sworn 3 to protect and keep safe the citizens of the United 4 States, that it is willing to sentence thousands of 5 them to unnecessary early death. 6 The Agency's justification for this 7 approach is that it does not know precisely how many 8 thousands of Americans will die as a result of the 9 inadequacies of this rule and that it does not know 10 how to protect those Americans without cleaning up 11 innocent particulate matter as well as guilty 12 particulate matter. 13 The essence of this rulemaking is that the 14 rights of fine and course particles and those who 15 emit them have been allowed to trump the safety and 16 health of thousands of Americans. 17 Let's look at a couple of the problems. 18 First, 46 million Americans apparently do 19 not have lungs or if they have lungs they have lungs 20 which function differently because they live in rural 21 areas. A course particle standard simply will not 22 apply to these Americans. The Agency has absolutely 23 no scientific basis for this exclusion. 24 I do not believe there is a single official 25 20 in the Agency who under oath would say that the 1 scientific justification showing that this exclusion 2 will fully protect the public health of those 3 Americans is stronger than the evidence which the 4 Agency has described as inadequate for promulgating 5 more stringent, more protective standards. 6 Second, the Agency has said that if lead, 7 chromium, asbestos, copper, beryllium, cadmium, 8 pesticides, volatile organics are emitted as 9 particulates from mining operations or agriculture, 10 they are somehow not hazardous to the health of 11 Americans who breathe them. 12 The Agency since 1980 has spent billions of 13 dollars attempting, manfully but often 14 unsuccessfully, to clean up mining wastes. Suddenly 15 we are told that when these mining wastes, which 16 warranted billions of dollars of public expenditure 17 when they were in the ground, become airborne they 18 are no longer a problem. 19 And, finally, the Agency has declined 20 explicitly and repeatedly to follow the clear 21 statutory language of the Clean Air Act. There are 22 many aspects of Clean Air regulation in which EPA is 23 asked to balance. In some cases I would suggest the 24 Agency is often asked to balance so many variables 25 21 that it cannot reasonably be expected to do its job. 1 But in one area the Agency is given a clear 2 mandate: When it sets a national air quality 3 standard it is not to protect some of the people who 4 might die from that pollution. It is not to protect 5 a reasonable percentage of those people or a 6 convenient or cost effective proportion. 7 Its duty and its only statutory authority 8 in setting such a standard is to fully protect 9 everyone with a margin of error. And repeatedly in 10 its justification of this rulemaking the Agency has 11 said that it was trying to balance and to ensure that 12 it was neither too stringent nor too lax. I can't 13 conceive of how the Administrator would explain how 14 that language is consistent with the requirement for 15 a margin of safety for the public health. 16 I am not a scientist. The Agency has many 17 fine scientists to whom it should listen. I am not a 18 lawyer. The statute is clear: This rulemaking is 19 reckless, it is dangerous, it is in violation of the 20 Agency's moral obligations, and it is illegal. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Pope. 22 Mr. Greene. 23 MR. GREENE: The mics seem to be facing 24 this direction. 25 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's true. 1 MR. POPE: Facing right. 2 MR. GREENE: Okay. Ready to go? 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. Sorry. 4 MR. GREENE: Good morning. My name is 5 Larry Greene and I'm the Executive Director of the 6 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 7 District, and you have this written testimony up 8 there. 9 I appear today on behalf of STAPPA and 10 ALAPCO, the national associations representing air 11 and local air pollution control agencies throughout 12 the country. 13 We have three major concerns with EPA's 14 proposal: The levels of PM2.5 standards, source and 15 population exemptions associated with the Course 16 Particle Standard, and the lack of funding for 17 monitoring. 18 First, we find it very troubling that EPA's 19 revisions to the Annual and Daily PM2.5 Standards are 20 outside the ranges recommended by CASAC, a 21 Congressionally chartered group of outside scientific 22 experts. 23 While CASAC recommended tightening the 24 Annual PM2.5 Standard in conjunction with lowering 25 23 the Daily Standard, EPA totally ignored this 1 recommendation. 2 With respect to the Annual Standard, the 3 Agency proposed no changes at all, even though CASAC 4 told EPA it did not endorse the option of keeping the 5 Annual Standard at the present level. Even EPA's own 6 staff paper indicates that more deaths from fine PM 7 are avoided by lowering the Annual Average Standard 8 than by lowering the Daily Standard. 9 With respect to the Daily Standard the 10 CASAC recommended a range of limits. It made the 11 upper end of the range conditional on tightening the 12 Annual Standard. Regretfully, EPA has chosen the 13 upper limit of CASAC's Recommended Daily Standard 14 without the important condition of tightening the 15 Annual Standard. 16 Unless EPA strengthens its proposal 17 consistent with the recommendations of CASAC, our 18 associations are extremely concerned we will continue 19 to see significant increased premature mortality and 20 adverse health effects throughout the country. 21 Our second concern with EPA's proposal 22 relates to the Course PM Standard. While we support 23 the adoption of such a standard, we believe EPA's 24 proposal is seriously flawed in two major respects. 25 24 We are deeply troubled that the proposal 1 exempts from control major sources contributing 2 significantly to course PM emissions, including 3 agriculture, mining, and other sources of crustal 4 material. Excluding those sources implies their 5 emissions are not harmful, yet EPA does not present 6 any such evidence. 7 On the contrary, it is likely that course 8 particles from agriculture and mining activities pose 9 risks similar to course urban PM. These exemptions 10 also pose insurmountable implementation problems for 11 states and local agencies. 12 For example, are mining and agricultural 13 activities that occur in or near urban areas to be 14 exempted from controls, even if they are a dominant 15 source of course PM emissions in that area? 16 We are also extremely concerned that EPA's 17 Proposed Course PM Standard has the practical effect 18 of ignoring the health and welfare of millions of 19 people throughout the country living in areas with 20 populations less than 100,000. Exempting those areas 21 from monitoring their air quality is an unprecedented 22 action and completely ignores the recommendations of 23 CASAC. 24 Moreover, we do not believe the Clean Air 25 25 Act makes any provision for selective protection of 1 public health. Accordingly, we urge EPA to rescind 2 those exemptions from course PM. 3 Finally, while it is critical that EPA 4 establish NAAQS that are fully protective of public 5 health and welfare, it is also vitally important that 6 we have adequate monitoring networks that allow the 7 public to know their air is safe to breathe. 8 Unfortunately, EPA's proposal and the 2007 budget 9 request ignore the important funding issues 10 associated with deploying and operating networks of 11 both PM2.5 and course PM. 12 With respect to PM2.5 EPA has made no 13 provision to increase federal funding to address the 14 expanded monitoring requirements for that new 15 standard. In fact, the President's proposed budget 16 for FY2007 slashes fine particle monitoring by $ 17 17 million, which will severely weaken existing 18 monitoring programs and likely result in significant 19 staff cuts throughout the country. 20 Agencies will have serious difficulties 21 rehiring personnel who have been laid off as a result 22 of these budget cuts and who would have been expected 23 to operate these monitoring networks. 24 We urge that the proposed FY2007 budget 25 26 cuts be restored and that EPA provide funding in 2008 1 to expand the PM2.5 monitoring program. 2 We are also troubled that EPA has ignored 3 our commitment to funding the proposed PM course 4 network scheduled for deployment in FY2008. EPA has 5 estimated that the capital cost of this monitoring 6 network could easily exceed $ 14 million, with annual 7 operating expenses of approximately $ 13 million. 8 State and local agencies will simply not be able to 9 assume those significant cuts. We urge EPA to 10 provide new funding in 2008 for a course PM 11 monitoring network. 12 In conclusion, we strongly recommend that 13 EPA follow CASAC's recommendations in setting the 14 PM2.5 Air Quality Standards; establish a course 15 particle standard without exemptions; and require PM 16 monitors in rural areas; and, four, commit to 17 providing additional, not reprogram funds for PM2.5 18 and course monitoring. 19 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 20 I would be happy to answer any questions. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much, 22 Mr. Greene. 23 MR. GREENE: All right. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any questions? 25 27 MR. HANNON: Mr. Greene, I have one 1 question. You mentioned that there would be 2 insurmountable implementation problems with the 3 states in implementing the exclusion on  or I 4 should say the prohibition on controls by states in 5 ag and mining for purposes of the course PM. 6 In your written comments it would be useful 7 to go into some detail on that, just so we understand 8 exactly what the problems are. And I think also 9 differentiating, being clear whether the problems are 10 implementation problems or science based problems. 11 You know, the science behind the prohibition as well 12 as the  if the science is fine or assuming the 13 science were fine, what are the specific 14 implementation problems. 15 MR. GREENE: Certainly will do that. Thank 16 you. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you both very 18 much. 19 A couple of details here. I don't know if 20 it's possible for the person to get rid of their 21 ringing we're getting on the sound system. 22 And also  well, maybe we'll wait just a 23 minute. Yeah, can the mic move back and forth 24 or... okay. Okay, great. 25 28 Alina, should I wait a minute before 1 calling or... 2 All right. Next  I guess we'll work on 3 this. But I'll ask our next two speakers to come 4 forward: John Balbus and Robert Gould are the next 5 two speakers. And we'll take just a minute to try to 6 get the sound system to function a little better. 7 DR. BALBUS: Is there only one live mic 8 here? 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: No. There  10 MR. HANNON: It doesn't matter. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Those both are live 12 and they are  they do move, so, yes. 13 Are you hearing all right? 14 THE REPORTER: We're doing fine. Thanks. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Good. 16 Until the sound system gets set up again. 17 DR. BALBUS: I'm waiting on you, right, or 18 are we ready to go? 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: We are waiting on the 20 sound system, I think. 21 Are we ready, Alina, to  okay, good. 22 DR. BALBUS: We don't have to reset the 23 clock or anything like that? I can see  24 THE HEARING OFFICER: No, no. That didn't 25 29 count against you. Okay, and please do speak into 1 the mic so that the rest of the room can hear. Okay. 2 DR. BALBUS: Good morning. My name is John 3 Balbus. I'm a physician Board certified in internal 4 medicine and occupational medicine, and I direct the 5 Health Program for the nonprofit Environmental 6 Defense, a group with 400,000 members around the 7 country that's committed to preserving our climate, 8 oceans, biodiversity, and human health. 9 While I'm based in Washington, D. C. it's 10 very appropriate that I make these comments in 11 California. California is where people suffer from 12 our nation's worst air quality. It's where some of 13 the most crucial studies have been done, 14 demonstrating the harm that comes from exposure to 15 particulate matter. And it's where some of the most 16 innovative, collaborative, and positive solutions to 17 air pollution can be found. 18 The cornerstone of our nation's efforts to 19 solve our air pollution problems is to setting a 20 science based national standards for the most serious 21 air pollutants. Standards that make clear to the 22 public the types and amounts of air pollution that 23 are harmful to them. 24 The Proposed Particulate Matter Standards 25 30 fall far short of the mandate and the spirit of the 1 Clean Air Act. The EPA has diverted from the 2 recommendations of its scientists and advisory panels 3 to weaken public health protections in very serious 4 ways. 5 Specifically, the Annual Standard left 6 unchanged at 15 micrograms per cubic meter is outside 7 of the range recommended by the Clean Air Science 8 Advisory Council, which I'll refer to as the CASAC 9 from here on in, and clearly above the level where 10 exposure can be expected to lead to significant 11 numbers of premature deaths based on scientific 12 evidence. 13 The new JAMA study that was publicized 14 yesterday only is one more study added to hundreds of 15 studies that clearly show harm  disease, 16 hospitalization, and death at levels below the 17 current standard. 18 Next, the categorical exemptions for the 19 agricultural and mining industries from the Course 20 Particulate Standard are unprecedented and did not 21 come from any official recommendations of EPA staff 22 or the CASAC. 23 Last, the categorical exclusion of most of 24 the country from the Course Particulate Standards 25 31 with the exception of urbanized areas with 1 populations greater than 100,000 in combination with 2 the shutting off of course particulate monitors 3 outside the urbanized areas, this was not recommended 4 to the Administrator. 5 There are strong science based reasons why 6 EPA staff and the CASAC did not recommend these 7 provisions. The written comments that we will 8 provide will give the basis in the scientific 9 literature for concluding that these Proposed 10 Standards and actions are far from adequately 11 protecting the nation's public health. 12 In addition to these unprecedented 13 departures from the recommendations of its 14 independent expert advisors, the EPA has chosen the 15 weakest options presented to it from the 16 recommendations for other measures. This total 17 package of proposed standards and monitoring 18 guidelines is thus far weaker than what the science 19 dictates is necessary for public health protection. 20 Environmental Defense joins with the more 21 than 100 prominent air quality researchers, 22 physicians, and public health officials, many of whom 23 are the nation's leading scientists who actually 24 wrote the studies that EPA is using to set the 25 32 standards in recommending the following from their 1 letter of December 2005: 2 An annual average fine particulate standard 3 of 12 micrograms per cubic meter; a daily fine 4 particulate standard of 25 micrograms per cubic 5 meter; a stringent daily course particulate standard 6 that applies equally to all areas of the country  7 we believe that the level of the standard needs to be 8 in the range of 25 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter. 9 All Daily Standards should use the ninety ninth 10 percentile form to reduce the number of days allowed 11 over the level acknowledged to be safe. 12 In addition, we call on the EPA to undo the 13 exemption for the agricultural and mining industries 14 and the don't look don't tell policy of not 15 regulating or even monitoring course particles in 16 rural areas, and instead continue its traditional of 17 using data and sin to determine appropriate public 18 health protections and implementing truly national 19 course particle standards. 20 All of these points have also been 21 recommended to the EPA in a letter that was received 22 this week from the Children's Health Protection 23 Advisory Committee, a consensus letter from a panel 24 of children's health experts representing multiple 25 33 stakeholders. 1 Nowhere is the irrationality of the 2 Proposed Course Particle Standards clearer than in 3 the Central and Imperial Valleys of California. 4 People living in these areas do not agree with EPA 5 that contaminated dusts kicked up by tractors and 6 farm animals do not need to be covered by the new 7 standard. They know their children have 8 astonishingly high asthma rates, as high as one in 9 six children. 10 They know that the dusts inhale contain 11 contaminants that could come from manure or chemicals 12 found on farms, or in the case of the Salton Sea the 13 four carcinogenic metals found in substantial amounts 14 in the crustal particles there. 15 What they may not know is the manner in 16 which EPA and the White House through its Office of 17 Management and Budget applied the arguments of an 18 industry consultant to discredit the results of the 19 Coachella Valley Study. This study, published and 20 peer reviewed, demonstrated increased mortality from 21 breathing in course particles in that part of the 22 state. 23 The preamble of the Proposed Standards goes 24 to great lengths to characterize the study as 25 34 unreliable. Discrediting the study paves the way for 1 the Agency to propose only to monitor and regulate 2 course particles in major urban centers. 3 In conclusion, with these proposed 4 standards the EPA has turned good science into bad 5 policy. It is unacceptable that EPA's action would 6 allow serious harm from particulate pollution, 7 especially for children, people with heart and lung 8 disease, and families in rural communities. 9 Thank you for this opportunity to provide 10 comments. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. 12 Balbus. 13 I don't know if you have a copy of the JAMA 14 study, but we are of course going to consider studies 15 that have come out since the closure of the criteria 16 document, so it would be good if somebody ensures 17 that's in the record for our consideration. Thank 18 you. 19 Mr. Gould. When you're  20 DR. GOULD: I'll just get this set up. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: When you're ready. 22 DR. GOULD: Okay. Can you hear me okay? 23 Is this all right? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, that's fine. 25 35 DR. GOULD: Thank you for having me here. 1 My name is Dr. Robert Gould. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry. Dr. 3 Gould. 4 DR. GOULD: Since 1981 I have been an 5 associate pathologist at Kaiser Hospital in San Jose, 6 California. In addition, since 1989 I have been 7 President of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of 8 Physicians for Social Responsibility, or PSR, 9 representing close to 3,000 physicians and health 10 providers throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. 11 In 2003 I served as President of National 12 PSR, a 30,000 member organization dedicated to the 13 protection on environmental and public health in its 14 broadest terms. 15 In pursuit of these objectives I have also 16 personally worked for years within the California 17 Medical Association, or CMA, to help develop sound 18 scientifically based policies that aim for maximally 19 protecting the health and welfare of our patients 20 from a variety of environmental hazards. 21 In my almost 25 years as a pathologist I 22 have witnessed a deadly toll ultimately wrought by 23 manifold environmental pollutants, including 24 particulate matter. Whether through the dramatic 25 36 evidence of arthro thoracic heart disease revealed on 1 postmortem examination or the scores of primary lung 2 cancers that I review under the microscope, I am on a 3 daily basis reminded of the suffering that our 4 patients endure and how much of this preventable if 5 we do our utmost to support stringent environmental 6 safeguards, long known to protect public health. 7 Given that the EPA has over the last decade 8 reviewed over 2,000 peer reviewed studies firmly 9 establishing the relationship between particulate 10 matter and illness, malignancies, and premature 11 deaths that directly impact tens of thousands of 12 Americans a year, it is unconscionable that EPA has 13 opted to reject the advice of its own Staff 14 Scientists and countless independent researchers that 15 have called for stricter standards than the EPA 16 recommendations. 17 With numerous organizations in the medical 18 and public health community, including the American 19 Public Health Association, the American Thoracic 20 Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the 21 American Academy of Pediatrics, having weighed in on 22 recommending that EPA adopt the most protective PM 23 standards, it is instructive to review the position 24 of the " house of medicine" in our state, as the 25 37 California Medical Association has consistently 1 called for protection of the public from the harmful 2 effects of air pollution. 3 In 1968, two years before the 1970 Clear 4 Air Act established the National Ambient Air Quality 5 Standards for Particulates, referred to on the EPA's 6 own website as being promulgated to " Protect public 7 health and welfare," the CMA House of Delegates 8 established policy to " Vigorously support all 9 national efforts for the control of air pollution," 10 as well as to " Urge the support of studies and the 11 enactment of laws that will ensure a healthful air 12 supply in the future." 13 In the ensuing almost 40 years the CMA has 14 followed this pioneering step by enacting numerous 15 policies calling for increasingly comprehensive steps 16 to protect the public from the health effects of air 17 pollution, such as: The Resolution in 1987, air 18 pollution crisis; 1992, health consequences of 19 ambient air pollution; 2001, diesel exhaust in zero 20 emission vehicles; 2002, air pollution energy and 21 health; 2004 reducing sources of diesel exhaust. And 22 all of this is in my written comments and reference. 23 In the most recent policy statements 24 referenced, the CMA has specifically supported strong 25 38 steps to curb particulate pollution, particularly 1 diesel, with recommendations including: Support of 2 " Regulatory efforts by the California Air Sources 3 Board and the Legislature to reduce public exposure 4 to diesel exhaust and increase funding for cleaning 5 up diesel engines," to " Encourage the U. S. EPA to 6 finalize the most stringent feasible standards to 7 control pollution emissions"  excuse me. I just 8 lost my  " the most stringent feasible standards to 9 control pollutant emissions from both large and small 10 nonroad engines, including construction equipment, 11 farm equipment, boats and trains," to " Encourage the 12 State of California to continue to pursue 13 opportunities to reduce diesel exhaust pollution, 14 including reducing harmful emissions from existing 15 diesel vehicles," among other steps. 16 Hence the voice of California physicians is 17 clear in supporting the most stringent possible 18 standards to protect the health of our patients. 19 Accordingly, I and other members of PSR strongly urge 20 EPA to heed the advice of its own scientists, to 21 maximally tighten the Annual Standard for Fine Air 22 Particles, the Daily Fine Particulate Matter 23 Standard, and to guarantee that rural communities are 24 given the same protection from course particles 25 39 afforded urban areas. 1 EPA needs to stand by its explicit NAAQS 2 mission to " Protect public health and welfare," not 3 the privileges of politically connected polluters. 4 Are patients' lives are literally in your hands. 5 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. Gould. 7 One question. You say " maximally tighten the 8 standards." Did you have any specific levels in 9 mind? 10 DR. GOULD: We are in support of the other 11 standards that, for example, Dr. Balbus indicated, 12 down to 12 micrograms per meter squared for those PM 13 standards. 14 Also, as indicated, to make sure that the 15 rural communities are afforded the same protection as 16 urban communities, to reduce down from the 65 17 micrograms per meter squared  meter cubed, down to 18 the 25 level. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you for 20 that clarification. 21 Any questions from anyone else? 22 Thank you both very much. 23 DR. GOULD: Thank you. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Our next folks: 25 40 Laurie Bauer and Dr. Bart Ostro. 1 MS. BAUER: We're sharing a testimony. We 2 are. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Dr. Ostro? 4 DR. OSTRO: So maybe we should... don't 5 start me yet. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: No, don't worry. Let 7 us know when you're ready. 8 DR. OSTRO: Okay. Thank you. I'm Bart 9 Ostro for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 10 Assessment, part of the California EPA. Not to be 11 confused with the U. S. EPA. 12 It is our position that the Proposed  it 13 is our position that the Proposed EPA Standards 14 ignore the best available peer reviewed science. 15 Specifically, EPA has overstated the uncertainty and 16 misrepresents the scientific consensus. 17 It is essential that EPA incorporate the 18 findings from the longterm exposure studies on fine 19 particles as well as many new studies on course 20 particles. 21 Also, EPA needs to consider the public 22 health costs of less stringent standards and the 23 delay in attainment, and I want to discuss each of 24 these three points very quickly. 25 41 In terms of overstating the uncertainty and 1 misrepresenting the scientific consensus, the Federal 2 Register Notice includes many statements not 3 supported by either the EPA staff paper or the CASAC 4 Review. The Notice minimizes the multi year, 5 independent Health Effects Institute reanalysis of 6 the American Cancer Society study and the Harvard 7 Sick City Study. 8 And indeed there's many contradictions as 9 well in the Federal Register Notice. For example, in 10 one part of the document it indicates clearly that 11 education was not a confounder in the American Cancer 12 Society study. A few pages later they say that EPA 13 cannot use the American Cancer Society to interpret 14 it too rigorously since there is potential 15 confounding or effect modification from education. 16 This is just one small example of many cases of 17 misrepresentation of the existing science. 18 EPA needs to incorporate the findings from 19 these newer longterm studies. And I'm not going to 20 read this whole thing, but the Administrator does 21 indicate in the Notice that he will rely on evidence 22 provided by these longterm studies and consideration 23 of the ranges of exposures. So let's talk a little 24 bit about the evidence and the ranges of exposures. 25 42 Over the last few years there have been 1 several new longterm studies looking at exposures to 2 fine particles on outcomes including mortality. For 3 example, the American Cancer Society Study now that's 4 been reproduced for the L. A. region, studies that 5 look at disease specific endpoints. 6 There's a new study that just came out 7 yesterday on cardiovascular mortality that's an 8 update of the Six City Harvard study. Many other 9 studies including one that indicates effects on the 10 carotid artery relating to PM2.5 exposure; and now 11 some animal exposures that clearly indicate 12 biological mechanism, such as the Sun Study and the 13 Mort Litman series of studies that show plaque 14 development and even mortality in animals exposed 15 after six months to current ambient levels of fine 16 particles. 17 What about the ranges of exposures that the 18 Administrator is talking about? Well, again I'm not 19 going to read all of this, but you can see very 20 quickly that many of the ranges of the studies that 21 we're talking about here are at 15 and below 22 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5. 23 And, specifically, the newest study that 24 has come out, this Laden Study, the mean in their 25 43 follow up, in their second stage of follow up, is 1 actually 14.8. You can see from these numbers that 2 there's no margin of safety from the current Proposed 3 15 microgram per cubic meter. Instead we should be 4 going to something like 12. 5 By the way, these numbers are indicative of 6 the lower end of the range of the distribution. I've 7 looked at the mean plus and minus one standard 8 deviation, which includes about 70 percent of the 9 data, so it's a lot of the data that are driving the 10 results. The numbers I have here reflect the mean 11 minus one standard deviation. 12 More specifically to speak for a second 13 about this new Laden Study, the Harvard Six City 14 Study, I wanted to make three quick points. 15 First, it seems to indicate that more 16 recent exposure, exposure over the previous year or 17 two seems to be driving these mortality effects. So 18 it's not exposures from 20 or 30 years ago. 19 The exposures from a year or two ago in 20 these studies had an average of under 15 micrograms 21 per cubic meter. In addition, the monitor sites were 22 specifically selected to be representative of the 23 population. And, finally, the study had very good 24 treatment for confounders. 25 44 EPA indicates that the longterm studies are 1 too uncertain to be relied on. Again, I've indicated 2 there's many new studies that suggest lower 3 uncertainties. And also I want them to remember the 4 National Academy opinion that the potential for 5 improving decisions through research and reducing 6 uncertainty must be balanced against the public 7 health costs incurred by delays. 8 So what are the costs? The new studies 9 indicate that with better exposure measurements, that 10 the PM2.5 effects from longterm exposure on mortality 11 may be twice as high as those previously indicated. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Dr. Ostro, your time 13 is up. 14 DR. OSTRO: Okay. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can you wrap up, 16 please? 17 DR. OSTRO: I'll just summarize by saying 18 based on the available science we urge that EPA 19 promulgate lower standards than those originally 20 proposed for both fine and course particles. Thank 21 you. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. Ostro. 23 I hope you will ensure that the studies that you've 24 cited, the more recent studies, are in our record. 25 45 DR. OSTRO: Right. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: If they're not 2 already there. 3 DR. OSTRO: I will be, yes. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 5 DR. OSTRO: And written comments. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. And one 7 question on the Laden Study, what area did that 8 cover, was it  9 DR. OSTRO: This is the Six Cities, of the 10 Harvard Six Cities Study, so it's most East Coast and 11 Midwest cities. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Thank 13 you. 14 MS. BAUER: And Dr. Lisa Chamberlain and I 15 will be sharing the next five minute time period. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. Ostro. 17 And you'll introduce yourself. Okay, 18 great. 19 DR. CHAMBERLAIN: So good morning. My name 20 is Lisa Chamberlain, and I appreciate the opportunity 21 to present testimony on behalf of Packard Children's 22 Hospital at Stanford. 23 At Stanford I am a general pediatrician and 24 see patients in the underserved community of East 25 46 Palo Alto as well as serving on the East Palo Alto 1 Asthma Task Force. 2 I have been working for the past three 3 years in the East Palo Alto community to reduce the 4 unequal burden of childhood asthma that that 5 community bears. 6 I got involved with asthma prevention 7 because it is impossible not to. Asthma is the 8 number one chronic illness in children and the rates 9 are continuing to rise. 10 As a pediatrician I know that children are 11 not just small adults. First, they have entirely 12 different lungs. Eighty percent of the most fragile 13 part of the lungs develop after birth. And lung 14 development continues through adolescence. The 15 damage that's sustained in childhood to these lungs 16 is irreversible. 17 Second, children lead different lives than 18 adults. They spend more time outdoors and they are 19 therefore uniquely sensitive to damaging pollution. 20 In recent studies children most at risk to developing 21 asthma in polluted areas were those that were most 22 involved in sports because they were outside more 23 often. 24 Finally, children just breathe faster than 25 47 adults, thus they inhale more ambient air pollution. 1 Because of these reasons children are significantly 2 impacted by the decisions that will be made by the 3 EPA in the coming months. 4 I'd like to share with you briefly the 5 story of one of my patients that I'll call Juan. The 6 first time I met Juan he was a thin, pale eight year 7 old. I remember being struck by how dark the circles 8 were under his eyes and how quiet and subdued he 9 seemed. 10 His mother had two concerns. Number one, 11 he had a chronic cough for two years. And, number 12 two, he couldn't seem to gain any weight. He was 13 living with untreated asthma, which we were able to 14 get under control. His cough disappeared. 15 I've seen this case over and over again, 16 but the reason that I remember and will never forget 17 him is how his appearance and demeanor changed once 18 he was better. He gained weight. The circles under 19 his eyes disappeared  I think it's because he 20 wasn't up at night coughing. His color and energy 21 level returned. I honestly did a double take when I 22 saw him two months later. 23 He jumped onto the exam table and on exam 24 he was breathing at ease. I also expect that his 25 48 school performance has improved significantly. 1 I'm glad that Juan is better, but I can't 2 help but wonder did he have to get sick in the first 3 place? Was it the air pollution that tipped the 4 balance and made him develop asthma? For Juan as an 5 individual I can't say, but from a population 6 perspective the studies and the science are 7 unambiguous. Particulate matter air pollution makes 8 children sick and it can have lifelong consequences. 9 I concur with the medical and scientific 10 communities that standards should be set at the most 11 protective levels within the EPA's recommended 12 ranges. 13 Thank you for your commitment to protecting 14 the health of our nation's children. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. 16 Chamberlain. 17 MS. BAUER: And my name is Laurie Bauer. 18 I'm the District Nurse for the Ravenswood City School 19 District. And our school district is located in East 20 Palo Alto, a small urban city approximately two and a 21 half miles in diameter, bordered on one side by 22 Highway 101 and in the path of a major commute route 23 from South Bay to the East Bay across the Dunbarton 24 Bridge. 25 49 Studies from our local health department 1 have shown that children in East Palo Alto are 2 hospitalized at a rate that is three times higher 3 than children in surrounding communities  4 hospitalized for asthma. Between 10 and 15 percent 5 of our students have asthma. And in one school it's 6 as high as 20 percent. The school with the highest 7 report of asthma also happens to share the playground 8 wall with a Highway 101 retaining wall. 9 Our school district is not entirely unique. 10 Nationwide asthma is the most common chronic disease 11 in children and is the leading cause of school 12 absenteeism. Asthma prevalence and morbidity 13 disproportionately affects children and young adults, 14 especially in poorer urban populations like ours. 15 Our school district's population is 16 composed of 70 percent Hispanic, 20 percent African 17 American, and 10 percent Pacific Islander children. 18 A study published in the Environmental Health 19 Prospectus found that mothers from these ethnic 20 groups experienced higher mean levels of air 21 pollution and were more than twice as likely to live 22 in the most polluted countries compared with white 23 mothers. 24 California children living in close 25 50 proximity to a freeway have been found to have 1 greater risk of developing asthma than children 2 living away from traffic related pollution. 3 In closing, I want to tell you about one of 4 our students, a third grade girl whose teacher 5 contacted me because she had been missing so much 6 school due to her asthma. 7 I thought I would find that she didn't have 8 insurance, didn't have adequate medical care, or 9 wasn't taking her medications. I didn't find any of 10 these factors to be true. 11 I scheduled a home visit to see if I could 12 help identify some asthma triggers in her home. What 13 I found was that Rosa lived right next to Highway 14 101. And because so many people lived in the home, 15 Rosa's bed was in the front room next to the window 16 right next to the highway. 17 My advice to the family was to move away 18 from the highway for Rosa's health. The sad thing is 19 that most likely any other house they could afford to 20 live in would be near similar environmental 21 pollutants. 22 I speak for the school nurses who can't be 23 here today and from Los Angeles and Central Valley to 24 say please consider our most vulnerable population 25 51 and those in need of our health, children like Rosa, 1 when determining our nation's air quality standards. 2 Thank you. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you both very 4 much for your testimony. 5 Our next witnesses are Bridgette Tollstrup 6 and Gina Solomon. 7 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Good morning. My name is 8 Bridgette Tollstrup and I represent the Sacramento 9 Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. I'm 10 speaking today to express our concerns regarding the 11 lack of sufficient federal funding associated with 12 EPA's proposed revisions to the Ambient Air 13 Monitoring Regulations. 14 EPA's proposed rule includes new monitoring 15 requirements associated with the revisions to the 16 Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 17 Standards along with recommended changes resulting 18 from the more comprehensive National Ambient Air 19 Quality Monitoring Strategy. 20 The new provisions for the network of 21 course particulate matter monitors will require 22 substantial costs for site selection, installation, 23 operation, maintenance, and daily management. 24 Additional district costs will be incurred from other 25 52 proposed federal requirements, including the National 1 Air Multi Pollutant Monitoring Stations, increased 2 quality assurance provisions, and more formal and 3 frequent network assessment plans and reports. Also 4 future resources will be needed for anticipated 5 national security related air monitors. 6 EPA has assumed that state and local 7 agencies will be able to significantly reduce the 8 size of the current monitoring networks in order to 9 reach the approximate size of the federally mandated 10 networks. EPA also assumes that these reductions in 11 the existing networks will generate the required 12 savings in order to free up funding for future 13 monitoring projects. We do not believe these 14 reductions will materialize. 15 In reality state and local monitoring 16 networks collect data for multiple systems. These 17 include monitoring for state ambient air quality 18 standards and public outreach for programs such as 19 EPA's Air Now Website. Therefore it's unrealistic to 20 forecast reductions in the size of the current air 21 monitoring networks to the degree that EPA assumes 22 for needed cost savings. 23 The proposed federal 2007 budget cuts will 24 impact certain air monitoring programs and exacerbate 25 53 the funding shortfalls needed to address the PM 1 course monitoring requirements. Furthermore, the 2 cost benefit effectiveness of the proposed PM course 3 monitoring network is questionable since many areas 4 of the country will be in compliance with the 5 standards due to population cutoffs and certain rural 6 source exemptions. 7 In conclusion, we request that EPA remove 8 the projected cost savings from the assumed 9 monitoring reductions, as they will not occur in 10 Sacramento and perhaps other areas of California. As 11 a result, EPA needs to reexamine the monitoring 12 requirements in light of changing budget assumptions 13 and find new sources of funding to support the new 14 monitoring programs. 15 Thank you. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 17 Did you have any questions, anyone have 18 questions? I have one question which is I think 19 we're all facing declining budgets. If in your 20 comments you have any thoughts about other ways that 21 we could address the funding problem or the  you 22 know, our proposal on what to do with the monitoring 23 system, because we're obviously trying to streamline 24 and make the whole system more efficient. And so 25 54 additional thoughts you have besides providing more 1 funding would be helpful. Thank you. 2 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Thank you. 3 MR. HANNON: Lydia? 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. 5 MR. HANNON: I had one question. I wasn't 6 clear whether you were saying there would be no 7 savings or the degree of savings wouldn't be as much 8 as EPA projected? 9 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Well, the degree of savings 10 surely won't be what's projected. There may be some 11 ability to make the network more efficient. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 13 Yes, Ms. Solomon. 14 DR. SOLOMON: Good morning. My name is 15 Gina Solomon and I'm a Senior Scientist at the 16 Natural Resources Defense Council, also an Assistant 17 Clinical Professor of Medicine at U. C. San Francisco, 18 a new Assistant Director of the UCSF Pediatric 19 Environmental Health Specialty Unit. 20 And I intend to focus my comments today on 21 the Proposed 24 hour PM2.5 Standard. This is really 22 the only aspect of EPA's proposal that might 23 initially appear to be more protective of health 24 because the proposal is to lower the standard from 65 25 55 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. 1 Unfortunately both the scientific evidence 2 and the stark reality both demonstrate that the 3 proposal is utterly insufficient to protect human 4 health, and that's for at least three reasons. 5 First, the scientific studies on shortterm 6 exposures to PM2.5 show clear evidence of serious 7 adverse health effects, including death, at levels 8 well under 35. 9 Second, the CASAC, Clean Air Scientific 10 Advisory Committee, recommended a standard 11 significantly more stringent and only contemplated a 12 number this lax if the Annual Standard were 13 significantly strengthened, which EPA has not done. 14 And, third, the current standard appears 15 almost as if it were designed to result in no 16 significant practical changes in nonattainment area 17 designations. Meaning that air quality for most 18 breathing Americans will not change in any meaningful 19 way if this proposal were finalized. 20 And the implications of failing to protect 21 the public from particulate matter are not frivolous. 22 Finalization of EPA's current proposal would be 23 measured in tens of thousands of premature deaths, 24 cases of lung cancer, mitochondrial infarction, 25 56 supportable hospitalizations, emergency room visits, 1 missed school days, and respiratory illnesses, along 2 with a difficult to quantify number of adverse birth 3 outcomes. And these implications are extremely 4 severe and often fatal for the individuals who are 5 affected and they're clearly damaging for society as 6 a whole and also represent a drain on the healthcare 7 system that is substantial in any terms. 8 An adequately health protective standard is 9 needed to mitigate these health problems. And 10 unfortunately, according to EPA's own analysis, the 11 Proposed 24 Hour Standard of 35, ninety eighth 12 percentile form, with the current Annual Standard 13 would result in shortterm mortality reductions that 14 range but are clearly well under 30 percent in most 15 of the cities analyzed. 16 And, in contrast, a health protective 24 17 Hour Standard of, say, 25 micrograms per cubic meter 18 combined with an Annual Standard of 12 would result 19 in decreases in mortality in the range of 86 to 92 20 percent depending on the form of the standard. 21 This is especially important because 22 mortality isn't the only endpoint of concern. It 23 represents only the tip of the iceberg. 24 I want to focus just for a moment on 25 57 cardiovascular events, such as mitochondrial 1 infarction and arrhymthias and mortality. Research 2 indicates that particulate matter triggers abrupt 3 disruption of unstable arthro sclerotic plaque. This 4 event is likely the result of transient inflammation, 5 vasal constriction, hyper coagulability following 6 exposure to PM. 7 And a number of major studies have 8 identified increased cardiovascular events at PM2.5 9 levels well below the EPA Standards. For example, 10 the Peters et al. Study of 772 patients in Boston 11 with mitochondrial infarction was published in 12 circulation in 2001 really needs to be part of this 13 discussion in a serious way, identified a significant 14 association between MI 24 hour PM between the fifth 15 and ninety fifth percentiles of exposure in the 16 study, but the ninety fifth percentile of exposure in 17 this study was 24.3 micrograms per cubic meter. And 18 this exposure level was associated with the 62 19 percent increased risk of mitochondrial infarction. 20 So there's clear evidence a standard of 35 21 will not protect against this serious endpoint. A 22 major new study of 11 and a half million MediCal 23 enrollees that was published in today's Journal of 24 the American Medical Association showed huge numbers 25 58 and estimated 11,000 daily hospitalizations as a 1 result of a 10 microgram per cubic meter rise in fine 2 PM. 3 And historically as the health effects data 4 on PM has emerged the evidence has become stronger at 5 lower concentrations. Each review of the NAAQS it's 6 become clear that the previous standard wasn't 7 sufficiently health protective. This is again the 8 inescapable conclusion of this round of revisions. 9 So I urge you to heed both history and 10 science, and to make real improvements to the PM 11 Standards rather than effectively heading backwards 12 on perhaps the most important public health issue 13 we're facing today. 14 Thank you. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. 16 Solomon. A quick question from me at least. The 17 percentages you were citing in terms of improvement 18 in the risk reduction percentages, were those from 19 the risk assessments done by EPA or are those other 20 risk analyses? 21 DR. SOLOMON: The numbers that I was 22 actually citing for the  initially about the 35 23 versus 25  24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Right. 25 59 DR. SOLOMON:  were from EPA's own staff 1 paper. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 3 DR. SOLOMON: Yeah, EPA's analysis. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: And I did just want 5 to ask you. You said that there were serious adverse 6 effects, health effects below 35, and in your written 7 comments or the written comments of your 8 organization, if you could elaborate on that that 9 would be very helpful as to what your thoughts are 10 there. 11 John. 12 MR. HANNON: You mentioned various studies. 13 And just to flag that, it would be useful to make 14 sure you identify those studies in your comments, 15 whether they're the ones that are already covered in 16 the CASAC Review and the Criteria Document or the 17 staff paper, or are they subsequent to that. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 19 Sarah Jackson and Kevin Hamilton. 20 MR. HAMILTON: Good morning. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning. 22 MS. JACKSON: Good morning. My name is 23 Sarah Jackson. I'm here on behalf of Theodore 24 Schade, who couldn't make it from Eastern California 25 60 because of the snow in the Sierra Mountains. I'm 1 just going to read his statement. 2 " My name is Theodore Schade. I am an Air 3 Pollution Control Officer for the Great Basin Unified 4 Air Pollution Control District which regulates air 5 quality in the Counties of Alpine, Mono, and Inyo in 6 Eastern California. 7 " The Great Basin Air Pollution Control 8 District has the dubious distinction of being home to 9 two of the largest single sources of course 10 particulate matter air pollution in the country: The 11 dried beds of Owens and Mono Lakes. We hope that 12 because of this you will give our comments more than 13 due consideration. 14 " during my testimony I will show some 15 timelapse video"  which is not showing actually. I 16 don't know why. I'm going to keep reading, but it's 17 a good video. " Every four second of this video"  18 if it ever comes up  " corresponds to one hour of 19 clock time. 20 " The 24 hour PM10 concentrations in this 21 video range from 1300 to over 4,000 micrograms per 22 cubic meter." There we go. 23 " One hundred years ago Owens and Mono Lakes 24 were two of the largest natural lakes in California. 25 61 They are both salt water terminal lakes: Fresh 1 water flows into them, but only leaves through 2 evaporation. The small amount of chemicals contained 3 in the fresh inflow waters are left behind as water 4 evaporates. And over thousands of years these 5 chemicals have concentrated and made the lakes very 6 salty, more than twice as salty as sea water. 7 " However, due to water diversions from the 8 Eastern Sierra by the City of Los Angeles that began 9 in 1913, by the mid 1920s Owens Lake was essentially 10 dry and by 1980 Mono Lake was over 50 feet lower than 11 it had been in 1920. 12 " The City of Los Angeles' water diversions 13 caused the lake levels to drop and the sediments on 14 the beds of Owens and Mono Lakes became exposed and 15 subject to wind erosion. The resulting dust storms 16 are the worst source of particulate matter air 17 pollution in the United States, both in terms of 18 maximum levels of 24 hour PM10 levels and in terms of 19 total tons emitted per year. 20 " The current 24 Hour Standard for PM10 is 21 150 micrograms per cubic meter. Since 2000 the 22 highest annual 24 hour PM10 values at Mono Lake have 23 ranged from 987 to 10,500 micrograms per cubic meter 24 and from 5500 to 21,000 micrograms per cubic meter at 25 62 Owens Lake. 1 " These are exceedences of up to 140 times 2 the current federal standard. The state 3 implementation plans for these two sources estimate 4 that prior to placement of dust controls, Mono Lake 5 emitted 5,700 tons of PM10 annually and Owens Lake 6 emitted over 80,000 tons per year. Of the 100 7 highest dusty days that occurred in the entire United 8 States during the five year period, 99 of those days 9 occurred at Owens and Mono Lakes. 10 " Owens and Mono Lakes are located in 11 Eastern California, which is sparsely populated. An 12 estimated 40,000 people are affected by the PM10 13 emissions, including the residents of five federally 14 recognized Indian tribes. However, because the dust 15 from the lakebeds is generally course or greater than 16 1.5 microns in size and the exposed population is 17 less than 100,000, the U. S. EPA's Proposed Course PM 18 Standard would simply redefine the extreme dust 19 emissions from Owens and Mono Lakes as not air 20 pollution. And the Federal PM Standards would not 21 provide the protection intended by Congress as well 22 as the protection that 40,000 people deserve. 23 " The Great Basin requests that the EPA 24 amend the proposed rule to require course PM controls 25 63 in the Owens Valley and Mono Basin nonattainment 1 areas. 2 " EPA argues in the proposed rule that there 3 is an intrinsic difference between the course dust 4 created in cities with more than 100,000 people and 5 the dust generated in areas with less then 100,000 6 people. That may very well be true even if the EPA's 7 distinction between urban and rural is completely 8 disconnected from the mechanisms that cause dust. 9 However it is certainly true that there are 10 differences in the chemical compositions of course 11 dust generated in different rural areas. 12 " Because Owens and Mono Lakes are both salt 13 water terminal lake basins, the chemicals naturally 14 found in their sediments are concentrated many times 15 above the natural levels found in upland areas. For 16 example, the PM10 generated at Owens Lake contains 17 naturally elevated levels of the metals arsenic, 18 cadmium, and nickel. And it contains extremely 19 highly levels of sulfate salts. 20 " These are precisely the type of particles 21 that the EPA contends can influence health responses. 22 They are also the type of particles that the 23 proposed rule will protect urban residents from. A 24 rural dust is every bit as toxic and possibly even 25 64 more toxic than urban dust. Yet under the U. S. EPA's 1 Standards, because the dust does not directly affect 2 more than 100,000 people and is not caused by urban 3 processes, we would be denied protection provided by 4 the Clean Air Act to more populated areas. 5 " The proposed rule must be amended to 6 require course PM controls in the Owens Valley and 7 Mono Basin nonattainment areas as well as in rural 8 communities threatened by toxic dust regardless of 9 the source. 10 " Thank you for this opportunity to comment 11 on this important issue. Sincerely, Theodore D. 12 Schade." 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Ms. 14 Jackson, and thank you to Ms. Schade. And tell him 15 we're sorry he couldn't be here. 16 And just please ask him to document the 17 statements about the particles, you know, what they 18 contain. 19 MS. JACKSON: I submitted his full comment 20 letter. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Great. Thank you. 22 Thank you. 23 Let me check. Other questions? 24 MR. HANLEY: I was going to ask on that 25 65 note, so do you actually have the chemical species 1 data, not just that it's elevated for the metals, but 2 do you know if you have the metals  and I'm sure 3 somebody does, but to make sure that it gets in the 4 docket so it can be considered? 5 MS. JACKSON: Okay. I don't think that he 6 submitted that with his letter, but I'll pass that 7 on. 8 MR. HANLEY: Yeah, I would encourage you to 9 do that. 10 MS. JACKSON: Okay. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 12 Mr. Hamilton. 13 MR. HAMILTON: Hi. I'm Kevin Hamilton. 14 I'm a Registered Respiratory Therapist and for the 15 past 16 years Director of the Asthma Program at 16 Community Medical Centers in Fresno, California, 17 serving the medically underserved rural and urban 18 population of Fresno County. 19 In listening to your discussion regarding 20 the budget effect on this particular process and what 21 you might do to save money, I was reminded of our own 22 internal struggles with budget and how different 23 sections of the hospital will often look at 24 themselves; and thought the clinic system is 25 66 individual entities without considering the whole, as 1 our pharmacy continued to try to cut its access to 2 certain medications to save costs at the expense of 3 having our emergency room visits increase because 4 patients were not obtaining their medicine because 5 they couldn't afford it. 6 And that kind of planning unfortunately 7 creates a very negative outcome to the whole entity. 8 In your case, the government as a whole, and the 9 healthcare system that's rapidly collapsing under its 10 cost expansion and failure to be budgeted adequately. 11 This whole concept of creating two areas of 12 regulation, one outside of the urban and core and one 13 within it is ludicrous in the extreme. Having taken 14 care of patients now for 28 years of my adult life 15 and most of them coming from both areas that are in 16 concern here, I can tell you that these areas 17 significantly overlap. 18 In one week in Firebaugh, a small community 19 about 45 miles west of Fresno, which would fall under 20 your rural classification, I might instruct my 21 patients that almond hulling was about to begin, 22 which will generate a significant amount of air 23 toxins that will trigger the exacerbation of most of 24 my patients' COPD and asthma, and bring them into the 25 67 hospital emergency room. 1 Since most of them are either migrant 2 workers or folks who are uninsured, agriculture 3 providers who are, people don't know, but many 4 farmers are not insured, we have to recommend 5 precautionary tactics for these folks to protect 6 themselves and we've been very successful with that 7 overall. 8 However, this doesn't mean that they don't 9 need to be protected and that we don't need to 10 understand the gases and the dust that are affecting 11 them and its composition. 12 I'm very concerned that we would consider 13 knowing the data that we do, that the California 14 Regional Particulate Transport Study, CRPTS, that we 15 understand very well know that particulate matter may 16 be ascended into the atmosphere into its source 100 17 to 300 kilometers and travel as far as 100k on any 18 given day in winds of only three to five miles an 19 hour. The executive summary of that work will be 20 released on May the 18th here in California. And I'm 21 sure that through the High Desert Institute this 22 panel can access that data early on from Dr. John 23 Watson, who I don't believe could be here today to 24 testify. 25 68 We're very, very concerned that this would 1 create two classes of citizenship and in not only the 2 battle for air quality but the battle for the health 3 of our patients we would be significantly 4 disadvantaged. The idea that transport actually 5 doesn't occur in fine and course particulate matter 6 again has been disproved time and time again since 7 the total TSP studies in the mid' 70s showed that 8 fire damage and the residual smoke and soot from 9 forest fires in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania could 10 actually affect infant mortality rates and live birth 11 rates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey at that time. 12 And the government's own economist did those studies, 13 looking at the cost to healthcare. 14 And many people don't realize how far back 15 the literature goes looking at respirable particles, 16 but we've known since the 1930s that particles in the 17 2 to 10 micron range were certainly respirable. And 18 these course PM particles were our initial bad actors 19 in healthcare and the ones that we were all taught to 20 have our patients avoid no matter the cost. 21 The fact that we've learned much more in 22 the last 10 years to suggest that PM2.5 and fine and 23 ultrafine, even PM. 25 are very dangerous actors, and 24 we need to be paying attention to those, certainly 25 69 doesn't negate the prior literature that suggests and 1 in fact proves that the courser PM is extremely 2 dangerous to human health and continues to be. 3 The primary particles that occur from much 4 of cigarette smoking is, of course, coarse PM as well 5 as aerosols. The two come mixed together. And the 6 same thing is occurring in the residual pollution 7 from agriculture, mining, and the oil industry in our 8 rural areas of the country. 9 To suggest that an area like Firebaugh or 10 Rolinda or Biola would  not all these small 11 communities in the Valley, even larger communities 12 like Tulare, a population of 48,000 people, or 13 Visalia, a population of 86,000, when do we hit this 14 threshold of 100,000 or 500 people per square mile in 15 density? This is ludicrous in the extreme. 16 To even suggest that there is a fine line 17 that we could draw that would say: At this point the 18 people's health will not be affected and at this 19 point they will. At this point I won't have 45 20 patients a day coming through the waiting room and at 21 this point I'll only have 20 patients coming through 22 a day  I can't make those kind of distinctions and 23 the weather and the air pollution doesn't do that for 24 me. So I'm very concerned about any regulation that 25 70 would try to create this artificial distinction. 1 And I think I'll finish earlier. I thank 2 you very much for allowing me to comment today. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you both. 4 Thank you very much. And to the extent that you have 5 any specific information you can offer us about the 6 communities and the kinds of health, the things you 7 were talking about that you could submit in your 8 written testimony,  9 MR. HAMILTON: Sure. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER:  that would be 11 helpful. 12 MR. HAMILTON: Absolutely. Thank you. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 14 Any other questions? Okay. 15 Jesse Marquez and Bonnie Holmes Gen. Have 16 I got that right? 17 Is Bonnie Holmes Gen here? 18 MR. MARQUEZ: She is, but she's in the 19 other room downstairs. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 21 MR. MARQUEZ: There's a press conference 22 going on. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry? 24 MS. [ SPEAKER]: She's coming. 25 71 THE HEARING OFFICER: She's coming? Okay, 1 great. Thank you. 2 Mr. Marquez. 3 MR. MARQUEZ: My name is Jesse Marquez. 4 I'm Executive Director of the Coalition for a Safe 5 Environment. We are headquartered in the community 6 of Wilmington in the City of Los Angeles. The City 7 of Los Angeles is very large and in fact there is 8 actually over 30 different individual communities. 9 We have membership in 21 cities in Los 10 Angeles County and five additional cities throughout 11 the state of California. 12 The Coalition for a Safe Environment is 13 primarily involved in addressing air pollution 14 impacts on the environment and public health. 15 Wilmington is 87 percent Hispanic and over 95 percent 16 minority, low income people of color. 17 Wilmington is only four miles square. The 18 Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor communities are 19 over 70 percent people of color. In the community of 20 Wilmington and near the community of Wilmington are 21 located the following industries. Many people do not 22 realize that Wilmington may not be a well known name, 23 but what people don't realize is that sometimes 24 communities bear other responsibilities and other 25 72 industries. 1 And to give you an example, the Port of Los 2 Angeles is located in Wilmington. Seventy percent of 3 the Port of L. A. is in Wilmington, 30 percent is in 4 our neighboring community of San Pedro. 5 What most people do not know is that the 6 Port of L. A. is the number one stationary source of 7 air pollution in Southern California. Not L. A., not 8 the region, but the other entire Southern California. 9 The Port of Long Beach is the second 10 largest stationary source of air pollution in 11 Southern California and borders Wilmington on the 12 southeast. There are over 45,000 diesel truck trips 13 a day in and out of the two ports that border my 14 community. And this is increasing every year at the 15 rate of 10 percent. By the year 2020 it is estimated 16 there will be 121,000 diesel truck trips a day going 17 out through the Ports. 18 A Shell oil refinery, a ConocoPhillips oil 19 refinery, and a Valero oil refinery are located in 20 Wilmington. A BP Arco oil refinery borders 21 Wilmington to the north in the City of Carson. 22 Within five miles of Wilmington is a 23 Chevron oil refinery in Torrance. And within 10 24 miles is a Chevron oil refinery in the City of El 25 73 Segundo. Kinder Morgan fuel storage tank facility 1 borders Wilmington to the north in the City of 2 Carson. 3 These seven petroleum industry companies 4 are the third largest air pollution source in 5 Southern California. In an inventory taken in 2004, 6 I have some of the data on that. Now I know today we 7 are here to discuss PM, so I am going to mention the 8 PM data. But when we're talking about our community 9 we're talking about an Environmental Justice 10 community. And you have to look at the cumulative 11 impact: What is the particulate matter impact in 12 addition to some of the other toxics that we are also 13 exposed to. 14 So in the case of the seven refineries we 15 are faced with over 1,361 tons per year of PM alone; 16 7,974 tons of CO2; 5,100 tons of SOx; 4,400 tons of 17 NOx; and over 2,800 tons of your reactive organic 18 compounds or your VOCs. 19 The Alameda Quarter Project is in 20 Wilmington. There is an off Port of Los Angeles 21 fumigation facility in Wilmington. There are over 30 22 off Port container storage tank facilities in 23 Wilmington. There is an B& SF Railroad Watson 24 railyard in Wilmington. 25 74 The ICTF Intermodal facility that borders 1 Wilmington and Long Beach. There are two oil 2 refinery asphalt companies in Wilmington. There is 3 one asphalt roofing company in Wilmington. There is 4 a cement company in Wilmington. 5 There is an incinerator at the Port of Long 6 Beach that borders Wilmington. There are over 600 7 operating and abandoned oil wells in Wilmington. The 8 Los Angeles I 110 freeway borders Wilmington on the 9 west, the Long Beach 710 to the east, the San Diego 10 Freeway to the north. 11 There are three landfill Superfund sites. 12 And there are at least another 30 toxic air pollution 13 sources in my community. 14 So not only does it affect my community of 15 Wilmington, it spreads throughout the region. And 16 these are the things that we have to realize. 17 So what do you think is the health status 18 of our community? We have never had a good day, a 19 good week, a good month, or a good year in the past 20 25 years because there has been continual, nonstop 21 industrial growth. 22 Port and the goods movement, a growth 23 industry, is predicted to triple in the next 15 to 20 24 years. So if it's tripling in the next 15 to 20 25 75 years when are we going to have a good clean day? We 1 never will, and we never have. 2 According to the South Coast Air Quality 3 Management District May 2 study, Wilmington, San 4 Pedro, and West Long Beach are rated number one for 5 the highest rate of cancer due to diesel fuel 6 emissions. Our local San Pedro Medical Doctor John 7 Miller calls our communities the " diesel death zone." 8 According to a recently released report by 9 the California Air Resources Board over 750 people 10 are dying every year right now. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Marquez, your 12 time is up. 13 MR. MARQUEZ: Okay. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you want to try to 15 wrap up? 16 MR. MARQUEZ: Yes. I just want to thank 17 you for this opportunity. What I have attached to 18 your paperwork are actually color photos. So I would 19 like you to take your time with this. There are two 20 photos of the ConocoPhillips refinery, two of the 21 Shell, and two of the Valero as examples of the PM, 22 particulate matter that we are exposed to every week, 23 every month. Thank you. 24 MR. HANNON: Thank you. 25 76 MS. STONE: Thank you. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 2 Ms. Holmes Gen. That mic, yeah. And if 3 you can, actually both of them. One's for the court 4 reporter. 5 MS. HOLMES GEN: Okay. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 7 MS. HOLMES GEN: Bonnie Holmes Gen, 8 American Lung Association of California. 9 For many years the American Lung 10 Association has taken a very strong interest in the 11 development of national ambient air quality standards 12 because of our concern over the respiratory health of 13 individuals with asthma and other lung diseases. 14 In our experience this has been a very 15 comprehensive review of data, but the results are 16 extremely disappointing. The Clean Air Act requires 17 that EPA pick a new particulate matter standard that 18 protects public health, that fully protects public 19 health, including vulnerable groups. 20 The only thing that EPA is allowed to 21 consider when setting a standard is how it protects 22 public health. Despite this extremely clear 23 direction from the Federal Clean Air Act, despite a 24 thorough review process, and despite strong 25 77 recommendations from the Independent Scientific 1 Panel, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 2 and its own staff, the EPA Administrator proposed a 3 standard that's much higher than the standard 4 recommended by these scientists and leaves millions 5 of Americans unprotected. 6 It is unprecedented for an Administration 7 to reject the recommendations of its own independent 8 Clean Air Science advisors to strengthen both the 9 Annual and Daily Standards. And this aspect is 10 extremely troubling. 11 The federal EPA has never before picked a 12 standard that allowed more pollution than the Clean 13 Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended. 14 Our view is that the Proposed Standard is a 15 token reduction, that increases the number of people 16 protected by only 15 percent, from 56 million to 65 17 million, when three times as many individuals live in 18 areas with particulate matter at levels that 19 adversely affect public health, that result in asthma 20 attacks, hospital visits, emergency room visits, 21 premature deaths and other adverse effects. 22 The California Air Resources Board has 23 already led the way in adopting a particulate matter 24 standard at the health protective level of 12 25 78 micrograms per cubic meter. This was in 2002. And 1 this is the standard level that we advocated for and 2 that hundreds of scientists and leading scientists 3 and medical professionals around the country 4 advocated for before the Environmental Protection 5 Agency. And we strongly believe that the EPA should 6 follow California's lead. 7 It's very hard to understand how the EPA 8 could ignore the groundbreaking work that was done in 9 California in developing our state standards. And 10 this work was done four years ago, and the standards 11 were developed in 2002. And I think you've heard 12 some testimony from our Office of Environmental 13 Health Hazard Assessment on many of the studies that 14 formed the basis of our California standard. 15 It's hard to understand how EPA could come 16 to a different conclusion than California scientists, 17 since there's been even more studies confirming the 18 danger of particle pollution and the unique 19 vulnerability of children, whose lungs are still 20 growing and developing. 21 The more we learn about particle pollution 22 the more we understand how dangerous it is. New 23 studies are coming out every day. In fact there is a 24 new study published in the March 8th issue of the 25 79 Journal of the American Medical Association that 1 compares  and this study compared air pollution 2 levels to hospitalizations occurring at the same 3 time. Very, very strong evidence in this new study 4 just published today that daily hospital admission 5 rates for cardiovascular disease and respiratory 6 diseases are much higher when the fine particle 7 levels are increased from one day to the next. 8 This is a very significant study because 9 it's a very large study that reviewed records of more 10 than 11 and a half million Americans who are 65 years 11 and older. And again confirms the tremendous threat 12 that particle pollution poses to everyone but 13 especially to elderly individuals and those that are 14 especially sensitive. 15 The statute, the Federal Clean Air Act is 16 very clear. It tells us that the EPA shall adopt a 17 standard for particle pollution that is fully 18 protective of public health with an adequate margin 19 of safety. Incredibly, the federal EPA proposal for 20 new standards fails this requirement. 21 The level proposed is not fully protective 22 of public health, does not fully protect children and 23 other individuals that are especially sensitive, and 24 there is no margin of safety. 25 80 The American Lung Association strong 1 supports the most protective standards considered by 2 the EPA staff and scientific advisors. We support an 3 annual standard no higher than 12 micrograms per 4 cubic meter and a 24 hour standard of 25 micrograms 5 per cubic meter. Furthermore, EPA should change the 6 form of the standard to the ninety ninth percentile. 7 In closing,  8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 9 MS. HOLMES GEN:  we implore you to set 10 standards that truly protect public health, 11 especially the most vulnerable like our children. 12 And we are leaving you with some charts that show 13 that if you adopted standards according to our 14 recommendation, there would be 86 percent fewer 15 deaths across the country. And that millions more 16 Americans would be protected if you adopted the 17 standards according to our recommendations. 18 And we're also leaving you with a petition: 19 99 doctors, nurses, health professionals, 20 respiratory therapists, other medical professionals 21 from around classify have signed this petition saying 22 the science is overwhelmingly clear that your 23 proposal does not protect public health. And we will 24 leave that with you. 25 81 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you very 1 much. If you would please leave that with our 2 registration desk. 3 Thank you, Mr. Marquez, for taking the time 4 to come. 5 And thank you, Ms. Holmes Gen. 6 Dr. John Balmes and Tom Politeo. Did I get 7 that right? Sorry. 8 Good morning. 9 DR. BALMES: Do you want me to go ahead? 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, when you're 11 ready. 12 DR. BALMES: I am John Balmes, M. D. I'm a 13 Professor of Medicine at the University of California 14 San Francisco and Professor of Environmental Sciences 15 at the University of California Berkeley School of 16 Public Health. 17 I'm an attending physician in pulmonary and 18 critical care medicine at San Francisco General 19 Hospital and I conduct research on the health effects 20 of air pollution. 21 I'm here today presenting comments on 22 behalf of the American Thoracic Society. 23 The American Thoracic Society is a medical 24 professional society with over 13,000 members who are 25 82 dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, 1 and research of respiratory illnesses. The American 2 Thoracic Society is deeply concerned about air 3 pollution, both as underlying cause of respiratory 4 illness and its ability to cause exacerbations of 5 preexisting respiratory illness. 6 The American Thoracic Society will submit 7 extensive formal comments on several issues in the 8 EPA Proposed Rule. However, today I will limit my 9 comments to issues surrounding the Proposed Standard 10 for Course Thoracic Particles. 11 This standard is precedent setting because 12 by focusing on urban areas only it assumes that 13 sources of particles outside of urban areas do not 14 convey any increased risk to health. The ATS is 15 extremely disappointed that EPA has proposed that the 16 Course Thoracic Particle Standard apply to urban 17 areas only. We see this as a major flaw in the 18 proposed rule. 19 It is true that there is less research on 20 the health effects of exposure to Course Thoracic 21 Particles than on those of fine particles. However, 22 there is no research that shows rural particles are 23 safe. I repeat: There is no research showing that 24 rural particles are safe. 25 83 In fact the limited available evidence 1 seems to show adverse health effects from exposure to 2 course particles found in more rural areas. For 3 example, work done here in California by Cal EPA 4 investigators using data for a 10 year period from 5 the rural Coachella Valley showed a greater 6 cardiovascular mortality risk for course particles 7 than for fine particles. 8 In addition, a series of toxicologic 9 studies by Becker and colleagues, some of which have 10 been supported by the U. S. EPA, have demonstrated 11 greater cytotoxicity  that's damage to cells  and 12 proinflammatory effects of course particles than fine 13 particles. 14 We also note that PM10 in rural areas will 15 contain particles from urban type sources: Diesel 16 engines, highways, power plants, and other industrial 17 facilities. Limited application of the Daily Course 18 Particle Standard based on geographic population 19 areas is not supported by the available scientific 20 data and will not protect public health. 21 Recommendation: The EPA Daily Course 22 Thoracic Particle Standard should apply to both urban 23 and rural areas. 24 The ATS is also deeply concerned about the 25 84 EPA proposal to stop monitoring course thoracic 1 particles in rural areas. The EPA is correct in 2 recognizing there are limited data on the health 3 effects of course particles in rural areas. However, 4 the appropriate response to limited data is not to 5 stop monitoring all together. Rather than addressing 6 the need for more data, suspending monitoring of 7 course particles would ensure that there will be 8 continuing lack of data on the health effects of 9 exposure to course particles in rural areas. 10 EPA's proposal to suspend monitoring in 11 rural areas is the equivalent of the ostrich burying 12 its head in the sand. 13 Recommendation: EPA should continue 14 monitoring of course particle exposures in rural 15 areas. 16 The ATS is equally concerned about the 17 proposed exemptions of particles emitted from mining 18 and agricultural facilities. Again there is no 19 scientific basis for saying these particles are safe 20 to breathe. In fact, mine generated dust would be 21 expected to contain relatively high concentrations of 22 silica and metals that are known to be toxic. 23 In addition, mines and agriculture both use 24 diesel equipment that generates toxic particles. 25 85 Excluding mining and agricultural source particles 1 may be good for business, but is not good for public 2 health. 3 Recommendation: EPA should regulate all 4 course thoracic particles regardless of source. 5 The American Thoracic Society strongly 6 believes that federal air quality standards must be 7 based on a careful review of the available scientific 8 knowledge. The role of the Clean Air Scientific 9 Advisory Committee and the Air Quality Standard 10 Setting process is critical to ensure such a careful 11 review. 12 In the case of the proposed PM standard, 13 the EPA Administrator has chosen to reject the 14 recommendations of CASAC on the basis that the 15 committee did not adequately review the available 16 scientific data. 17 While the ATS respects the authority of the 18 Administrator, to reject the advice of CASAC for 19 policy reasons, it is a dangerous precedent to do so 20 by impugning the integrity of the committee's 21 scientific review. 22 The review of scientific knowledge 23 conducted through the Clean Air Act process that 24 leads to a CASAC recommendation is the most careful 25 86 and deliberative review conducted in the field of 1 environmental health. CASAC members are highly 2 qualified scientists who are thoroughly vetted. They 3 are the best people that judge the state of 4 scientific knowledge on the health effects of a 5 criteria pollutant. 6 For an EPA Administrator to cast aspersions 7 on the quality of CASAC's scientific judgment is akin 8 to stating that there is insufficient scientific 9 evidence of global warming. 10 Recommendation: EPA should accept the 11 recommendations of its own highly qualified 12 Scientific Advisory Committee. 13 On behalf of the entire membership of the 14 American Thoracic Society I would like to thank the 15 EPA staff for the opportunity to comment on this 16 important rule. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much, 18 Dr. Balmes. 19 Any questions? 20 MR. HANNON: Dr. Balmes, you mentioned 21 toxicology studies? 22 DR. BALMES: Yes. 23 MR. HANNON: And are those in the record? 24 Have those been identified? Were they part of the 25 87 CASAC Review already? Are they  is it additional 1 or new studies or  2 DR. BALMES: I'd have to check to see if 3 they're in the CASAC Review. I'd be amazed if they 4 weren't. 5 MR. HANNON: I assume they may be as well. 6 I just didn't know. The Coachella Valley clearly 7 is, but I just wanted to be clear. It's very helpful 8 for us to have identified any studies that you're 9 referring to  10 DR. BALMES: I can supply a specific list 11 of those references and will be happy to do so. 12 MR. HANNON: You mentioned diesel emissions 13 a couple of times. Are you talking about course PM 14 from diesel? 15 DR. BALMES: Well, the course PM in a rural 16 area where there's mining or agriculture will contain 17 constituents for diesel exhaust. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Understood. 19 I will not attempt to mangle your name 20 again, so I will let you introduce yourself. 21 MR. POLITEO: That's okay. My name is Tom 22 Politeo. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Politeo. Thank you. 24 MR. POLITEO: Okay. I live in San Pedro 25 88 near the L. A. Harbor and I am Co Chair of the Sierra 1 Club Harbor Vision Task Force which is an entity of 2 the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club. 3 Sometimes when it comes to controlling air 4 pollution we hear about how much it may cost. And 5 one of the questions we need to ask ourselves of 6 course is how much it costs not to. 7 And you've been hearing a lot of testimony 8 here today about some of the health impacts. There 9 are also cultural impacts and impacts in terms of 10 human hope if you live in a community which doesn't 11 seem to have any opportunity to have its air cleaned 12 up for at least another generation, and a community 13 which also suffering other issues of blight. 14 And that would describe communities in and 15 near all the goods movement quarters in the state of 16 California and in many other parts of the nation. 17 In roughly 2000 the Port of Los Angeles 18 published a study indicating that they estimated the 19 economic benefit to the region per container moved 20 through the Port was about $ 100. 21 Based on Meets 2 data ( phonetic) from that 22 same time and subsequent estimates of how much air 23 pollution in Southern California may cost, the air 24 pollution cost per container in terms of public 25 89 health, lost work and productivity. Now those 1 estimates range very widely because nobody's really 2 sat down and done a very thorough study, but they 3 range in the 50 to $ 500 area. And they've gone up as 4 new studies have shown that there may be even further 5 effects that were not known before. 6 Now that's not enough to say that the Port 7 is operating in a negative cost benefit ratio to the 8 region, but it is enough to suggest that there ought 9 to be more careful study done of what this equation 10 is and what it really means and more serious 11 attention paid to finding adequate solutions. 12 Some people here have talked about how air 13 particles travel and various studies. If you live in 14 Southern California all you need to do is wait for a 15 forest fire to find out how they travel and then look 16 at some of the satellite photos that come out that 17 show how the particular plumes travel across the L. A. 18 Basin from the mountains that ring it to the north 19 and east. 20 And you can also see how fickle those 21 plumes are. If you look at the satellite photos you 22 can, for example, during some of the recent fires we 23 had heavy smoke in San Pedro and Wilmington, which 24 was sufficient to obscure visibility. But if you 25 90 move over to El Segundo, which is not far away at 1 all, it'd be perfectly clear. Then you move a little 2 further on, and it may be smokey again. 3 And this suggests that as we're looking at 4 particulate pollution we need to be considering a 5 variety of atmospheric conditions and where are 6 monitoring stations are placed, because we could be 7 in a position of monitoring for air pollution and not 8 know that a couple miles over there's a serious 9 problem, but because of atmospheric quirks they're 10 not showing up in another location not far by. 11 It's ironic that the largest polluting 12 sources in Southern California, which are the Ports 13 of L. A. and Long Beach, don't have an official U. S. 14 Government Air Quality Monitoring Site in or adjacent 15 to them monitoring the particulate pollution and 16 other forms of pollution that are affecting the 17 nearby communities. The nearest monitoring site is 18 about seven miles outside of the Ports and a couple 19 of miles from the Long Beach Freeway, which can be 20 far enough way with respect to wind patterns to miss 21 significant events. 22 One of the other things to consider as 23 you're looking at these studies and one of the 24 reasons we recommend and hope that you will do the 25 91 most stringent standards you possibly can is that 1 there are known to be concentrations of particulate 2 matter particularly close to sources. It doesn't 3 matter whether it's a dry lakebed in the Owens Valley 4 or a warehousing district in the Inland Empire or 5 facilities down in the Port of Los Angeles, those 6 areas tend to concentrate particulate pollution and 7 it tends to drop off very quickly as you move away 8 from those areas. 9 The way it subsequently scatters from 10 atmospheric effects can bedevil you, but we need to 11 make sure that in these areas, and some of these are 12 Environmental Justice communities, that the way we're 13 approaching monitoring and measuring and setting 14 standards can ensure that all people, particularly in 15 areas that are most likely to be seriously affected, 16 have the opportunity, in fact their right exercised 17 to be able to breathe clean area. 18 Now I'd like to conclude here  I see my 19 time is running up  with an invitation. Everything 20 that we're talking about here is pretty abstract. 21 And if you were to come down  being glad to invite 22 you all in some fashion  and arrange it with local 23 officials, like the AQMD, for you to come down and 24 visit our area and to visit some of the people who 25 92 are affected by the air pollution and these issues, 1 the visit some of the doctors down in that area and 2 see what happens. With a little luck you'll actually 3 come on a clean air day and see just how nice our 4 region can be and just have to listen to the stories 5 of how bad it can be at other times. 6 Thank you very much for your time. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much, 8 Mr. Politeo. 9 Any questions? 10 MR. HANLEY: I know you brought up some 11 really good, interesting points regarding the use of, 12 I guess, satellite data and so forth. And then you 13 discussed the idea of monitoring locations. 14 And I'm wondering it would be interesting 15 to know, it's hard to tell from your comments whether 16 you were suggesting that it's inappropriate to use 17 the remote satellite information as a replacement for 18 a local monitoring station or you were suggesting 19 that they do needed complement them, and I just want 20 to understand that. 21 MR. POLITEO: Yeah. I don't know that 22 satellite  I don't know that there's technology to 23 use satellite information to be able to do 24 monitoring. The satellite images I talk about are 25 93 from the smoke plumes from fires which are rare 1 events. And they provide the opportunity to have 2 some very good markers that show how a particulate or 3 a material can travel in a medium, almost as if you 4 had the opportunity to have red dye put into a 5 loquacious liquid to see how it disburses. 6 So that can show you some of the quirks. 7 And understanding and realizing those would give you 8 impetus to saying that on the ground we need to make 9 sure that our monitoring network is capable of 10 detecting the kinds of quirks that we would have seen 11 illustrated by these satellite images. 12 So a point source, for example, that might 13 be near where the fires are may have a particulate 14 plume that follows the course of these fires, 15 depending on the way the wind is blowing, that would 16 parallel a course of fire and impact a particular 17 community that might not be anywhere near a 18 monitoring area. Whereas a monitoring station might 19 just happen to be a few miles over in a community 20 that because of prevailing wind patterns is not so 21 frequently affected and we may be missing the effects 22 of it. So that's how I would suggest that those 23 would interplay. 24 MR. HANLEY: Thank you. 25 94 THE HEARING OFFICER: And just one more 1 question for Dr. Balmes, a request. You talked about 2 the fact that rural particles are contaminated by 3 other sources that make them unhealthy. Any 4 information you have that you can provide and then 5 any specifics, any studies, anything that can support 6 those statements would be helpful for the record. 7 DR. BALMES: Okay. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Thank you 9 very much. 10 Dr. Anthony Gerber and Jonah Ramirez. 11 Welcome. You're John, right? Thanks for coming. 12 We'll start with Dr. Gerber. 13 DR. GERBER: Okay. My name is Anthony 14 Gerber. I'm a pulmonoligst and I'm an Assistant 15 Professor of Medicine at the University of California 16 San Francisco. And I'm representing the California 17 Thoracic Society, also known as CTS, and the American 18 Lung Association of California, which I'll refer to 19 as ALAC. 20 In my clinical practice at the San 21 Francisco VA Medical Center I was privileged to 22 provide pulmonary care for veterans from a number of 23 eras ranging from World War II to the First Gulf War. 24 Many of these veterans with chronic lung disease 25 95 noticed worsening of their symptoms coincide with 1 higher levels of particulate pollution. On bad days 2 these patients are often unable to leave their home. 3 Physicians approach clinical problems by 4 developing a differential diagnosis that explains a 5 certain condition. I've tried to apply the same 6 principle to understand why the EPA has recommended 7 only marginally higher standards for particulate 8 matter pollution. 9 Assuming that the process to define clean 10 air standards occurs in a fashion consistent with 11 faithful stewardship of the general welfare there are 12 only two possible explanations for why the EPA has 13 proposed the inadequate standards that we are 14 discussing today. 15 The first explanation is that there are 16 doubts about the science. However the 17 Administration's own independent science advisors on 18 clean air issues and the EPA Staff Scientists 19 concluded that adverse health effects occur at levels 20 way below the current Fine Particle Standards. 21 Epidemiologic study after study has reached 22 the conclusion that both fine and course particulate 23 matter pollution causes disease. Unfortunately there 24 is a long traditional of specious criticism of 25 96 epidemiologic proof of cause and effect in regards to 1 human disease. Indeed tobacco companies argued for 2 years that the epidemiology showing that cigarettes 3 cause cancer was inadequate. 4 In the case of particulate matter 5 pollution, as is also the case with tobacco, 6 additional molecular mechanistic evidence buttresses 7 the conclusion that particulate matter pollution 8 causes human disease. For example, numerous studies 9 have shown that particulate matter can induce the 10 synthesis of interluekin 8, a key lung inflammatory 11 protein. 12 The key inflammatory mediator NF kappa B is 13 also induced by particulate matter. Toll like 14 receptor 4, a central mediator of the innate immune 15 response, is activated by particulate matter. Heat 16 shock protein 70, a marker of cellular stress, can be 17 activated by particulate matter. 18 Indeed the mechanistic evidence is clear: 19 particulate matter induces the molecular players that 20 cause lung inflammation. Therefore a molecular 21 mechanism has been established that explains the 22 clear epidemiologic association between particulate 23 matter and human disease. 24 In the face of this overwhelming data the 25 97 CTS and ALAC support more stringent air standards 1 than those currently proposed and we urge that the 2 EPA does the same. 3 The other explanation for why only marginal 4 strengthen of the current standards has been proposed 5 despite strong scientific evidence supporting more 6 stringent standards is that a cost benefit analysis 7 has guided Clean Air decision making. 8 We reject the notion that a price can be 9 placed on the health and life of vulnerable patients 10 with lung disease. Indeed, what metric can be used 11 to assign cost and benefit to an individual patient 12 who cannot leave his or her home due to ambient 13 pollution? How is cost assigned to a patient who 14 dies from an exacerbation of chronic obstructive 15 pulmonary disease that was caused by particulate 16 matter? How is it decided that a veteran should be 17 the de facto payer of the cost of weak air standards? 18 There are 165 million people living in 19 areas with particle pollution at levels that 20 adversely affect public health. The EPA's proposed 21 standards, even though higher than before, protect 22 only 65 million, leaving 100 million exposed. 23 The CTS and ALAC believe that the cost of 24 not protecting 100 million Americans is incalculable. 25 98 It is not negotiable. 1 Patients with chronic and incurable lung 2 disease are already faced with enormous difficulties 3 in performing even the most basic activities of daily 4 living: Walking to the bathroom, getting groceries, 5 going to the mailbox. 6 The CTS and ALAC advocate for air standards 7 that protect these vulnerable patients. To that end, 8 the EPA should follow the recommendations of ATS and 9 the American Lung Association and adopt the 10 following: 11 An Annual Standard for fine particle 12 pollution no higher than 12 micrograms per cubic 13 meter and a Daily Standard no higher than 25 14 micrograms per cubic meter and a strong course 15 particle standard and Monitoring requirement that 16 protects all Americans in both urban and rural 17 communities. 18 On behalf of the CTS I thank you for your 19 time and attention. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Dr. Gerber, I assume 21 that all studies you mention are in fact in our 22 record, but if there are any of them, molecular 23 studies that you mentioned that are not, we'd 24 appreciate having them. 25 99 DR. GERBER: Okay. I will. 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 2 Any other questions of Dr. Gerber? 3 Jonah, and thanks for coming. We're 4 looking forward to hearing from you. Can you reach 5 that okay? 6 MR. RAMIREZ: I'm Jonah with the American 7 Lung Association. I am Jonah. I am 10 years old. I 8 have asthma. I wasn't born with it. I developed it. 9 Why, you ask? Because I am forced to breathe dirty, 10 polluted air. 11 I have asthma because from the time I 12 learned to walk I have wanted to be outside. I have 13 always enjoyed playing outside: Running, skating, 14 just playing like every other kid on the block. 15 I had no idea that playing outside would be 16 in a sense my demise. You see, kids like me who like 17 to be outside, who live in polluted areas, kids who 18 run around and breathe the dirty, smoggy air are 19 three times more likely to develop asthma than the 20 kids who just play video games all day. Go figure. 21 An indoor kid is actually at less risk of 22 developing asthma than an energetic, enthusiastic, 23 crazy outdoor kid, like myself. 24 Strong lungs have nothing to do with it, 25 100 not in my case anyway. Dirty air made me sick. 1 When I was asked to testify at this hearing 2 I knew this would be a date that I would remember 3 forever. Speaking at the same hearing as doctors, 4 executives, clean air experts, political activists, 5 and me. Well, you get the picture. 6 But then I realized I want this to be a day 7 that all of you remember forever. 8 I want you to remember me every time you 9 are annoyed sitting in traffic because it is going to 10 make you late or if your windows are down, annoyed 11 because you have to roll them up so your suit doesn't 12 small of exhaust. 13 I want you to remember me every time you 14 are stopped for a railroad crossing, irritated about 15 how slow the train is moving. I want you to remember 16 me every time you notice the poppies in bloom along 17 the country road you are traveling on. 18 I want you to remember me when our local 19 weather issues a high wind warning or makes us aware 20 of a fire that is burning in our local community. 21 I want you to remember me when you decide 22 it would be fun to look at model homes just to get 23 decorating ideas and you awe at the wonderful scents 24 that are running through the air ducts. 25 101 I want you to remember me when you decide 1 to paint your house or get new carpet. I want you to 2 remember me the next time you mow your lawn and you 3 have to take a shower afterward due to the smell of 4 the lawn mower exhaust. 5 I want you to remember me the next time 6 your child's class goes on a field trip to a 7 horticultural museum. 8 All of these irritating, wonderful, simple 9 things are concerns for my family: Exhaust, black 10 smoke from a train, pollen, dust, ash, fragrance, 11 chemicals, allergens. These things that alter your 12 schedule or make your suit smell make me sick. 13 We need to be aware of these annoyances in 14 an entirely different way than we have in the past, 15 because these little annoyances can mean the 16 difference between a good day and a trip to the 17 emergency room. 18 In the past I have been quoted for saying 19 that I am a victim of crime because I am forced to 20 breathe air that makes me sick and for stating that 21 we needed to change laws, change guidelines, change 22 our air. 23 Today I would like to leave you with this: 24 It has come to my attention that it has been 10 25 102 years since a change has been made regarding 1 particulate matter. And the Standards are supposed 2 to be reviewed every five years. I am 10. Huh, 3 makes one wonder. 4 If the EPA would have kept that scheduled 5 hearing back when I was five, would I be standing 6 here in front of you testifying as a child asthmatic? 7 I developed asthma when I was seven. 8 Ponder that one. 9 Thank you. 10 ( Applause.) 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, thank you very 12 much, Jonah, for coming and reading that to us and 13 telling us about your life story. We very much 14 appreciate it and we will definitely take it into 15 account. Thank you very much. 16 MR. RAMIREZ: Welcome. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: And thank you, Dr. 18 Gerber. 19 Richard Bode and Rajiv Bhatia. 20 MR. BODE: That's going to be a tough act 21 to follow. Good morning. I'm Richard Bode with the 22 Air Resources Board, which is a part of California's 23 Environmental Protection Agency and the state's 24 principal air pollution control agency. 25 103 And I'm pleased that we can continue our 1 participation in the U. S. EPA's review of the 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 3 Particulate Matter. 4 I'm here today to express our concerns 5 about the recently Proposed National Standards for 6 both Fine Particulates and Course Particulates. 7 First let me state that the Air Resources 8 Board is a public health agency and that our mission 9 is to improve air quality. And by that improve and 10 reduce the health impacts of air pollutions for all 11 Californians. Because of our unique role and 12 authority that we have, the Air Resources Board also 13 sets its own ambient air quality standards in 14 California. 15 Because of the serious nature of PM 16 exposures in California, the Air Resources Board in 17 collaboration with the Office of Environmental Health 18 Hazard Assessment conducted an extensive review of 19 the scientific literature back in 2002. The 20 conclusion of that review was the establishment of 21 the nation's most stringent standards for particulate 22 matter. Our findings were that the health effects 23 from exposure to PM are significant with including 24 health effects such as premature death, 25 104 cardiorespiratory disease, and deficits in children's 1 lung function growth. 2 The body of evidence as found in the 3 scientific literature is substantial. Vulnerable 4 groups include: Children, asthmatics, the elderly, 5 and particularly those with preexisting heart and 6 lung diseases. Exposure in California is high, 7 particularly high considering other areas of the 8 nation. And, finally, the health benefits from 9 lowering PM are substantial. 10 Since the time of the Cal EPA review many 11 new studies have been published which further support 12 our conclusion and also indicate that some of the 13 health effects may actually be two to three times 14 greater than what we had estimated in 2002. Because 15 of this strong body of literature we believe the U. S. 16 EPA should set equally stringent standards for the 17 National Air Quality Standards. 18 First let me address the finer PM2.5 19 particle proposal. We believe the U. S. EPA should 20 follow the advice of its own Scientific Advisory 21 Committee, CASAC, and choose a level at the lowest 22 end of the range as found in the Staff Report, at 13 23 micrograms. However, we also believe that there is 24 substantial evidence to support an annual average 25 105 standard of 12 micrograms, as the Air Resources Board 1 has established. 2 And this issue is really significant for 3 Californians. For every additional microgram of 4 particulate matter that's reduced we estimated a 5 thousand additional premature deaths could be avoided 6 annually in California. 7 We're also concerned about the Proposed 8 Shortterm Course Particulate Matter Standard. We do 9 not agree that the available evidence is adequate to 10 conclude there are no or few adverse health effects 11 associated with course particles originating from 12 rural areas. 13 Overall the scientific literature suggest 14 that both shortterm and longterm exposures to course 15 particles are associated with adverse health effects, 16 including premature death. And I believe Dr. Ostro 17 earlier today pointed out some of the new studies 18 that have actually been conducted out in California. 19 While the available epidemiologic studies 20 that support the Course Particle Standard were mostly 21 performed in urbanized areas, we don't believe that 22 the absence of data, specifically implicating rural 23 course particles, leads one to the conclusion that 24 there's no adverse effects from rural particles. 25 106 Therefore we believe that this distinction 1 between particle source is not adequately supported 2 and we caution against EPA's Proposal. 3 We'd also like to point out that 4 historically particulate matter has been regulated on 5 a mass basis without regard for its specific 6 components. This course has been taken because 7 there's considerable evidence for both PM2.5 and PM10 8 in its role in inducing adverse health effects, but 9 it also recognizes that there's insufficient evidence 10 to target specific subspecies. We believe this 11 longstanding practice should be continued for course 12 particles and that the U. S. EPA should not set this 13 differentiation between the rural and urban origin of 14 particles. 15 Now we're also concerned about the 16 implication of your Course Particle Standard and how 17 it applies to different levels of protection, 18 depending on where someone lives. 19 Air quality management agencies are 20 responsible for protecting all residents in their 21 area of jurisdiction, regardless of the size of their 22 communities. If EPA differentiates between urban and 23 rural course PM, large rural areas of California 24 where a significant fraction of the state's 25 107 population still resides, would be exempt from 1 federal requirements to reduce course particles even 2 though their monitored values could exceed the 3 Proposed Standards. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bode, you're out 5 of time so if you could try to wrap up, I'd 6 appreciate it. 7 MR. BODE: Okay. Let me conclude by saying 8 that we also are concerned about your proposal to 9 eliminate monitoring, as some of the previous 10 speakers said. By doing so, it eliminates the 11 ability for future scientists to perform new studies 12 on the health effects of course particles. And we 13 greatly advise U. S. EPA to adopt standards of 12 14 micrograms per cubic meter for our annual average 15 standards and remove the course versus rural 16 designation. Thank you. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 18 As I've said to others, if you do have any 19 additional evidence that you want to have us include 20 in the record as far as studies, anything more on the 21 urban rural split, that would be helpful. 22 MR. BODE: Great. Thank you. I think Dr. 23 Ostro presented quite a few of those new studies in 24 his testimony. 25 108 THE HEARING OFFICER: He did. He did, and 1 I've already asked him to please make sure they're in 2 our record, so. 3 MR. BODE: Great. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 5 I need to step out for a minute, so if one 6 of you would take over. Thank you. 7 DR. BHATIA: Are you ready? 8 MR. HANNON: Yeah, go ahead. 9 DR. BHATIA: Okay. Hi. My name is Rajiv 10 Bhatia. I have a medical degree from Stanford and 11 subsequently completed postgraduate training in 12 occupational and environmental health and 13 epidemiology. I currently serve as the Director of 14 Environmental Health for the City of San Francisco. 15 Every day we're asked by community members, 16 by residents to deal with air quality problems, and 17 the health consequences of those problems. So I 18 wanted to try to bring to you a little bit more local 19 perspective and also an Environmental Justice 20 perspective. 21 I know regulatory standards are intended to 22 establish levels that protect health, but the 23 standards are actually compared against averages. 24 And the averages represent a range and distribution, 25 109 and there's a pretty wide range when we're talking 1 about particulate matter. And I want to point that 2 out, that when you're changing the standards you're 3 actually changing the range, the whole range. And  4 and when you're thinking about the health studies, 5 you need to look at the number of people who are 6 actually exposed to quite high levels within that 7 range. 8 I'm going to show you this little study. I 9 don't think this is  this is a sort of a low 10 tech/ high tech study. We put an air quality monitor 11 on a bicycle and attached a GPS monitor to the 12 person. And we plotted air quality, particulate 13 matter levels along a street. 14 And San Francisco's a relatively clean air 15 place, but we can see that the range is from 31 16 micrograms to 272 micrograms. So when you're talking 17 about a 50 microgram current National Standard for 18 particulates you need to look at how wide that range 19 is. 20 And that where you're seeing this little 21 red highlight at the bottom, what we have there are a 22 Post Office distribution center, a waste recycling 23 processing, a lot of truck traffic, and we have 24 residents there. So I think it's an important thing 25 110 to keep in mind as you're setting standards and where 1 you're locating monitors. 2 I want to make this point a little bit more 3 generally and I think this issue is very similar to 4 other cites, other urban areas across the country, 5 even though I'm using San Francisco as an example. 6 Here's San Francisco's distribution of 7 vehicle trips. And we know that vehicle volume is 8 closely related to air quality. What you see is in 9 the central areas of the city a tremendous variation 10 in the number of vehicle trips. This is probably 11 pretty consistent. 12 What's important here is that the people 13 who live in that central city, generally lower 14 income, many ethnic minorities, they don't drive 15 cars. They don't own cars. They walk. They take 16 transit. They are not consumers of the environment 17 as are the people who are driving into these places. 18 And that's going to come up later. 19 The California Air Resources Board has done 20 a lot of studies about the relationship between 21 particulate matter and distance from roadways. This 22 is an example of how quickly particulate matter drops 23 off away from freeways from Southern California, but 24 the point has been made by international studies that 25 111 particulate matter is higher around roadways. 1 Another important point. If we take the 2 California Air Resources Board recent guidance to 3 around where air quality might be harmful around 4 roadways, we can look at this area, this is sort of 5 the central area of San Francisco. There's a big 6 freeway running through. You see many areas with 7 high, with intolerably high air pollution levels 8 where we know respiratory disease is going to be 9 caused by living near those levels. 10 Now what's important here about this study 11 is San Francisco's trying to be a smart growth city. 12 It's trying to build housing in these areas so we 13 can limit the further growth of vehicle miles 14 traveled, but the central city's  but one of the 15 limiting factors here is that air quality is poor in 16 the areas we'd like to build housing. So when we're 17 thinking longterm, another point for you to take into 18 account. 19 We can look at where asthma rates are high 20 in San Francisco and we can see it fairly well 21 mirrors the distribution of where the traffic is. 22 Most of San Francisco has asthma hospitalization 23 rates below national standards, while the whole 24 southeast quadrant where we have both industry and a 25 112 lot of traffic, has higher rates. 1 So I want to make a final, a couple of 2 overarching points. I know you're not supposed to be 3 influenced by economic factors, but let's face it, 4 you know the economy of the country is sort of based 5 on producing things which means energy which means 6 pollution. And it is going to be a factor whether 7 stated or unstated I think in your decision making. 8 The point I want to make here is that the 9 health costs and the regulatory costs are borne by 10 different people. We can see the health costs of 11 environmental pollution are often borne by people who 12 are not the users of the causes of those pollution. 13 And the people who are the causers of those 14 pollutions are not necessarily bearing  they might 15 be bearing economic costs of regulation, but not the 16 actual health costs. 17 Regulatorialy you have Environmental 18 Justice Standards, and I would urge you