1

        2

        3

        4

        5

        6

        7

        8               Public Hearing on EPA Proposed Rule:

        9       Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality

       10                   Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide

       11

       12                      Los Angeles, California

       13                     Thursday, August 6, 2009

       14

       15

       16

       17

       18

       19

       20

       21   REPORTED BY:  J'NEL ERSKINE, CSR No. 11746 &                           TIMIANNE BOURELL, CSR No. 2845        22

       23

       24

       25

                                                                       1

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   PANEL MEMBERS:

        2

        3        DAVID ORLIN, Attorney-Advisor for EPA's Office of

        4   General Counsel

        5        SCOTT JENKINS, Office of Air Quality Planning and

        6   Standards' Ambient Standards Group

        7        NEALSON WATKINS, Office of Air Quality Planning and

        8   Standards' Ambient Air Monitoring Group

        9        STEVEN JOHN, Associate Director of Region 9's Southern

       10   California Field Office

       11

       12

       13   LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR LOS ANGELES NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS

       14   PUBLIC HEARING:

       15

       16        JEAN OSPITAL, South Coast Air Quality Management

       17   District

       18        ROBYN PRUEITT, American Petroleum Institute

       19        MIKE WANG, Western States Petroleum Association

       20        LUIS CABRALES, Coalition for Clean Air

       21        ERICA FICK, Environmental Defense Fund

       22        LIZ deGRAFFENREID, Annapolis Center for Science-Based

       23   Public Policy

       24        MIKE ROGGE, California Manufacturers & Technology

       25   Association

                                                                       2

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR LOS ANGELES NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS

        2   PUBLIC HEARING (cont.):

        3

        4        ERROL VILLEGAS, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

        5   Control District

        6        ADRIAN MARTINEZ, Natural Resources Defense Council

        7        MARA BURSTEIN, Environment Now

        8        PETER MATHEWS, Long Beach resident

        9        GWENDOLYN YOUNG, American Lung Association

       10        CARLA TRUAX, Southern California Environmental Health

       11   Sciences Center

       12        OTANA JAKPOR, American Lung Association volunteer

       13        KAREN JAKPOR, American Lung Association volunteer

       14        JIBIANA JAKPOR, California resident

       15        ROBERT VINETZ, Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles County

       16        JESSE JOHNSON, American Lung Association volunteer

       17        DEREK ZUPANCIC, Hydroelectricic Power

       18        RACHEL APPELBAUM, American Lung Association volunteer

       19   and California resident

       20        KATIE VAN CLEAVE, Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles

       21   County

       22        JIM STEWART, Sierra Club Los Angeles Chapter

       23        ROBINA SUWOL, California's Safe Schools

       24        RYAN WIGGINS, End Oil

       25        MARTHA COTA, Long Beach resident

                                                                       3

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR LOS ANGELES NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS

        2   PUBLIC HEARING (cont.):

        3

        4        ELENA RODRIGUEZ, Long Beach Alliance for Children with

        5   Asthma

        6        ERIN HUFFER, Long Beach Alliance for Children with

        7   Asthma

        8        IAN MacMILLAN, LAUSD, Office of Environmental Health &

        9   Safety

       10        TERESA TRUJILLO, Long Beach Alliance for Children with

       11   Asthma

       12        MARIA de JESUS "CHUY" TRUJILLO, Long Beach resident

       13        JENNYFFER VELASQUEZ, American Lung Association

       14        JUAN GARIBAY, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       15        VERONICA TRUJILLO, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       16        SOFIA CARRILLO, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       17        JESSE MARQUEZ, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       18        DAVID HOLTZMAN, Los Angeles resident

       19        FARAMARZ NABAVI, Sierra Club Los Angeles Chapter

       20        DAVID GREENE, Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports

       21        DeANN McEWEN, California Nurses Association/National

       22   Nurses Organizing Committee

       23

       24        ALSO PRESENT:

       25             CARLOS DIAZ DeLEON, Spanish Interpreter

                                                                       4

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1                      Los Angeles, California

        2                     Thursday, August 6, 2009

        3                             9:00 a.m.

        4

        5        DAVID ORLIN:  Good morning, and thank you for attending

        6   the Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing on a

        7   proposed rule for nitrogen dioxide, NO2.  My name is David

        8   Orlin and I am an attorney-advisor for EPA's Office of

        9   General Counsel.  I will be chairing today's hearing.  We

       10   are here today to listen to your comments on EPA's proposed

       11   rule revising the Primary National Ambient Air Quality

       12   Standards or NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide.

       13             I recognize that many people have traveled quite a

       14   distance and made significant efforts to be here, and I

       15   appreciate your efforts.  As a reminder, this is a hearing,

       16   an opportunity for the public to comment on the EPA's

       17   proposed rule.  The panel members may answer questions that

       18   seek to clarify what we propose or ask questions to clarify

       19   your comments, but the purpose of this hearing is to listen

       20   to your comments, not to discuss or debate the proposal.

       21             Before we move to the comment period, I'd like to

       22   briefly describe the proposed rule that is the subject of

       23   today's hearing.  The proposed rule is published in the

       24   Federal Register on July 15, 2009.

       25             In the notice of proposed rule making, EPA

                                                                       5

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   proposes to make revisions to the primary NO2 NAAQS in order

        2   to provide requisite protection of public health.

        3   Specifically, EPA proposes to supplement the current annual

        4   standard by establishing a new short-term NO2 standard based

        5   on the three-year average of the 99th percentile or 4th

        6   highest of the annual distribution of one-hour daily maximum

        7   concentrations.  EPA purposes to set the level of this new

        8   standard within the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion,

        9   ppb, and solicits comment on standard levels as low as 65

       10   ppb and as high as 150 bbp.  Also, EPA proposes to establish

       11   requirements for an NO2 monitoring network that will include

       12   monitors within 50 meters of major roadways.  In addition,

       13   EPA is soliciting comment on an alternative approach to

       14   setting the standard and revising the monitoring network.

       15   Consistent with the terms of a consent decree, the

       16   Administrator will sign a notice of final rule making by

       17   January 22, 2010.

       18             Now let me turn to the comment portion of today's

       19   hearing.  This hearing is the second public hearing held on

       20   this proposed rule.  The first hearing was held earlier this

       21   week on Monday, in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the

       22   proposed rule making.  We will be preparing a written

       23   transcript of each hearing.  The transcription will be

       24   available as part of the official record for each rule.  We

       25   are also accepting written comments for the proposed rule

                                                                       6

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   until September 14, 2009.  We have a handout available in

        2   the registration area with detailed information for

        3   submitting written comments.

        4             At this time, I would like to outline how today's

        5   hearing will work.  I will call the scheduled speakers to

        6   the microphone in pairs.  Please state your name and your

        7   affiliation.  It will help our court reporter if you spell

        8   your name.  In order to be fair to everyone, we are asking

        9   that you limit your testimony to five minutes each and to

       10   remain at the microphone until both speakers in a pair have

       11   finished.  After you finish your testimony, a panel member

       12   may ask clarifying questions.  As I mentioned, we are

       13   transcribing today's hearing and each speaker's oral

       14   testimony will become part of the official record.  Please

       15   be sure to give a copy of any written comments to our staff

       16   at the registration table.  We will put the full text of

       17   your written comments into the docket for you.

       18             We have a timekeeping system consisting of green,

       19   yellow, and red lights.  When you begin speaking, the green

       20   light will come on.  You will have five minutes to speak.

       21   The yellow light will signal that you have one minute left

       22   to speak.  We will ask you to stop speaking when the red

       23   light comes on.

       24             We intend to stay into the evening until everyone

       25   has an opportunity to comment.  If you would like to

                                                                       7

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   testify, but have not yet registered to do so, please sign

        2   up at the registration table.  Let us know if you need

        3   translation services, and we will do our best to accommodate

        4   you.

        5             For those who have already registered to speak, we

        6   have tried to accommodate your requests for specific time

        7   slots.  We ask for your patience as we proceed through the

        8   list.  We may need to make some minor adjustments as the day

        9   progresses.

       10             Now I'd like to introduce the EPA representatives

       11   on our panel.  Scott Jenkins, with the Office of Air Quality

       12   Planning and Standards' Ambient Standards Group; Nealson

       13   Watkins, with the Office of Air Quality Planning and

       14   Standards' Ambient Air Monitoring Group; and Steven John,

       15   Associate Director of Region 9's Southern California Field

       16   Office.

       17             I would like to thank you all again for

       18   participating today.  Let's get started.

       19             Our first two witnesses are Jean Ospital and Robyn

       20   Prueitt.

       21        JEAN OSPITAL:  Good morning.  My name is Jean Ospital.

       22   I spell the first name J-E-A-N, last name O-S-P-I-T-A-L.

       23   And I serve as the health effects officer for the South

       24   Coast Air Quality Management District.

       25             On behalf of the South Coast Air Quality

                                                                       8

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   Management District, I want to thank you for the opportunity

        2   to comment on the proposed air quality standards for

        3   nitrogen dioxide.  I will be relaying our staff comments on

        4   the proposed standard.

        5             The South Coast A.Q.M.D. is the air pollution

        6   control agency for Orange County and the urbanized portions

        7   of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.  We

        8   are home to some over 16 million-plus people, which are

        9   about 5 percent of the U.S. population.  Although we've made

       10   dramatic improvements in air quality over the last few

       11   decades, our residents of the South Coast are still exposed

       12   to some of the highest levels of ozone and fine particulates

       13   in the country and they bear a disproportionate share of

       14   adverse effects from poor air quality.

       15             I recognize that the decision on setting an

       16   ambient air quality standard is a policy judgment made by

       17   the Administrator and that the standard is to be set at a

       18   level that protects public health with an adequate margin of

       19   safety.  It's a longstanding policy of the South Coast

       20   A.Q.M.D. that ambient air quality standards should be based

       21   on the best available findings.  We strongly support

       22   establishing air quality standards that are consistent with

       23   the advice and recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific

       24   Advisory Committee as well.

       25             In our review of the proposed standard and the

                                                                       9

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   science backing it up, the proposed one-hour daily maximum

        2   standard and the range proposed by EPA is consistent with

        3   the best available science and also consistent with the

        4   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's recommendations

        5   and conclusions.  Specifically with regard to CASAC's

        6   conclusion, the current standard, as they concluded, is not

        7   adequately protective of public health and should be

        8   revised.  The new standard should be based on a one-hour

        9   maximum no higher than 100 parts per billion and that the

       10   current annual standard should be retained.  I understand

       11   that CASAC will be meeting next week to review the proposed

       12   standard and we encourage the Administrator to establish the

       13   final standard that would be consistent with any additional

       14   recommendations that CASAC might make in their upcoming

       15   deliberations.

       16             Given the air quality in our region, it's a high

       17   challenge to achieve healthful air quality.  However, the

       18   record shows that great improvements in air quality are

       19   achievable if the will to do so is there.

       20             Again, I thank you for the opportunity to

       21   expressing our staff views.  We stand willing to work with

       22   the Agency in implementing the new health protective

       23   standard for nitrogen dioxide.

       24        SCOTT JENKINS:  Thank you.

       25             Any questions from the panel?

                                                                      10

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1        SCOTT JENKINS:  Do you have a position on the other

        2   part of the proposal, which specifically relates to the

        3   monitoring network and placing the monitors close to roads.

        4        JEAN OSPITAL:  I don't have a specific opinion on it at

        5   this time, but I think there is some information that levels

        6   may be higher in air and on roadways.  We probably should

        7   get some more information on that.

        8             As you may know, our district has started some

        9   monitoring near one of our heavily-traveled freeways.  So

       10   we'll have some more information on that as well in the next

       11   few months.

       12        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.  Any other questions?

       13             Ms. Prueitt.

       14        ROBYN PRUEITT:  I am Dr. Robyn Prueitt, R-O-B-Y-N,

       15   P-R-U-E-I-T-T, a toxicologist at Gradient Corporation, and I

       16   am speaking on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute.

       17   Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

       18             After careful analysis of EPA's rationale for the

       19   proposed short-term NO2 standard, my Gradient colleagues and

       20   I do not agree that the epidemiology and controlled human

       21   exposure studies relied on by EPA support a link between

       22   short-term NO2 exposure and respiratory effects or that a

       23   short-term NO2 standard is even necessary.

       24             First, we feel that EPA did not consider all of

       25   the epidemiological data equally in order to support the 100

                                                                      11

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   parts per billion upper end of the range for the short-term

        2   standard.  EPA focused on the results of key epidemiology

        3   studies regardless of whether they were statistically

        4   significant or not.  Several of the single-pollutant models

        5   in these studies did not produce statistically significant

        6   effects, and when they did, the risk estimates were either

        7   zero or very close to zero.  Almost all of the studies using

        8   multi-pollutant models produced results that were not

        9   statistically significant.  We at Gradient think that EPA

       10   did not weigh this evidence appropriately and that EPA

       11   should put more emphasis on data from multi-pollutant models

       12   to better determine the specific contribution of NO2 to

       13   adverse health effects.

       14             Second, we must note that most people who study

       15   air pollution epidemiology agree that the cofounding of

       16   results for a specific pollutant, such as NO2, by

       17   co-pollutants and other factors is a key challenge in the

       18   field.  My colleagues and I have found that many of the key

       19   epidemiology studies did not adjust for potential

       20   confounders such as temperature, humidity, several hazardous

       21   air pollutants, allergens, and day-to-day variation in

       22   people's activity and stress.  Because of this, it is

       23   unclear to us how these studies can be considered reliable

       24   enough to tease out very small risk signals for a specific

       25   pollutant from within a large universe of atmospheric

                                                                      12

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   pollutant noise.

        2             Third, EPA's reliance on one epidemiology study by

        3   Delfino, et al., to set the lower end of the range for the

        4   short-term standard is not appropriate.  The major issue

        5   with this study is that the NO2 concentrations were

        6   statistically significantly correlated with many independent

        7   factors such as other pollutants, temperature, relative

        8   humidity, and allergen levels.  Because of this, we believe

        9   that any statistically significant results from this study

       10   may have been due to one of these other factors.  In fact,

       11   the authors of this study reported that the risk estimates

       12   for NO2 decreased after adjustment for allergen levels, and

       13   that multi-pollutant models indicated that PM10, not NO2,

       14   was the air pollutant of concern in this study.  They also

       15   reported greater effects in children not taking asthma

       16   medication, and these results are contradictory to other

       17   studies, including a key study by Mortimer, et al., that EPA

       18   placed high reliance on in their ozone NAAQS review.  Given

       19   all of the uncertainties I have just described, we feel that

       20   this study is not appropriate for determining the lower end

       21   of the range of the short-term NO2 standard.

       22             Fourth, all of the key epidemiology studies used

       23   NO2 measurements from ambient central monitors to represent

       24   the personal exposures of the study subjects.  Because most

       25   people move from place to place during the day, this

                                                                      13

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   practice can misrepresent the NO2 concentrations that a

        2   given individual is actually exposed to.  The resulting

        3   misclassification of exposure, as well as measurement error,

        4   are sources of uncertainty that can bias risk estimates to

        5   be higher than they would be otherwise.  This is

        6   particularly important for NO2, because many exposure

        7   studies have shown essentially no correlation between

        8   ambient and personal NO2 exposures.  My Gradient colleagues

        9   and I do not believe that these and other issues are

       10   adequately accounted for in the key epidemiology studies.

       11   We feel that these studies are not robust enough to support

       12   a linear no-threshold dose-response model for short-term NO2

       13   exposure and respiratory effects or a short-term standard in

       14   the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion.

       15             EPA also used controlled human exposure studies to

       16   justify the short-term standard.  Based on a prior analysis

       17   by Folinsbee, EPA conducted a meta-analysis of such studies,

       18   which is a common way to look at multiple, similar studies

       19   to see if overall conclusions can be reached.  But EPA and

       20   Folinsbee did not follow the current methods and framework

       21   for conducting such an analysis.  My Gradient colleagues

       22   conducted a more rigorous meta-analysis, following

       23   currently-accepted protocols and investigating a larger

       24   number of studies than EPA did.  We assessed dose-response

       25   relationships and the levels of the observed effects, which

                                                                      14

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   EPA did not do.  While EPA concluded from their analysis

        2   that short-term exposure to 100 parts per billion NO2 can

        3   cause small increases in adverse health effects in people

        4   with asthma, we found no evidence to suggest that NO2 leads

        5   to adverse effects at any of the exposures tested, up to 600

        6   ppb.  Gradient's analysis also indicates that a non-linear,

        7   threshold dose-response model best describes the data from

        8   controlled exposure studies.

        9             In conclusion, my Gradient colleagues and I do not

       10   agree that the studies relied on by EPA in the proposed rule

       11   support a link between short-term NO2 exposure and

       12   respiratory effects or that a short-term NO2 standard is

       13   needed.  According to EPA, the current annual NO2 standard

       14   of 53 ppb protects the public against short-term exposures

       15   of 400 ppb and higher.  If a short-term standard for NO2

       16   must be set, it should be at 600 parts per billion or

       17   higher, because it is our opinion that setting a lower

       18   standard will not result in fewer adverse health effects,

       19   even in sensitive populations such as individuals with

       20   asthma.

       21             Thank you.

       22        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.  Any questions from the panel?

       23             Thank you.

       24             Our next speaker will be Mr. Mike Wang from

       25   Western States.

                                                                      15

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1        MIKE WANG:  Good morning.  My name is Mike Wang, and

        2   I'm with the Western States Petroleum Association, also

        3   known as WSPA.  WSPA represents 28 companies explore, pull

        4   forth, develop, refine, transport, and market petroleum,

        5   petroleum products in the western states of Washington,

        6   Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii.

        7             WSPA has had a long history of research and

        8   comment on issues such as changes to the NO2 standard.  WSPA

        9   and its predecessors, the Western Oil and Gas Association

       10   conducted research and comment that helped start state and

       11   regional urban airshed modeling, known as U.A.M., on COV 1

       12   and 2 through 4; was supposed to be an active participant

       13   and cofunder with EPA in the regional PM2.5 and ozone

       14   modeling in the central valley; and in research and modeling

       15   and monitoring of air quality in the South Coast, including

       16   projects with the acronyms C.C.O.S., SCCAMP, S-C-C-A-M-P,

       17   and, in general, on other technical and air quality issues.

       18   As the previous speaker knows, WSPA has been working with

       19   the South Coast and ARB on a number of issues for at least

       20   the last two decades.

       21             As you may expect, our members face a variety of

       22   regulatory requirements when operating in such varied

       23   environments.  Facilities operating in California are all

       24   faced with difficult and challenging and sometimes

       25   overlapping and sometimes conflicting federal, state, and

                                                                      16

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   local requirements.  So too are facilities operating in

        2   other western states where requirements mirror and sometimes

        3   exceed their federal counterparts.

        4             When talking about EPA's proposed short-term NO2

        5   standard, this is clearly the case.  Facilities in

        6   California must comply with California's one-hour NO2

        7   standard of 180 parts per billion not to be exceeded.  WSPA

        8   member facilities in other states are faced with the current

        9   federal annual average of 53 parts per billion.  The range

       10   of short-term NO2 levels being proposed by EPA would further

       11   challenge all emission sources, stationary, commercial,

       12   residential area, and indirect sources.  Virtually all

       13   persons would require to reduce emission levels to far below

       14   levels of today.  The levels propose to be more stringent

       15   than even the existing California short-term standard and

       16   dramatically more stringent than the existing federal annual

       17   standard.  And, as we'll discuss in a moment, NO2 levels

       18   have already been addressed indirectly through existing NOx

       19   regulations.

       20             As you are aware, NO2 is a precursor for two key

       21   pollutants, ozone and PM2.5.  Focus has been placed on NOx

       22   emissions because of the reaction to the volatile organic

       23   compounds, which can produce ozone and nitrogen's role in

       24   the formation of nitrates and nitrites leading to formation

       25   of PO2.5.  In terms of any risk to human health and

                                                                      17

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   environment associated with NO2, most health professionals

        2   and agencies focused attention on ozone and PM2.5.  And

        3   while we may disagree with the individual risk estimates, we

        4   do agree that ozone and PM2.5 are issues for many of the

        5   regions involved.

        6             What is also true is that the control of NOx

        7   emissions for ozone and PM2.5 will also result in reduced

        8   ambient levels of NO2.  In fact, the very stringent ozone

        9   standard that EPA promulgated in March of 2008 held .075 as

       10   an eight-hour standard.  And the standards that exist

       11   locally, for example, California's eight-hour standard, have

       12   contributed to reduced NO2 levels in the atmosphere.  WSPA

       13   members have already invested in clean diesel, clean

       14   gasoline both regionally and nationwide, and these new fuels

       15   are producing significant air quality benefits.

       16             An unresolved issue we would therefore encourage

       17   EPA to evaluate is the extent to which the NO2 proposal may

       18   be made moot by efforts to reduce ozone PM10 or, perhaps

       19   just as important, what more would be needed to achieve the

       20   proposed standards.  In fact, the incremental benefit of

       21   reducing NO2 levels beyond those that would require to

       22   achieve existing ozone PM2.5 levels is worthy of some

       23   research.

       24             While we understand the EPA's proposal is

       25   health-based, we would encourage the EPA to review the

                                                                      18

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   actual reduction of risk that it believes would be achieved

        2   through this proposal.  This is especially true given the

        3   limitations in the underlying data you heard previously

        4   relative to the benefits and incremental benefits that may

        5   be accrued.  EPA cites data that may not be reflective of

        6   range of the short-term NO2 concentrations that may exist

        7   upon achieving the ozone and the PM2.5 standards.

        8             We support the A.P.I. position that you've heard

        9   in the past and we would like EPA to revisit the

       10   substantiating documentation under which their proposal is

       11   based.

       12             Thank you.

       13        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       14             Any questions?

       15             Thank you.

       16             Our next speaker is Luis Cabrales.

       17        LUIS CABRALES:  Thank you very much.

       18             My name is Luis Cabrales.  I represent Coalition

       19   for Clean Air.  The Coalition for Clean Air is the only

       20   statewide organization advocating for clean air in

       21   California.  I am here today to speak on behalf of Coalition

       22   for Clean Air and its thousands of members who wish to

       23   breathe cleaner, safer air in California.

       24             I'm sure by now you have heard everything there is

       25   to know about NO2, including industries' claims that they

                                                                      19

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   cannot comply with stronger air standards.  I'm sure you

        2   have also heard by now everything there's to know about the

        3   health impacts of these air pollutants and by now you are

        4   aware of the -- NO2's widespread and dangers to public

        5   health.  That's why we are supporting a stronger national

        6   air quality standard, to protect us from these pollutants.

        7   We also support setting up a national system to monitor NO2

        8   along major highways.  We agree with the EPA and with the

        9   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that the current

       10   standard fails to protect public health, including the

       11   health of our families.  The Clean Air Act says national air

       12   quality standards must protect health of public people who

       13   are most at risk from breathing nitrogen dioxide, including

       14   children, our elders, and anyone with asthma.  We support

       15   the EPA's proposal to set a one-hour standard to limit

       16   short-term exposures to nitrogen dioxide.  This short-term

       17   standard is needed to protect the health of people with

       18   asthma and other respiratory diseases from spikes in

       19   nitrogen dioxide levels.

       20             However, we disagree with the EPA's proposal to

       21   select the one-hour standard from the range of 80 to 100

       22   parts per billion.  That range fails to protect the health

       23   of millions of children, adults, and people with lung

       24   disease, including workers at the industries where those

       25   emissions are being expelled.

                                                                      20

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             We recommend the EPA set the one-hour standard at

        2   50 parts per billion to provide the margin of safety needed

        3   to protect health of those most at risk.  EPA's draft

        4   analysis shows that an hourly standard of 50 parts per

        5   billion would provide the greatest benefit to public health

        6   by reducing asthma attacks, hospital admissions, and

        7   emergency room visits for respiratory causes.  We agree that

        8   an annual standard is needed to provide protection from

        9   long-term day-in and day-out exposures to nitrogen dioxide.

       10   However, we recommend a tighter standard such as the State

       11   of -- such as the ones adopted by the State of California of

       12   30 parts per billion or lower.

       13             California's Children Health Studies found that

       14   long-term exposures to NO2 stunt lung-function growth in

       15   children.  People living near freeways are exposed to

       16   traffic emissions such as NO2 on a long-term basis.

       17             We support EPA's proposal for a roadside

       18   monitoring network to identify where levels are the highest

       19   and to monitor the effective of controlled measures.

       20   The proposed roadside monitoring network should be installed

       21   regardless of the level of the standard selected.  EPA and

       22   the states need to take every opportunity to expand the

       23   monitoring of pollutants from traffic.  In addition to this

       24   proposal, an excellent opportunity is coming up in the rule

       25   making for the particulate matter national air quality

                                                                      21

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   standard.

        2             We reject the alternative that would set a tighter

        3   standard only if the EPA does not adopt the monitoring

        4   network.  The standards should be based solely on what is

        5   needed to protect public health, not whether a monitoring

        6   network exists.  We need to be both protective of standards

        7   and a national -- nationwide monitoring network.

        8             Thank you very much.

        9        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       10             Any questions?

       11             Thanks.

       12             Looks like we don't have any speakers waiting to

       13   testify.  So unless someone wishes to testify who hasn't

       14   already signed up, we will take a short break.  Thanks.

       15             (Recess taken.)

       16        DAVID ORLIN:  I think we will get started again.  We

       17   have a couple of people who are ready to testify.  Erica

       18   Fick and Liz Haney deGraffenreid.

       19             So just to recap, we have a light system for

       20   trying to spending -- generally trying to keep people at 5

       21   minutes, because we do have a fairly full schedule.

       22   Although, we just took a break.  So the green light will go

       23   on when you start speaking, the yellow light goes on at 1

       24   minute, and red light you need to wrap it up.

       25             Thank you very much.

                                                                      22

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1        ERICA FICK:  Thank you very much for the opportunity to

        2   be here today.  My name is Erica Fick.  I'm here on behalf

        3   of Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonprofit

        4   organization that has for over 40 years linked science,

        5   economics, and law to create innovative and cost-effective

        6   solutions to society's most pressing environmental problems.

        7             I am pleased that we are here today to discuss the

        8   revision of EPA's national health-based ambient air quality

        9   standard for nitrogen dioxide, a historic moment that has

       10   taken over 35 years to emerge as a public health priority.

       11   It is hoped that today's presentation of numbers, scientific

       12   evidence, and personal testimonies of those directly

       13   affected by this harmful pollutant will reflect the urgency

       14   of strengthening our nation's NOx pollution standards and

       15   improving EPA's air monitoring systems.

       16             Nitrogen dioxide is a widespread and dangerous air

       17   pollutant that affects our health in many ways.  EPA found

       18   that NOx worsens coughing and wheezing, increases asthma

       19   attacks, hospital admittances, lung inflammation, and

       20   decreases lung function in children, making them more

       21   susceptible to lung disease throughout their lives.  Los

       22   Angelinos are particularly at risk to these harmful effects

       23   as they are victim to the nation's highest rates of

       24   ground-level ozone.  Since nitrogen oxides are a precursor

       25   to the formation of ground-level ozone and particulate

                                                                      23

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   pollution, it is especially important that the EPA

        2   strengthen its standards on this chemical so as to avoid

        3   these and other more indirect health defects in the future.

        4             That's why we support the EPA's proposal to set a

        5   one-hour standard to limit short-term exposures to nitrogen

        6   dioxide.  However, we disagree with their proposal to

        7   implement the standard from the range of 80 to 100 parts per

        8   billion.  This range fails to protect the health of people

        9   with asthma and other respiratory diseases from harmful

       10   spikes in NOx levels.  Instead, we recommend that the EPA

       11   set the one-hour standard to 50 parts per billion or lower

       12   to provide the margin of safety needed to protect the health

       13   of those most at risk.

       14             We also agree that an annual standard is needed to

       15   provide protection from long-term exposures to nitrogen

       16   dioxide.  However, we recommend a tighter standard, such as

       17   the one the State of California has adopted of 30 parts per

       18   billion or lower.  In addition, we support EPA's proposal

       19   for a roadside monitoring network to identify where levels

       20   are highest and to monitor the effectiveness of control

       21   measures.  However, the proposed roadside monitoring network

       22   should be installed regardless of the level of annual

       23   standard selected.

       24             The historic success of the Clean Air Act makes a

       25   compelling and urgent case for strengthening our nation's

                                                                      24

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   NOx standards.  Since the Act's adoption in 1970, nitrogen

        2   oxides have been lowered by nearly a quarter.  Between the

        3   years of 1970-1990, the health and economic benefits are

        4   staggering.  There were well over 200,000 premature deaths

        5   avoided, over 650,000 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis,

        6   more than 200,000 fewer hospital admissions, more than 200

        7   million fewer respiratory ailments, and the avoidance of

        8   more than 22 million lost work days.  Overall, the monetary

        9   benefits to society have outweighed the costs by a factor of

       10   four to one.  Time after time, the implementation of tougher

       11   air quality standards has proven less costly than industry

       12   estimates.

       13             Yet, there are still those that argue that

       14   strengthening air quality standards will weaken the national

       15   economy.  EPA is bared by law from considering the costs of

       16   varying standards.  But still, industry has insisted on

       17   making the economic argument for over 30 years, and it has

       18   been debunked time after time.

       19             For example, in the 1970s the automakers warned of

       20   grave economic consequences if they were required to place

       21   catalytic converters in new cars.  Today every car

       22   manufactured is equipped with a catalytic control device to

       23   reduce tailpipe emissions.  Selective catalytic-reduction

       24   technologies deemed infeasible in the early 1990s are now

       25   broadly achieving 90 percent NOx reduction from existing

                                                                      25

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   coal plants in the East; thereby, lowering ozone and

        2   particulate pollution.  In 1994 automobile manufacturers

        3   estimated the cost of advanced low-emission vehicles would

        4   be in excess of $1,500.  One year later Honda placed a Civic

        5   subcompact model on the market that emitted less than half

        6   of what was permitted under California law for $100.

        7             EPA estimates that the deployment of technologies

        8   to meet air quality standards has been a boon to the

        9   nation's pollution control industry generating over $200

       10   billion in revenues and supporting more than 3 million jobs.

       11             Strengthening our nation's ambient air quality

       12   standards for nitrogen dioxide is a huge step in protecting

       13   the future health of our earth, our children, and

       14   generations to come.  I ask that you take heed of the

       15   overwhelming scientific, economic, and historic evidence

       16   available as well as the personal testimonies to follow

       17   today in making your final decision.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Questions?

       19             Thank you.

       20             Ms. deGraffenreid, if you could spell your name

       21   for the court reporter.

       22        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  Liz deGraffenreid,

       23   D-E-G-R-A-F-F-E-N-R-E-I-D.

       24             Hello.  I'm speaking on behalf of the Annapolis

       25   Center for Science-Based Public Policy, an independent,

                                                                      26

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote the use

        2   of sound science in the decision-making process.  We will be

        3   submitting a more detailed analysis of the proposed rule to

        4   EPA before the deadline defined in the National Register.

        5   Thank you for giving me this opportunity today.

        6             Sound science requires careful analysis of data,

        7   which we do not believe has occurred regarding the proposed

        8   rule making for nitrogen dioxide.  A careful analysis of

        9   health data does not provide support for a one-hour national

       10   ambient air quality standard in the range of .065 parts per

       11   million to .15 parts per million.  Based on an evaluation of

       12   literature on nitrogen dioxide health effects, the Annapolis

       13   Center believes that a one-hour standard in the range of .1

       14   to .2 parts per million, the range noted in EPA's own risk

       15   and exposure assessment, would be highly protective of

       16   public health.

       17             The Annapolis Center believes the EPA has not been

       18   transparent in its approach to their evaluation of health

       19   data in their review process and EPA has reinterpreted the

       20   results of the published studies to support this proposed

       21   rule.

       22             The Administrator's rationale for the choice of

       23   level for the standard is too conservative. The three

       24   methods used in the R.E.A. to estimate the risk all

       25   over-estimate the extent of exposures of concern and risk of

                                                                      27

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   health effects.  The choice for the low end of the range of

        2   potential standards was based on, one, a new, unpublished

        3   meta-analysis that improperly contradicts the interpretation

        4   of effects levels from the previous review, and, two, a

        5   single pollutant nitrogen dioxide association with asthma

        6   symptoms on a location with low nitrogen dioxide.  The

        7   authors of this study implicate peak particulate matter

        8   concentrations, not nitrogen dioxide, as the pollutant of

        9   concern in their study.

       10             Clinical studies, when reproducible, represent the

       11   best source of information on nitrogen dioxide effects.  It

       12   is important to note that there are numerous issues with the

       13   existing epidemiological studies.  Significant noise and

       14   variability is often found in data collected and it is

       15   beyond the capability of the current methods to identify

       16   which positive associations may be real health effects and

       17   which are not.  Because of these issues, the epidemiological

       18   data is not particularly useful in establishing nitrogen

       19   dioxide health effects.

       20             The bulk of the nitrogen dioxide discussion of

       21   health effects focuses primarily on epidemiology since most

       22   of the new information from the last review comes from

       23   epidemiology.  The framework used in the I.S.A. of judging

       24   the overall weight of evidence and categorizing health

       25   effects is flawed.  First, the distinction between

                                                                      28

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   categories is too subtle and too suggestive given the many

        2   problems with interpreting epidemiology.  Second, the

        3   application of the framework, though generally applied

        4   throughout the I.S.A. is not as rigorous or complete as it

        5   should be.

        6             The interpretation of clinical studies has not

        7   changed significantly since the previous review.  The

        8   additional studies in this review do not materially change

        9   the understanding of risk assumed in the previous review.

       10   Even though there is no new data establishing clinical

       11   effects at lower concentrations than considered in the last

       12   review, the final I.S.A. inappropriately draws a different

       13   conclusion.

       14             Reliance on the 1976 study in an unpublished

       15   meta-analysis to claim an effect at .1 parts per million is

       16   scientifically unsound.  The rewritten conclusions implying

       17   that the new information showing effects now at point one

       18   parts per million in the final I.S.A. cannot be

       19   scientifically supported and should not be used as evidence

       20   in the regulatory process.  Aside from this unwarranted

       21   change, the interpretation of the controlled studies of

       22   nitrogen dioxide is very similar to that on the previous

       23   review.  Therefore, the standard should remain the same.

       24             EPA's proposal to add nitrogen dioxide monitors

       25   within 50 meters of major roadways is based on the exposure

                                                                      29

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   analysis that indicates a substantial portion of the higher

        2   one-hour nitrogen dioxide exposure occurs in near-roadway

        3   situations.  When a revised exposure analysis that

        4   eliminates the over-prediction of the upper percentiles of

        5   nitrogen dioxide exposures is carried out, the need for

        6   near-roadway monitoring should be revisited.

        7             Thank you.

        8        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

        9             Sorry.  Maybe I missed something listening.  But I

       10   thought you started off saying you thought a one-hour

       11   standard in the range of .1 to .2 ppm was justified, and

       12   then I think I heard later that you thought the current

       13   annual standard should be retained.  I wasn't sure if you

       14   were supporting the one-hour standard in that range or --

       15        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  We -- the Annapolis center believes

       16   that .1 to .2 would be highly protective.  We don't support

       17   a lower one-hour standard.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  Thank you.

       19        SCOTT JENKINS:  Regarding the comments you made at the

       20   very end, I just want a little clarification.  You said when

       21   an exposure analysis was done eliminating the -- I believe

       22   the peak -- the peak exposure estimates, that would not be

       23   cause for reconsideration of the need for a one-hour

       24   standard, is that something that -- are you referring to a

       25   specific analysis there or something you've done, something

                                                                      30

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   that someone else has done?

        2        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  You know, that information will be

        3   covered in our comments.

        4        SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.

        5        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  So we will be getting that into EPA

        6   within the next two weeks.

        7        SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.

        8        NEALSON WATKINS:  And, likewise, on the very last

        9   topic, roadway monitors should be reconsidered, do you have

       10   a position on they should be implemented or they should not

       11   or is that to be provided in your written --

       12        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  That will be provided in the

       13   written.

       14        NEALSON WATKINS:  Thank you.

       15        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       16             Our next speaker is Mike Rogge.

       17        MIKE ROGGE:  Good morning.  My name is Mike Rogge, and

       18   I'm policy director for the California Manufacturers &

       19   Technology Association, C.M.T.A.

       20             Since 1918, C.M.T.A. has worked with state

       21   government to develop balanced laws, effective regulations,

       22   and sound public policies to stimulate economic growth and

       23   create new jobs while safeguarding the state's environmental

       24   resources.  C.M.T.A. is California's largest trade

       25   association representing over 30,000 small, medium, and

                                                                      31

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   large manufacturing-, processing-, and technology-based

        2   companies in the state.  Combined, C.M.T.A. members provide

        3   direct employment of over 1-1/2 million jobs and generate

        4   more than 250 billion every year into California's economy.

        5   In that regard, C.M.T.A. and its members have an important

        6   interest in EPA's proposed revision to the NO2 standard and

        7   appreciate the opportunity to provide initial comments on

        8   the proposed rule.

        9             Would you excuse me for a moment to get a glass of

       10   water?

       11        DAVID ORLIN:  Yeah.

       12        MIKE ROGGE:  C.M.T.A. is a member of the National

       13   Association of Manufactures, NAM, and C.M.T.A. supports the

       14   comments made by NAM at the hearing in Arlington on August

       15   3rd.  As you may be aware, NAM raised several issues

       16   regarding ensuring transparency in the technical and

       17   scientific data used in EPA's analysis, the process, and

       18   other issues which I will not repeat today.  One comment,

       19   however, that I would like to reiterate is in regard to

       20   NAM's Information Quality Act request.

       21             As noted by NAM, C.M.T.A. also strongly believes

       22   that it is important that all documents, studies, data, and

       23   information is being used by EPA as a basis to set

       24   short-term NO2 standards should be transparently available

       25   to the public and regulated community.

                                                                      32

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             In that regard, we would urge EPA to release the

        2   meta-analysis referenced in NAM's Information Quality Act

        3   request in order for the public to review and understand

        4   fully the basis for EPA's proposed revisions to the NO2

        5   standard.

        6             C.M.T.A. members support clean air and have

        7   contributed significantly to improving the air quality in

        8   California as well as other areas in the nation.  In

        9   California we have lost 30 percent of our manufacturing base

       10   since December of 2000 and our unemployment is 11.5 percent

       11   and destined to rise further.  Although I know you are

       12   supposed to concentrate on health risks and noneconomics, I

       13   think it is more important than ever that your decisions on

       14   this matter be based on science that is both clear and

       15   compelling.

       16             Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

       17        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       18             Any questions?

       19             Okay.  Thank you.

       20             Our next speaker is Errol Villegas.

       21             If you can spell that for the court reporter.

       22        ERROL VILLEGAS:  No problem.  Good morning, my name is

       23   Errol Villegas, E-R-R-O-L, last name is V-I-L-L-E-G-A-S.  I

       24   am the program manager for the San Joaquin Valley Air

       25   Pollutions Control District, and I would like to thank you

                                                                      33

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   for the opportunity to comment today.

        2             Again, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air

        3   District, we appreciate EPA's allowance for the district to

        4   comment on their proposed NO2 standards.  We have some

        5   concerns with the standards at this point.  More

        6   specifically towards the air monitoring network proposal on

        7   the near-road monitors.

        8             The San Joaquin Valley Air District is comprised

        9   of eight counties veering as far north as the San Joaquin

       10   County and as far south as the valley portion of Kern

       11   County.  Basically, we are about 250 miles in length north

       12   to south.  So we have a large air district.  The concern

       13   that we have is the San Joaquin Valley air basin is

       14   comprised of eight different C.B.S.A.s.  And with the

       15   proposed minimum air monitoring network for the San Joaquin

       16   Valley Air District, there are five C.B.S.A.s that trigger

       17   the minimum required greater than the 350,000

       18   population-based.

       19             Again, with the San Joaquin Valley Air District,

       20   we face difficult air quality challenges.  We are extreme

       21   nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone standard.  We are

       22   nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard.  And, again, we are

       23   working on lowering the air quality within the San Joaquin

       24   Valley and doing our best in order to bring our area into

       25   attainment.

                                                                      34

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             The concern that we have is the San Joaquin

        2   Valley's population total is only about 3-1/2 million in

        3   total population.  When you make a comparison with the South

        4   Coast Air Quality Management District where they have

        5   C.B.S.A.s that encompass 12 million population, we feel that

        6   it's disproportionate that the San Joaquin Valley Air

        7   District will be requiring a minimum of five monitoring

        8   stations, where, from what I can tell, as the appendix

        9   shows, that the South Coast would require a minimum of four

       10   monitoring stations.  Again, ours would be about 3-1/2

       11   million in population with five monitoring stations and the

       12   South Coast is over 16 million in population with four

       13   monitoring stations because they triggered -- the two

       14   C.B.S.A.s triggered the second monitoring station greater

       15   than 2.5 million in population.

       16             So we would like the EPA to reconsider their

       17   requirements or their criteria for triggering the minimum

       18   monitoring network.  Again, we would like to see a revision

       19   to the proposed (inaudible) as the EPA would go ahead and

       20   propose to have the C.B.S.A.s with greater than 350,000

       21   total population and have an annual average daily travel of

       22   greater than 150,000.

       23             We did a quick survey within our air district and

       24   there is only one C.B.S.A. that has about 160,000 A.A.D.T.

       25   And so we would feel it appropriate that the other

                                                                      35

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   C.B.S.A.s, which may have a higher population than the

        2   350,000, they are a lot less than the 150,000 A.A.D.T.  So

        3   we would like EPA to take that into consideration.

        4             Also, we would like the EPA to consider possibly

        5   adding language for extensions.  If our requests for the

        6   minimum monitoring stations be denied, having to site five

        7   new near-road monitoring stations within the 2013 start date

        8   would be, basically, what we feel impossible at this point

        9   in time.  To site a monitoring station that is within 50

       10   meters of a federal highway would require a lot of

       11   permitting, a lot of right-of-access, paperwork to go

       12   through.  And in order to be able to site that within the

       13   2013, we would basically supposed to have started today in

       14   order to just to make that in time.  And, again, the issues

       15   with the fiscal impacts with the downturn in the economy, we

       16   don't have the monetary capital in order to begin those

       17   types of projects at this point.  So we would definitely ask

       18   the EPA take into consideration possible extensions for

       19   areas or agencies which will require multiple monitoring

       20   stations.

       21             Also, we would like -- in addition to that, we

       22   would like EPA to take into consideration possible language

       23   for extensions if right-of-ways aren't allowed or are

       24   unattainable because of the issues with being near road --

       25   50 meters near federal highways.

                                                                      36

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             And then, lastly, we would like EPA to take into

        2   consideration possible funding for these monitoring

        3   stations.  A lot of the talks at this point have been to

        4   utilize existing 105 grant monies.  We have already one of

        5   the most extensive air monitoring networks in the nation.

        6   And to have to divert funds from that air monitoring network

        7   in order to put these near-road monitors would be a

        8   detriment to our air quality attainment for ozone and PM2.5

        9   standards.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       11             Just to clarify, your concern about the number of

       12   monitors is a direct result of the funding issue?

       13        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Yes.

       14        DAVID ORLIN:  Or is it broader than that?

       15             Okay.  Thank you.

       16             Any questions?

       17        NEALSON WATKINS:  Would you repeat for me, if you don't

       18   mind, you've got five required monitors --

       19        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Yes.

       20        NEALSON WATKINS:  -- under the current proposal.  Are

       21   any of those C.B.S.A.s required to have two or are they

       22   all --

       23        ERROL VILLEGAS:  They are all single C.B.S.A.s.  Our

       24   highest population C.B.S.A. is only in the 900 to a thousand

       25   total population range.

                                                                      37

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1        NEALSON WATKINS:  Okay.  And then, also, you said you

        2   did a cursory analysis of the -- of your suggestion of

        3   350,000 population and minimum or floor A.A.D.T. of 150,000.

        4   And how many sites did you say that you thought you would

        5   have to have if that were used?

        6        ERROL VILLEGAS:  At this point we would only have one

        7   site.  Again, we would be amicable to any floor A.A.D.T.

        8   requirement, whether you decide that it's 100,000, 50,000,

        9   something like that.  But we feel that the -- just the

       10   population-based requirement for a minimum monitoring site

       11   is inappropriate at this time.

       12        NEALSON WATKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

       13        DAVID ORLIN:  Can I ask?  Are those five C.B.S.A.s all

       14   entirely within the San Joaquin?

       15        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Yes.  They are within the San Joaquin

       16   Valley air basin.  Again, our air basin is comprised as far

       17   north as San Joaquin County, as far south as Kern County.

       18   And so C.B.S.A.s are probably separated by about 50 or 30

       19   miles from each other.

       20        DAVID ORLIN:  But there aren't C.B.S.A.s that are

       21   sharing with other air quality management districts?

       22        ERROL VILLEGAS:  There is a C.B.S.A. -- our Kern

       23   County, I believe, is sharing with the Kern County Air

       24   Pollution Control District.  So in that sense, there could

       25   be a possibility we would have four monitors if the A.A.D.T.

                                                                      38

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   happened to be within the Kern County C.B.S.A.

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  Thank you.

        3             I don't think we have any further questions.

        4   Thank you very much.

        5        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Thank you.

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speakers are Adrian Martinez and

        7   Mara Burstein.

        8        ADRIAN MARTINEZ:  Hello, my name is Adrian Martinez,

        9   and I'm a project attorney with the National Resources

       10   Defense Council, and I'm based in our Santa Monica office.

       11             I have some very brief comments, and at the outset

       12   I want to thank EPA for holding this public hearing in Los

       13   Angeles.  As the agency is well-aware, the air pollution

       14   issues faced here are some of the most intractable in the

       15   nation.  N.R.D.C. will be providing some detailed written

       16   comments before the September 14th deadline.

       17             So today I just want to focus on one issue that I

       18   think is a primary focus for us, but there will be others,

       19   and that's specifically the near-highway monitoring issue.

       20   And as was mentioned before in this ruling, EPA proposes to

       21   establish requirements for NO2 monitor network that will

       22   include monitors within 50 meters of major roadways.

       23   N.R.D.C. is highly supportive of this component of the

       24   proposed rule.  We are pleased to see that EPA is taking

       25   seriously the public health threat that is posed to

                                                                      39

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   residents and other sensitive receptors in the near-highway

        2   environment.

        3             In fact, we recommend that this monitoring of

        4   near-roadway sites be extended to other pollutants of

        5   concern.  The underlying studies that form the foundation

        6   for this requirement cannot exclude the roll the particulate

        7   matter in contributing to monitored health effects.  So it

        8   makes sense for the monitoring network to expand the

        9   pollutants monitored simply beyond NO2.  N.R.D.C. and our

       10   allies have raised this issue of near-highway exposure in

       11   several context and specifically related to PM2.5.  And I'm

       12   submitted some of the relevant documents related to that.

       13   First, I'm going to submit the comments that the Coalition

       14   for Clean Air, Coalition for Safe Environment, Endangered

       15   Habitats League, Environmental Defense Fund, East Yard

       16   Communities for Environmental Justice, and the Natural

       17   Resources Defense Council filed related to the motor vehicle

       18   emissions budgets for the South Coast air basin.  These are

       19   the 2007 PM2.5 budgets.  And second, I'm attaching the brief

       20   that environmental petitioners filed in the case N.R.D.C.

       21   versus EPA, which is related to those budgets.  And,

       22   finally, I'm attaching the letters submitted by E.D.F.,

       23   N.R.D.C., and Sierra Club requesting EPA reconsideration of

       24   the draft nonattainment designations for the revised PM2.5

       25   standard.

                                                                      40

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             Given the need that N.R.D.C. and other groups have

        2   repeatedly asserted to understand and develop clean air

        3   plans to remedy the high concentrations of pollution in the

        4   near-highway environment, we recommend an expansion of the

        5   monitoring to include a more comprehensive set of pollutant

        6   measurements.  The very minimum monitoring requirements must

        7   be set to ensure adaptation to monitor other pollutants in

        8   the near-highway environment in the near future.

        9             This need for additional monitoring is bolstered

       10   by the significant populations that are impacted by

       11   pollution from highways.  The burgeoning system of highways

       12   provide economic benefits, but it also has burdens on these

       13   people.  EPA estimates that 35 million Americans live within

       14   400 meters or four-lane or wider highways and that many

       15   schools are located within the high-pollution zone near

       16   highways across the nation.

       17             Southern California provides an example of a

       18   particularly impacted urban area.  To determine the public

       19   health significance of human exposures to the elevated

       20   concentrations occurring in the near highway environment,

       21   Environmental Defense Fund performed an exposure analysis

       22   that plotted all limited-access highway linked from the

       23   South Coast air basin with annual average daily traffic

       24   greater than 125,000, and then used available 2000 census

       25   data to estimate the population within 300 meters of these

                                                                      41

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   highway links.  The 125,000 A.A.D.T. threshold was selected

        2   based upon EPA's determination that this is an appropriate

        3   traffic threshold for identifying highway projects of air

        4   quality concern.

        5             Ultimately, E.D.F. found that approximately 1.5

        6   million citizens in the South Coast air basin reside within

        7   this 300 meter high-impact zone.  Though, as you can tell,

        8   it's a significant public health issue in Southern

        9   California.

       10             And those are the brief comments I have today and

       11   will follow up with more comments before the written

       12   deadline.  And we look forward to working with EPA on this

       13   important rule.

       14             Thank you.

       15        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       16             Are you reserving comments on the level of the

       17   standard?

       18        ADRIAN MARTINEZ:  We'll submit those via written, but

       19   we'll work with the coalition groups on some of the

       20   comments, though.

       21        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       22             Any questions?

       23             Thanks.

       24        MARA BURSTEIN:  My comments are going to be very short

       25   and sweet.  I will also provide written comments before the

                                                                      42

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   deadline.

        2             Can you guys hear me okay?

        3        THE REPORTER:  No.

        4        MARA BURSTEIN:  Can you hear me now?

        5        THE REPORTER:  And I need the spelling of your name.

        6        MARA BURSTEIN:  Mara, M-A-R-A, Burstein,

        7   B-U-R-S-T-E-I-N.

        8             So I manage the air quality grant-making program

        9   for Environment Now, which is a private foundation located

       10   in Southern California.

       11             Environment Now supports EPA's proposal to create

       12   a one-hour NO2 standard and we believe that that standard

       13   should be set at 50 parts per billion or below.  We think

       14   that it should be set to protect public health independent

       15   from consideration of a monitoring network along roadsides.

       16   We do, however, strongly support the establishment of a

       17   monitoring network along highways to protect those that live

       18   and work close to them.  Additionally, we also recommend

       19   that EPA take this opportunity to strengthen the annual

       20   average standard to protect against long-term exposure of

       21   NO2.

       22             And then I'll have more robust comments before the

       23   date, but thank you so much for this opportunity.

       24        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       25             Any questions?

                                                                      43

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             Thank you.

        2             Unless anyone is waiting to testify, I think we

        3   will take a short break until our next scheduled speaker.

        4   Thanks.

        5             (Recess taken.)

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  I think we will get started.  We have

        7   Mr. Peter Mathews.

        8             If you can just spell your name for the court

        9   reporter and then we're asking people to limit their

       10   comments to 5 minutes.

       11             Thank you very much for coming.

       12        PETER MATHEWS:  My name is Peter Mathews, spelled

       13   P-E-T-E-R, M-A-T-H-E-W-S.  I am a resident of Long Beach

       14   California.  I'm also a professor of political science in

       15   Cypress College, including urban politics and policies.  So

       16   I am extremely interested in what the EPA proposals are

       17   regarding nitrogen dioxide.  We have a lot of residences in

       18   Long Beach and Carson and Compton, the areas around these

       19   cities who are suffering from asthma.  In fact, about five

       20   years ago I was leading a community-organized

       21   demonstration/rally to keep the E.R. open at King-Drew

       22   Hospital, which is in Willowbrook.  Along came a little boy

       23   and his mother.  And the mom said to me, "Peter, if the E.R.

       24   is closed here at King-Drew, my son, who has asthma attacks

       25   and sometimes very severe ones, will have a tremendous

                                                                      44

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   problem having to go to the neighboring hospital miles away

        2   and he could possibly even die or certainly he would suffer

        3   in the asthma attack."  So that really got my attention on

        4   the issue of asthma.

        5             And I have not only been teaching about urban

        6   politics what needs to be done to create cleaner air and

        7   cleaner water in the urban areas, but also I've been

        8   interested from a public policy perspective because I happen

        9   to be also a candidate for Congress.  I'm running for the

       10   37th Congressional District, which includes Long Beach,

       11   Carson, Compton, Willowbrook, and the southern part of

       12   Watts.  And many of my constituents are complaining in the

       13   same way of bad air quality.  We have the ports, the Long

       14   Beach and L.A. harbor ports, are the single largest source

       15   of pollution in this area and including particulate matter

       16   such as nitrogen dioxide.

       17             What I understand is the Lung Association, who I'm

       18   also supporting in their position on this issue, has

       19   actually made a proposal to reduce the levels of nitrogen

       20   dioxide to 50 parts per billion on a one-hour basis and

       21   they're also advocating tests and monitoring equipment that

       22   will be installed on highways and other arteries that are

       23   heavily traveled.  Since we have the ports and lots of

       24   trucks that come up and down the 710 freeway and, in fact,

       25   go through the city streets in Long Beach, we have a

                                                                      45

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   tremendous need to get accurate monitoring of this type of

        2   particulate matter that can cause asthma attacks, ultimately

        3   it can also cause death, early death or premature death, and

        4   it can certainly involve younger people.  Young children,

        5   for example, and older people are the most vulnerable in the

        6   most egregious ways.

        7             So I am here to let the EPA know that while you're

        8   proposing, I think, 80 parts per billion to 100 parts per

        9   billion, I think it's much better to go down to the 50 parts

       10   per billion that the Lung Association is proposing.  And I

       11   believe California has a 30 parts per billion requirement as

       12   well.  So I would like to see nationwide, especially in

       13   urban areas like this that will be affected, to be under the

       14   50 parts per billion proposal by the Lung Association.  And

       15   I'm here to tell you that it's great that the EPA is

       16   actually listening to the public and I encourage you to

       17   continue doing this and we appreciate what you're doing as a

       18   public service.  Thank you so much.  I'm Peter Mathews.  I'm

       19   a professor and a candidate for Congress in the Long Beach

       20   area.  Thanks.

       21        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       22             Any questions?

       23             Thank you.

       24             Our next speaker is Gwendolyn Young.

       25        GWENDOLYN YOUNG:  Good morning.  My name is Gwendolyn

                                                                      46

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   Young, and I serve on the board of directors of the American

        2   Lung Association.  My company, Young Communications Group,

        3   is headquartered here in Los Angeles and I've lived here for

        4   about 30 years.

        5             Los Angeles has struggled for decades fighting the

        6   dirtiest air in the country.  We breathe that air day after

        7   day.  We have heard for years about the enormous health

        8   consequences of the ozone smog and particulate matter from

        9   our notorious traffic, but recently we have learned much

       10   more troubling news; that the levels of pollution found on

       11   and along our highways is many times higher than we had

       12   thought; that 36 million people live near highways,

       13   railroads, and ports in the United States, near enough to

       14   have to breathe those dangerous concentrations of pollution

       15   every day for hours on end.  Even more of us work on or near

       16   these highways, like patrol officers, truck drivers, highway

       17   construction workers.  I do a lot of driving for my clients

       18   using the 405 freeway, the 5, the 710, and I breathe the

       19   pollution firsthand.

       20             I'm really pleased to be hear as a voluntary of

       21   the American Lung Association and to say we support the

       22   efforts the EPA is making to recognize this problem.  We

       23   agree that we need to have tighter, more protective

       24   standards that will limit the amount of nitrogen dioxide

       25   from the exhaust from cars, trucks, buses, and other

                                                                      47

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   sources.  We agree that we need a nationwide monitoring

        2   network to tell us how much of this pollutant there is and

        3   how our effective our solutions are in getting rid of it.

        4   However, we think the EPA is being too cautious and,

        5   consequently, failing to provide the kind of protection from

        6   this pollutant in our communities must have.  Millions of

        7   those who live near or work on or near highways are much

        8   more vulnerable because of their age or health.  Most at

        9   risk are children and teenagers, seniors, and people with

       10   lung disease, like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

       11   heart decease, and diabetes.  People who live near highways

       12   are more likely to have these chronic diseases because they

       13   often have lower incomes or are from disadvantaged ethnic or

       14   racial groups.

       15             I know what living with these diseases can do to a

       16   family.  My mother and brother both died from C.O.P.D.

       17             Breathing nitrogen dioxide can send a person with

       18   C.O.P.D. to the hospital or a child with asthma to the

       19   emergency room.  The California Children's Health Study

       20   warned that children living near major highways, breathing

       21   nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants, can face a lifetime

       22   of higher risk of developing lung disease because the impact

       23   on the growth of their lung function.

       24             We agree with EPA's proposal to add a one-hour

       25   standard to the national air quality standard for nitrogen

                                                                      48

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   dioxide.  However, we urge EPA to adopt a higher one-hour

        2   standard of 50 parts per billion or lower.  We urge EPA to

        3   adopt a tighter annual standard than the one currently in

        4   existence, one closer to the annual standard we have adopted

        5   here in California, 30 parts per billion.

        6             Traffic in Los Angeles is a constant, spewing

        7   pollution into neighbors hour after hour.  Our annual

        8   standard in California recognizes that nitrogen dioxide from

        9   traffic is not an on-again/off-again rush-hour problem, but

       10   a steady source.  We need a national annual standard that

       11   provides that kind of protection.

       12             We urge EPA to make the monitoring proposal the

       13   foundation of a comprehensive system to track other types of

       14   pollutions from vehicle exhaust, especially particular

       15   matter.  The Lung Association will submit much more detailed

       16   information and comments in writing.  As a member of the

       17   board, I can tell you that the American Lung Association

       18   remains committed to the fight for healthy air and I

       19   appreciate this opportunity to share our concerns today.

       20   Thank you very much.

       21        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       22             Questions?

       23        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       24             I think we're going to take another short break.

       25   Thanks.

                                                                      49

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             (Recess taken.)

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  We're going to get started again.  Carla

        3   Truax, the next speaker.  We'd like to hear what you have to

        4   say.

        5        CARLA TRUAX:  Good morning.  My name is Carla Truax and

        6   I work for the Southern California Environmental Health

        7   Sciences Center, which has scientists from USC and UCLA.

        8   Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.

        9             Our center has studies that focus on air pollution

       10   near roadway exposures and I know some of those studies have

       11   been taken into consideration for proposing this standard.

       12   Studies of our center have been published in the New England

       13   Journal of Medicine, Epidemiology - The Lancet, and these

       14   show serious health effects on children from nitrogen

       15   dioxide.  There was a study specifically on nitrogen dioxide

       16   and how it correlated with higher prevalence of asthma and

       17   also a lot of traffic proximity studies showing elevated

       18   rates of asthma and also that children have to use more

       19   medication to control their asthma in those higher pollution

       20   communities.  Children who live within 500 meters of a

       21   freeway or a busy road had significantly reduced lung

       22   function growth compared to children who lived at least 1500

       23   feet away from the freeway.

       24             I support EPA's strengthening NO2 standards and

       25   particularly the adoption of a one-hour standard that would

                                                                      50

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   protect against these peak traffic volumes.

        2             In California, as awareness of the studies have

        3   increased, there's been action to stop putting people next

        4   to freeways such as SB 352, I believe it is, that prohibits

        5   building new schools near freeways.  There is already so

        6   many existing facilities and it is just not possible to move

        7   thousands of people from their homes, schools, daycare

        8   centers, nursing homes.  A surprising amount of these places

        9   with sensitive receptors are very close to freeways.

       10             And research -- it's important to know that the

       11   research has shown not only freeways, but also just busy

       12   roads with high traffic volumes are associated with these

       13   health effects on children.  So that broadens our area that

       14   we have to protect against the NO2.

       15             So this is -- it's a concern for California

       16   because of our high-population density, but we're seeing

       17   very similar things happening all around the nation.  So I

       18   think a national standard for this would be very effective.

       19   I also strongly support EPA's proposal to establish the

       20   highway monitoring network.  And in the future, other

       21   harmful pollutants could be considered to be monitored on

       22   this network, like PM2.5 and ultrafine particles.

       23             Thank you.

       24        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       25             Do you have citations for the studies you

                                                                      51

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   mentioned in your written comments?

        2        CARLA TRUAX:  I do.  I know the journal author and year

        3   offhand, but I can give you a more detailed citation, if

        4   you'd like.

        5        DAVID ORLIN:  Yeah, if you could just submit that, that

        6   would be helpful.

        7        CARLA TRUAX:  Definitely.

        8        DAVID ORLIN:  Any other questions?

        9             Thanks.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Looks like we'll take a short break.

       11             Thank you.

       12             (Recess taken.)

       13        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  I think we are ready to get

       14   started again.  We've got two more speakers, Otana Jakpor

       15   and Karen Jakpor.

       16             Thanks very much.  We will ask you to keep your

       17   comments to about 5 minutes, and the lights will keep you

       18   apprised how the time is going.  Thank you for coming.

       19        OTANA JAKPOR:  Good morning.  My name is Otana Jakpor,

       20   and I am a senior at Woodcrest Christian High School in

       21   Riverside, California, as well as a volunteer with the

       22   American Lung Association.  I have received awards for my

       23   research and activism for clean air from the South Coast Air

       24   Quality Management District, from Action for Nature, and

       25   even from President Bush.  Currently, I am a summer intern

                                                                      52

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   at the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences

        2   Center, which is a collaboration of scientists from both USC

        3   and UCLA.

        4             First of all, I would like to thank the EPA for

        5   considering tightening the national ambient air quality

        6   standard for nitrogen dioxide.  The current standard for

        7   nitrogen dioxide was set way back in 1971.  However, the

        8   vast majority of research on air pollution health effects

        9   was published more than two decades later.  Now there is

       10   much new scientific evidence that shows that the 1971

       11   standard for nitrogen dioxide fails to protect the health of

       12   the public, and so it is imperative that we act on this

       13   evidence.

       14             Not only is nitrogen dioxide a hazardous air

       15   pollutant in and of itself, but it is also a building block

       16   that contributes to the formation of both fine particles and

       17   ozone pollution.  As such, tighter regulation of nitrogen

       18   dioxide would most likely also help to decrease fine

       19   particle and ozone pollution, and that would be a huge,

       20   extra benefit.

       21             Both particulate and ozone pollution cause a vast

       22   array of serious health problems.  One study conducted in

       23   the Los Angeles area found that for every increase of 10

       24   micrograms of particles in the air in a given neighborhood,

       25   the risk of death from any cause rose by 11 to 17 percent.

                                                                      53

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             I, very enthusiastically, support the EPA's

        2   proposal for a roadside monitoring network for nitrogen

        3   dioxide.  Nitrogen dioxide can be thought of as a marker for

        4   tailpipe emissions.  The EPA Web site states that, quote,

        5   "in-vehicle concentrations can be two to three times higher

        6   than measured at nearby, areawide monitors" end quote.  And

        7   monitors close to roads have NO2 concentrations

        8   approximately 30 to 100 percent higher than concentrations

        9   at monitors away from roadways.

       10             I feel especially strongly about this issue

       11   because I live in Riverside, which has three major freeways

       12   running through it.  But I know for a fact that my hometown

       13   is not unique as far as vulnerability to nitrogen dioxide

       14   goes.  Current nitrogen dioxide standards do not protect any

       15   of the people who live near roadways or who spend much time

       16   commuting.  The EPA estimates that approximately 16 percent

       17   of housing in the U.S. is located within 300 feet of a major

       18   highway, railroad, or airport.  That means approximately 48

       19   million people are not protected by current standards

       20   because there are currently no roadside monitors.  Clearly,

       21   establishing a roadside monitoring network could help to

       22   improve environmental, social justice in a major way.

       23             I urge EPA to set the best possible standards

       24   based on public health considerations, and not succumb to

       25   industry pressure to set weaker standards.  Remember, the

                                                                      54

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   economic costs of asthma exacerbations are enormous.

        2   According to a study by David Smith, et al., in the American

        3   Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, in 1987,

        4   the total estimated economic cost of asthma in the U.S. was

        5   approximately $5.8 billion.  Now it is probably much higher

        6   because back then they estimated 15 million asthmatics, and

        7   now there are an estimated 22.9 million asthmatics in

        8   America.  Particularly as we are moving towards health care

        9   reform, we need to keep in mind that health costs are borne

       10   not just by individuals, but by our entire country, and they

       11   have an impact on the economy.

       12             Again, I thank the EPA for considering tightening

       13   the standards, and I very much hope it does.  The decisions

       14   made now will have a lasting impact on the future health and

       15   happiness of today's youth, and so we are depending on the

       16   EPA to make the best decision possible.

       17             Thank you.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       19             Any questions from the panel?

       20             Thank you for coming.

       21        KAREN JAKPOR:  Good morning.  My name is Dr. Karen

       22   Jakpor, and I'm an American Lung Association volunteer as

       23   well from Riverside County, an area with some of the worst

       24   quality in the nation.  I'm a Harvard-trained

       25   obstetrician-gynecologist and I have a master's degree in

                                                                      55

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   Public Health from the University of Michigan, but most of

        2   all I am here to speak as a person who suffers from severe

        3   adult-onset asthma and respiratory muscle weakness as a

        4   result of the treatment for asthma.  I have been in the

        5   hospital or the E.R. approximately 48 times in my life.

        6             When you read through the research reports on the

        7   pulmonary effects of air pollution, I would like you to

        8   imagine what it feels like not to be able to catch your

        9   breath.  It's truly a horrible feeling.  Now picture this:

       10   There are approximately 22.9 million manners with asthma,

       11   including 6.7 million children, according to CDC data.

       12             The current nitrogen dioxide standard does not

       13   protect the health of these millions of asthmatics.  So I'm

       14   very happy that the EPA is holding these hearings in order

       15   to tighten the nitrogen dioxide standard and make it more

       16   protective for all subpopulations.  I am strongly in some of

       17   the EPA establishing a one-hour standard for nitrogen

       18   dioxide, but instead of the proposal of a one-standard in

       19   the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion, I would really

       20   like to see an even lower one-hour standard.

       21             According to the American Lung Association, data

       22   from 19 controlled human exposure studies provide evidence

       23   that 100 parts per billion would not protect asthmatics.  A

       24   synthesis of these studies found that two-thirds of adults

       25   with mild asthma had worsening of asthma and airway

                                                                      56

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   hyper-responsiveness after inhaling nitrogen dioxide for one

        2   hour at the concentration of 100 parts per billion.

        3             As a resident of California, I believe the EPA

        4   should adopt the same annual standard that California has

        5   adopted, 30 parts per billion, compared to the federal

        6   standard of 53 parts per billion.  All states should have

        7   the same level of protection.

        8             Speaking as an obstetrician, I am not only

        9   concerned with the pulmonary effects of nitrogen dioxide.

       10   There is increasing evidence that air pollution adversely

       11   affects pregnancy outcome.  This is easy to understand if

       12   you consider the well-known effects of cigarette smoke on

       13   pregnancy, causing growth retardation and premature births.

       14   Nitrogen dioxide and whatever fumes come out of a tailpipe

       15   are also gases breathed by pregnant women.  It is theorized

       16   that air pollutants may interfere with the development of

       17   the placenta and, therefore, interfere with the delivery of

       18   oxygen and nutrients to the fetus.  Also, air pollutants

       19   might trigger the production of substances called

       20   inflammatory cytokines, which may cause premature delivery.

       21             A very recent study by Dr. Jun Wu published in

       22   Environmental Health Perspectives showed that the risk of

       23   very preterm delivery, at least -- less than 30 weeks of

       24   gestational age, was 128 percent higher in women exposed to

       25   the highest quartile of NOx.

                                                                      57

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             A study by Dr. Beate Ritz published in the Journal

        2   of Pediatrics showed that the risk of an infant dying of

        3   sudden infant death syndrome increased by 15 to 19 percent

        4   per one part per hundred million increase in the average

        5   nitrogen dioxide levels two months before death.

        6             Even a small amount of compromise when you set the

        7   new standard could have serious health consequences.  The

        8   USC Children's Health Study found that the long-term

        9   exposure to nitrogen dioxide was associated with stunted

       10   lung growth in children.  Speaking as a mother, when I look

       11   at my little girl and my older girl, to me her life and

       12   health are priceless.

       13             I would appreciate your work to tighten the

       14   nitrogen dioxide standard and I urge you to set the most

       15   protective standards.

       16             Thank you very much.

       17        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       18             Any questions?

       19        JIBIANA JAKPOR:  I love clean air.

       20        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       21             Okay.  I think we are ready to go.  Our next

       22   person speaking is Dr. Robert Vinetz.

       23             Thank you for coming.

       24        ROBERT VINETZ:  Is this okay if I sit here?

       25        DAVID ORLIN:  That's great.  Use the microphone and

                                                                      58

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   spell your name for the court reporter.

        2        ROBERT VINETZ:  Sure.  My name is Dr. Robert Vinetz, V,

        3   like Victor, I-N, like Nelly, E-T-Z, like zebra.

        4             Well, it's a pleasure to be here and good morning.

        5   I'm a pediatrician here testifying today on behalf of the

        6   Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles County, of which I'm the

        7   co-chair of the steering committee.  The coalition has --

        8   actually, I wrote "over 40," but it's over 60 organization

        9   members and many other individual members here in Los

       10   Angeles County, representing community clinic and provider

       11   organizations, environmental and housing advocacy groups,

       12   university-based research people, and so on.  We're trying

       13   to pull together as many people focusing on asthma and its

       14   antecedents and care as possible.

       15             I'm also a member of the American Lung

       16   Association's health network for clean air.  And as the

       17   pediatrician that directs our community clinics' pediatric

       18   asthma/disease management program, our group cares for over

       19   800 children with asthma out of roughly 7,000 children under

       20   our care.  A lot of kids.  And we see kids with asthma every

       21   day.

       22             When I first read the background information about

       23   this hearing on nitrogen dioxide in the environment, I was

       24   caught, even grabbed, by a particular number, and that was

       25   at 19.4 million metric tons of nitrogen dioxide.  I said,

                                                                      59

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   "Wow, that sounds like a lot, but how much is it?"  I mean,

        2   it was just really hard to get a feeling for.  And, yet,

        3   it's that number, I think, that you are dealing with and

        4   probably forms a lot of the basis for the decisions that you

        5   at the EPA and others studying the situation will make.

        6   Well, if I, as a physician, have a hard time understanding

        7   what that means, my assumption is that many other people

        8   have a difficult time getting a feeling for what 19.4

        9   million metric tons is.  So when I thought, "Well, how can I

       10   kind of de-mystify this number, make it sensible for most of

       11   us," the image of a red brick came into my mind.  I said,

       12   "Okay.  Well, how many red bricks is it going to take to

       13   measure 19.4 million metric tons?"

       14             I did a little arithmetic and had it checked

       15   twice.  I hope I'm right.  It comes up to about

       16   7,178,000,000 of these 2.7 kilo bricks.  If -- I said,

       17   "Okay.  Well, that's a lot, but it's still hard to get your

       18   head around 7,178,000,000.  Let's see how far this could be

       19   stacked up if we had a really good mason stacking these

       20   things up, you know, one on top of each other."  My

       21   calculations told me that that stack of bricks would go from

       22   the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon and

       23   about 6- to 10,000 miles beyond the moon.  That's how much

       24   nitrogen dioxide every year we're putting into our air in

       25   the United States and into every one of us, every living

                                                                      60

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   thing, basically, on the earth that's breathing.  Didn't

        2   seem like good news to me.

        3             Another analogy.  Let's try and forget the bricks

        4   and take a look at this nitrogen dioxide as gas.  So I said,

        5   All right.  Well, volumes.  Let's fill up an Empire State

        6   Building with nothing but nitrogen dioxide.  How many of

        7   those buildings, Empire State Buildings, would we have to

        8   fill up?  Calculations, I was helped out by an

        9   epidemiologist who is more adept at numbers than me.  Six

       10   thousand.  Six thousand Empire State Buildings.  Now, we

       11   kind of calculated that this would be enough Empire State

       12   Buildings to cover virtually the entire surface of

       13   Manhattan.  No other buildings on Manhattan except Empire

       14   State Buildings emptied out and filled with nitrogen

       15   dioxide.  All right.  Well, that's a lot.

       16             Another little analogy is let's empty out those

       17   Empire State Buildings and if we could turn them end to end,

       18   how far would that line of Empire State Buildings and

       19   nitrogen dioxide go?  Well, roughly from Washington, D.C.,

       20   to Denver, Colorado.  And if we made, you know, that a

       21   little bit smaller.  If you imagined a football field and

       22   the perimeter of the football field is like the opening of a

       23   tunnel, that tunnel would go well beyond Denver filled with

       24   nothing but nitrogen dioxide.  That's how much we're dealing

       25   with here.  All right.  Yet, we put this toxic by-product in

                                                                      61

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   our air.  That's what 19.4 million is.

        2             Anyway, I was delighted that you all are holding

        3   this hearing.  It's been a long time since the EPA has

        4   looked at it, roughly 35 years approximately.  And there's

        5   been a lot of research done in-between that last time you

        6   all looked at nitrogen dioxide and now.

        7             There have been -- to my understanding and after

        8   having looked at some over 50 peer-reviewed articles in the

        9   medical and environmental literature looking at breathing

       10   problems associated with levels of nitrogen dioxide and that

       11   show a problem well below the current 53 parts per billion

       12   that is set as the standard.  The standard, to the best of

       13   our knowledge at this point, does not -- is not protective

       14   against the effects of nitrogen dioxide on the human body

       15   and lung and against human disease.  Now, to some extent we

       16   don't know completely whether or not it's purely the

       17   nitrogen dioxide that does this or whether it's the nitrogen

       18   dioxide in combination with the other pollutants, of which

       19   there are plenty that we put in the air, or whether it's the

       20   interaction that nitrogen dioxide causes with these other

       21   pollutants.  But what we do know is that increased levels of

       22   nitrogen dioxide are associated with more premature births,

       23   including fetal and infant deaths.  This nitrogen dioxide

       24   gets in the mothers and it produces problems in the fetus

       25   even before the fetus is born in some cases.  Increased

                                                                      62

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   sudden infant death syndrome, reduced fetal and child

        2   growth.  After kids are born there is a relationship between

        3   their growth and nitrogen dioxide.  It causes permanent

        4   damage to the still developing lungs of children after

        5   they're born.  Lung development isn't complete until about

        6   six years of age.  Increased airway sensitivity, more

        7   asthma, more emergency room visits and hospitalizations

        8   because of asthma, neurodevelopmental problems in children,

        9   more childhood and adult cancers, and so on.

       10             Well, where is most of this nitrogen dioxide

       11   concentrated?  Well, come to L.A.  It's concentrated close

       12   to -- closer to freeways and to high-traffic areas and we

       13   have a lot of that in Los Angeles, a lot in this country.

       14   Because it's produced, as you all know, by burning of fossil

       15   fuels, diesel and gasoline, which -- surprise, surprise --

       16   is generated on our freeways and streets.

       17             A recent study here at USC, and you may have

       18   already heard testimony of this, showed that when a child

       19   lives within 1.4 kilometers, about three-quarters of a mile

       20   from a freeway, they have an 89 percent higher chance of

       21   developing asthma or having asthma symptoms.  You got a lot

       22   of kids in that position here in L.A., and, I assume, all

       23   over the country.

       24             Another study, actually, from Italy recently

       25   showed that they took kids out of the inner, polluted

                                                                      63

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   city -- I'm on red?

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  Yeah.

        3        ROBERT VINETZ:  Can I have another 30 seconds?

        4        DAVID ORLIN:  You can have another 30 seconds.  Some

        5   people are waiting to testify.

        6        ROBERT VINETZ:  When you move the kids out, their lung

        7   function got better within two weeks.

        8             What I'm hoping is that the EPA can do the

        9   following three things:  To invest in a roadside monitoring

       10   network.  We need it.  We can use it.  It will help people.

       11   I recommend that the EPA set a one-hour standard at 50 parts

       12   per billion to protect the health of those who are most at

       13   risk, particularly kids and those with asthma.  And I ask

       14   you to adopt a tighter annual standards of 30 part per

       15   billion or even lower in order to provide protection for

       16   long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide.

       17        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       18        ROBERT VINETZ:  Thank you.

       19        DAVID ORLIN:  Any questions from the panel?

       20             No.  Thank you.

       21        ROBERT VINETZ:  You're welcome.  Actually, I didn't

       22   show a picture, but I had the pictures of our freeways.  Can

       23   I give you this with my testimony?  If you can't carry it or

       24   get it through the -- you know, the system, I have a piece

       25   of paper.  I don't know if the airline system will allow

                                                                      64

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   that, but here's a few copies of my testimony.

        2             Thank you.

        3        DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speakers are Jesse Johnson and

        4   Derek Zupancic.

        5        JESSE JOHNSON:  Good morning, folks.

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  Good morning.  We are trying to keep

        7   comments to 5 minutes or so.

        8        JESSE JOHNSON:  I'm trying to keep my comments to 5

        9   minutes.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Great.

       11             If you could, spell your name for the court

       12   reporter.

       13        JESSE JOHNSON:  J-E-S-S-E, J-O-H-N-S-O-N.

       14             Hi.  Good morning.  I'm Jesse Johnson.  I'm here

       15   as a volunteer on behalf of the American Lung Association to

       16   testify on their behalf with regard your revision -- EPA's

       17   revision of the nitrogen dioxide pollution standard in the

       18   U.S.  I'm a long-time resident of Los Angeles, so it goes

       19   without saying that clean air is a major concern here and it

       20   is imperative that the EPA continues to make advances in the

       21   arena of regulating air pollution.  It's kinda shocking to

       22   think, actually, that the last time we've looked at this

       23   thing was 1971.  I mean, I think that I was negative 11

       24   years old and Richard Nixon was still the President back

       25   then.

                                                                      65

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             So with all the research that's gone on since

        2   then, we've shown that, like, these current standards that

        3   were set then don't really protect the health of children,

        4   people with asthma, and those who live and work near major

        5   highways.  The nation's population has increased by over 100

        6   million people since then.  So that could only mean more

        7   cars, factories, and pollution going on than there was 38

        8   years ago.

        9             So this current proposal aims to set a one-hour

       10   standard to limit short-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide

       11   and, of course, we support those short-term limits, but we

       12   believe that this proposed reduction of 80 to 100 parts per

       13   billion doesn't really go far enough to cut it.  We're kinda

       14   hoping to see the EPA to set a one-hour of 50 parts per

       15   billion to provide the margin of safety needed to protect

       16   those most at risk; namely, children who have asthma, those

       17   who work primarily on our highways, such as highway patrol

       18   officers, truck drivers, and construction workers.  You

       19   know, God forbid it should be another 38 years until we

       20   actually get around to reevaluating this and then, you know,

       21   it seems logical to set a standard that would have a lasting

       22   impact now.  Not to mention there's likely going to be

       23   lobbying groups that represent private interest groups,

       24   representing these major polluters who would be attempting

       25   to strike down this proposed legislation.  So we need to act

                                                                      66

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   as aggressively as we can in order to ensure that we can --

        2   you know, can get the most amount of pollution regulation

        3   taken care of.

        4             And on top of that, hundreds of these studies have

        5   shown, obviously, there's a direct correlation between

        6   living near a traffic roadway and compromised -- and

        7   people's compromised health.  And we don't really have a

        8   national network for monitoring these things.  So as -- the

        9   American Lung Association is urging the EPA to expand the

       10   monitoring pollutants of traffic and then using this ruling

       11   on particulate matter as its platform to implement this kind

       12   of network.  And while there is a suggested alternative to

       13   set a tighter standard only in the absence of these

       14   monitoring networks, we believe the standard should be based

       15   solely on what is needed to protect public health, and not

       16   whether -- not whether a monitoring network really exists.

       17             In short, we need to implement these protective

       18   pollution regulation standards concomitantly with the

       19   ability to monitor emissions nationwide in order to ensure

       20   that the standards are being met.  We can know where these

       21   heavily -- the pollutants in these heavily-traffic areas are

       22   so we can educate the people living in the surrounding areas

       23   and so people, you know, don't end up in the emergency room

       24   for going to work.  That's it.

       25        DAVID ORLIN:  Thanks very much.

                                                                      67

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1             If I could just clarify.  EPA has looked at the

        2   standards since 1971, but this is the first time we are

        3   actually proposing to revise it.

        4        JESSE JOHNSON:  Oh, that's good.  I'm all about it.  I

        5   think it's cool.  I just think you got to go all the way for

        6   it because you guys have a whole lot on your plates besides

        7   nitrogen dioxide pollution.  So if it were to take, you

        8   know, this much time to get back to it, let's, like, get the

        9   standard lower.  That's my thought on it.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       11             Any other questions from the panel?

       12             Thank you.

       13             Mr. Zupancic.

       14             If you could, spell your name for the court

       15   reporter.

       16        DEREK ZUPANCIC:  Z-U-P-A-N-C-I-C, Derek, D-E-R-E-K.

       17             Good morning, gentleman.  I'm a late arrival here

       18   because I just saw your blurb in the paper this morning.

       19   I'm the CEO of Hydroelectricic Power, and I'm the inventor

       20   of the system that takes water, creates hydrogen gas from

       21   it, and inducts it into the air intake of an automobile.

       22   And as a convince of that, we are getting zero or little

       23   emissions coming out of the tailpipe.

       24             We are approved by California Air Resources Board

       25   for gasoline and diesel vehicles up to 8,000 pounds.  The

                                                                      68

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   problems I'm having is that we cannot get the EPA or other

        2   places to look at our device for emissions lowering because

        3   nobody has ever done it before on a fossil fuel gasoline

        4   engine.  We have all kinds of verifications for diesel.

        5   There's nothing for gasoline.  I would propose that we offer

        6   the EPA several units for testing and see for yourself.

        7   When you look at a tailpipe when you start up a vehicle and

        8   that toxic, poisonous gas comes out -- and I'm an asthma

        9   sufferer and my grandchildren suffer.  And you can't hardly

       10   breathe because it burns your eyes and such.  And then 90

       11   seconds later it's warm, moist air coming out of the

       12   tailpipe.  It's unbelievable that it actually works.  It's a

       13   simple system, no moving parts.  And one of the critical

       14   things is the nitrogen that comes from the air going into

       15   the engine binds with the hydrogen, causes the fossil fuel

       16   molecule to fracture, and then complete burn at

       17   approximately 3,000 degrees.  So there's actually nothing

       18   left to go out the tailpipe.  And it's never been done

       19   before.  And we have proof.  We have customers that we put

       20   units on.  A '99 Lincoln Town Car, 103,000 miles.  Smog

       21   test, zero NOx, zero HC, zero O2.  And we have those.  And

       22   these are certified tests for California.

       23             The problem we have is smog tests are not regarded

       24   as pollution tests.  That is merely something that the

       25   public complies with.  What we need is we need some grants

                                                                      69

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   or something so we can take it to labs and test it because

        2   this actually does work.  Last week we even took a big

        3   Sequoia, 7100 pound vehicle, 2008, out to the drag strip and

        4   we had the first ever green drag race ever heard.  And you

        5   can have your fun and cake and eat it too because you get

        6   better power, better mileage, and cleaner emissions.

        7             Now, we can't 100 percent emission reduction

        8   because we have to prove that, but in some cars we do get

        9   that.  But we can only tell you that on cars we tested on --

       10   and it's the whole realm of cars.  I'm talking about '87

       11   Areostar, 163,000 miles, could never get through a smog

       12   check.  Within 20 minutes after the unit was installed,

       13   passed the smog check with zero emissions.  I mean, these

       14   things are supposedly impossible because nobody has ever,

       15   ever had an emission reduction on a gasoline engine without

       16   touching anything other than the air cleaner.

       17             So we'd like a chance for you guys to test our

       18   product.  I've talked to Ann Arbor.  Ann Arbor has got a

       19   testing lab.  The problem is they only test on enforcement

       20   when there's been a violation.  Okay.  We're not violating

       21   anything.  There's labs around here, but there's no criteria

       22   for a test.  Basically, what we'd like to do is, hey, hook

       23   it up to the exhaust pipe, see what happens.  That's

       24   basically what we do.  Not only that, but we're going to

       25   create thousand of green jobs.  We're getting ready for mass

                                                                      70

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   production.  We have to train installers because it is going

        2   to involve professional installation.  Uses pennies of

        3   waters.  Does not change any of the sensors or emission

        4   equipment in the vehicle.  It actually causes the computer

        5   in the vehicle on a fuel injector car to become smarter and

        6   run leaner.  And on my vehicle coming in today, which was a

        7   Camry hybrid, I averaged over 52 miles per gallon coming on

        8   the highway here and no emissions.  So it's all up to you

        9   guys what you want to do.  I'm willing to do whatever it

       10   takes because I believe in clean air.

       11             I was on the hydrogen tour.  I was -- how can I

       12   say? -- the black sheep there because I did not need to

       13   refill with hydrogen and I did not have to go 50 miles an

       14   hour on the freeway.  I could drive whatever speed I want.

       15   It is very user friendly, uses, as I say, a little bit of

       16   distilled water, and I think it should be mandatory for

       17   every vehicle because we can clean up the emissions.  We can

       18   clean up the brown air and smog that we get.  And we all

       19   know that that stuff is poison.

       20             California Air Resources Board has determined that

       21   the toxic emissions from diesel and automobiles around

       22   freeways and such, and we all know this, is bad for

       23   children, it's bad for people, but it's also bad for our

       24   honeybees.  It's also bad for our butterflies.  It's bad for

       25   critters that breathe through their torsos because the

                                                                      71

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   particulate matter is so minute that when it gets into them,

        2   it acts like asbestos and, therefore, we are seeing that

        3   stuff diminish.

        4             So if you can help us out, we'd appreciate it, and

        5   I'll help you out.  Thank you.

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

        7             Any questions?

        8        SCOTT JENKINS:  I do have one question.  Do you have

        9   contact information you can provide us, a card or something?

       10        DEREK ZUPANCIC:  Sure.  I've got my card.  We have the

       11   car approval is D643 and it's for gasoline and diesel.  We

       12   have our Web site.  I'll give you my card.

       13        SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

       14        DEREK ZUPANCIC:  May I approach?

       15        SCOTT JENKINS:  Yeah.

       16        DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speaker is Rachel Appelbaum.

       17        RACHEL APPELBAUM:  Hi there.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Hi.  Speak into the microphone and spell

       19   your name for the court reporter and try and limit yourself

       20   to 5 minutes.

       21        RACHEL APPELBAUM:  Okay.  My name is Rachel Appelbaum,

       22   spelled R-A-C-H-E-L, the last name is A-P-P-E-L -- not like

       23   the fruit -- B-A-U-M.

       24             So I have nonscientific, personal testimony to

       25   give.  I have been looking for housing in L.A. for the past

                                                                      72

                       Century Court Reporters<PHONE_NUMBER>

        1   six weeks.  I went to USC.  I just graduated.  And I have

        2   spent an inordinate amount of time on the freeway driving

        3   from one neighborhood to the other where I have gotten to

        4   experience my throat just sort of closing up, eyes watering,

        5   things like that.  I'm from Ohio where we don't have nearly

        6   the pollution problem that there is here.  And, yeah, I've

        7   just never experienced the likes of it.  I mean, a lot of

        8   people are in their offices from 9:00 to 5:00.  So they

        9   don't see what I've seen, which is just, you know, a dense

       10   ring of smog as soon as you get over the hill or as soon

       11   as -- I've been looking in Culver City trying to find clean

       12   air and I'm driving and it is just a brown haze.  I can feel

       13   my throat closing.  I can feel my eyes watering.  I can't

       14   figure out which neighborhood to live in because I'm trying

       15   to find clean air in L.A., which is not the easiest thing to

       16   do.  It's actually how I got involved in this.

       17             I called the Lung Association and I asked them

       18   where they thought was best to live.  They didn't have a

       19   very good answer, but, you know, I checked in Los Feliz

       20   thinking that would be a nice, artsy place to be there.  And