1 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 2 Transcript of Hearing to Take Comment on 3 Two Proposed Rules 4 5 1. Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 6 Standards for Particulate Matter 7 and 8 2. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations 9 10 March 8, 2006 11 12 HEARING held at Hyatt Regency Chicago 13 151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, 14 Illinois, commencing at 9 a. m. 15 16 17 HEARING PANEL 18 JASON BURNETT, Hearing Officer 19 ERIKA SASSER, Panel Member 20 LEWIS WEINSTOCK, Panel Member 21 CHERYL NEWTON, Panel Member 22 JAY BORTSER, Panel Member 23 24 Reported by: Janyce Booth, CSR, RMR, CRR 25 2 MR. BURNETT: Good morning. I think 1 we're about ready to get started. 2 Thank you for attending the 3 Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing 4 on two proposed rules for particulate matter. I 5 recognize that many of you have traveled quite a 6 distance to be here, and I appreciate your 7 efforts. 8 My name is Jason Burnett. I'm the 9 Senior Policy Advisor to the Acting Assistant 10 Administrator of the EPA's Office of Air and 11 Radiation, Bill Wehrum. I'll be chairing today's 12 hearing. 13 We're here today to listen to your 14 comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the 15 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, 16 for Particulate Matter and proposed revisions to 17 the Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. As a 18 reminder, this is a hearing, an opportunity for 19 the public to comment on EPA's proposed rules. 20 The panel members may answer questions that seek 21 to clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose 22 of this hearing is to listen to your comments, 23 not to discuss or debate the proposals. 24 Before we move to the comment period, I 25 3 would like to briefly describe the proposed rules 1 that are the subject of today's hearing. Both 2 the proposed rules were published in the Federal 3 Register on January 17, 2006. 4 Particulate matter, also known as 5 particulate pollution, includes a mixture of 6 solids and liquid droplets. Particles comes in a 7 wide range of sizes. Some particles are emitted 8 directly, and others are formed in the atmosphere 9 when pollution emissions such as sulfur dioxide, 10 nitrogen oxides, ammonia and volatile organic 11 compounds react together chemically. Exposure to 12 particles has been associated with premature 13 death as well as significant adverse 14 cardiovascular and respiratory effects. 15 The proposed revisions to the National 16 Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate 17 matter address two categories of particles: Fine 18 particles, or PM2.5, which are 2.5 micrometers in 19 diameter or less, and inhalable coarse particles, 20 or PM10 2.5, which are smaller than 10 21 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. 22 We've had National Ambient Air Quality 23 Standards for PM2.5 since 1997 and for particles 24 10 micrometers and smaller, PM10, since 1987. We 25 4 have proposed specific revisions to the current 1 PM standards and requested comment on a wide 2 range of alternative standards for both fine and 3 inhalable coarse particles. The proposed 4 revisions address changes to both the primary 5 standards to protect public and the secondary 6 standards to protect public welfare including 7 visibility impairment. 8 With respect to the primary standards to 9 protect public health, the proposal included the 10 following: 11 First, lowering the level of the 24 hour 12 fine particle standard from the current level of 13 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms 14 per cubic meter. We've also requested comment on 15 retaining the current level of the standard at 16 65, and on levels between 25 and 65, and also on 17 alternative approaches for selecting the level of 18 the standard. 19 Second, we are proposing to retain the 20 level of the annual fine particle standard at 21 15 micrograms per cubic meter. We've considered 22 and are seeking public comment on a range of 23 levels from 15 down to 12. 24 Third, we are establishing a new 25 5 indicator for inhalable coarse particles  1 PM10 2.5. The proposed new PM10 2.5 standard has 2 been qualified to include any ambient mix of 3 coarse PM dominated by resuspended dust from high 4 density traffic on paved roads and PM generated 5 by industrial sources and construction sources, 6 and to exclude any ambient mix of coarse PM 7 dominated by rural wind blown dust and soils and 8 PM generated by agricultural sources and mining 9 sources. 10 We have proposed setting a 24 hour 11 standard for inhalable coarse particles at 75 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Under the proposed 13 regulations, agricultural sources, mining sources 14 and other similar sources of crustal materials 15 shall not be subject to control in meeting this 16 standard. 17 We have requested comment on selecting a 18 level down to as low as 50 micrograms per cubic 19 meter or below and/ or selecting an unqualified 20 PM 10 2.5 indicator. We have also asked for 21 comment on whether we should retain the 22 current PM10 standard in place of the proposed 23 PM10 2.5 standard or whether we should establish 24 a coarse PM standard at this time pending the 25 6 development of a coarse fraction monitoring 1 network and further reference on the health 2 effects of coarse particles. 3 Now, with respect to the secondary 4 standards to protect public welfare, we have 5 proposed that the secondary standards would be 6 identical to the primary, health based standards. 7 We have requested comment on setting a sub daily 8 four to eight hour averaging time PM2.5 PM2.5 9 standard to address visibility impairment within 10 the range of 20 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter. 11 Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10 2.5, 12 is a subset of the type of PM controlled by 13 existing standards for PM10, raising the question 14 what would happen to the current PM10 standards 15 if we finalized standards for PM10 2.5. We have 16 proposed that current scientific evidence does 17 not support setting an annual standard for 18 inhalable coarse particles and, therefore, 19 propose to revoke the current annual PM10 20 standards in all areas. If we finalize 24 hour 21 primary standard for PM10 2.5, we've proposed to 22 revoke the current PM10 standard except in areas 23 that have at least one monitor that is located in 24 an urbanized area with a minimum population of 25 7 100,000 people and that has measured a violation 1 of the 24 hour PM10 standard based on the most 2 recent three years of data. 3 In the second rule, the monitoring rule, 4 we have proposed revisions to the ambient air 5 quality monitoring requirements for criteria 6 pollutants. The proposed changes would support 7 proposed revisions to the NAAQS for particulate 8 matter, including new minimum monitoring 9 requirements for inhalable coarse particles, 10 PM10 2.5 and criteria for approval of applicable 11 sampling methods. 12 These proposed changes would establish a 13 new nationwide network of monitoring stations 14 that take an integrated, multi pollutant approach 15 to ambient air quality monitoring in support of 16 multiple objectives. The proposed amendments 17 would modify the current requirements for ambient 18 air monitors by focusing requirements on 19 populated areas with air quality problems. The 20 purpose of these proposed changes is to enhance 21 the ambient air quality monitoring to better 22 serve current and future air quality management 23 and research needs. 24 Additional information on the two 25 8 proposed rules can be found in fact sheets 1 available in the registration area outside the 2 door through which you came in. 3 Now let me turn to the comment portion 4 of today's hearing. This hearing is one of three 5 public hearings we are holding across the country 6 today. Philadelphia, San Francisco and here in 7 Chicago. We'll be preparing a written transcript 8 of each hearing. The transcripts will be 9 available as part of the official record for each 10 rule. We're also accepting written comments for 11 the two rules until April 17th, 2006. We have a 12 handout available in the registration area with 13 detailed information for submitting written 14 comments. 15 At this time I would like to outline how 16 today's hearing will work. I will call the 17 scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs 18 here at this table. Please state your name and 19 your affiliation, and it will help the court 20 reporter if you also spell your name. 21 In order to be fair to everyone, we're 22 asking that you limit your testimony to five 23 minutes each and to remain at the microphone 24 until both speakers in the pair have finished. 25 9 After you finish your testimony, one of us, one 1 of the panel members, may ask clarifying 2 questions. 3 As I mentioned, we're transcribing 4 today's hearing, and each speaker's oral 5 testimony will become part of the official 6 record. Please be sure to give a copy of any 7 written comments to our staff at the registration 8 table. We will put the full text of your 9 comments into the docket for you. 10 We have a timekeeping system consisting 11 of a green, yellow and red light here in front of 12 me. When you begin speaking, the green light 13 will come on. You'll have five minutes to speak. 14 The yellow light will signal that you have two 15 minutes left. We will ask you to stop speaking 16 when the red light comes on. 17 Although we have a fairly full schedule 18 of speakers already, we intend to stay into the 19 evening until everyone has had an opportunity to 20 comment. If you'd like to testify but have not 21 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 22 registration table just outside. 23 For those who have already registered to 24 speak, we have tried to accommodate your requests 25 10 for specific time slots. We ask for your 1 patience as we proceed through the list. We may 2 need to make some minor adjustments as the day 3 progresses. 4 Now I'd like to introduce the EPA 5 representatives on our panel. 6 First, Cheryl Newton, Associate Director 7 of Air and Radiation, Region 5. 8 Erika Sasser, Office of Air Quality 9 Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental 10 Impacts Division. 11 And Lewis Weinstock, Office of Air 12 Quality Planning and Standards' Air Quality 13 Assessment Division. 14 With that, I'd like to thank you again 15 for coming here today to participate. Let's 16 begin by asking Mrs. Nolen and Mrs. Stanfield to 17 please come forward to the speaker's desk. 18 Thank you. 19 MS. NOLEN: Good morning. I'm Janice 20 Nolen, Director of National Policy for the 21 American Lung Association. That's N O L E N. 22 Thank you for the opportunity to discuss 23 the Lung Association's concerns about the 24 proposed standards. We will be submitting more 25 11 detailed comments later in writing. 1 Congress long ago made it clear how the 2 Environmental Protection Agency should determine 3 this standard. The Clean Air Act directs EPA to 4 set the standard at a level that will protect 5 public health with an adequate margin of safety. 6 That is the single determining factor for this 7 decision. 8 The Supreme Court ruled years ago that 9 costs cannot come into the decision until the 10 next stage as we decide how to clean up the air 11 to reach that limit in the most cost effective 12 manner. Nor can politics be a factor. Exploring 13 the implications of how this would affect 14 politicians is not on the table. For now, the 15 sole issue is how much particle pollution it 16 takes to make people sick from breathing it. 17 That's the bottom line. 18 The American Lung Association believes 19 that EPA's proposal fails to protect public 20 health. Period. 21 Unfortunately, EPA somehow managed to 22 find too much uncertainty in the results of over 23 2,000 studies showing clear evidence of harm at 24 levels far below the limits proposed here to set 25 12 truly protective standards. 1 EPA ignored specific recommendation of 2 its own expert scientific advisors who 3 recommended that both the annual and the 24 hour 4 standard be lowered. For example, the scientists 5 argued that to keep the annual standard at 15 6 would fail to protect people who live in cities 7 which rarely exceed the daily standard but have 8 high particle levels day in and day out. Yet the 9 administrator refused to budge. We urged him to 10 rethink this decision. 11 We believe, as did his scientific 12 advisors, that he already had plenty of evidence. 13 But if more is needed, today the Journal of the 14 American Medical Association published a study 15 looking at hospitalizations in over 200 U. S. 16 counties where the levels of pollution would be 17 well within the proposed annual standard. They 18 found that the 11 million seniors on Medicare 19 living in those counties faced an increased risk 20 of being put into the hospital for heart and lung 21 diseases because of the particle pollution they 22 could not avoid. Researchers involved in the 23 study have also analyzed the data to exclude all 24 days over the proposed 24 hour standard as well 25 13 and find that the increased risk of 1 hospitalization would still remain. 2 EPA chose to find that those Americans 3 who live in small cities and counties did not 4 deserve protection from coarse particles. EPA 5 chose to find that some particles were harmless 6 and should not even be studied despite evidence 7 that particles of that size were not only harmful 8 but potentially lethal. EPA proposes to 9 eliminate the monitoring network that could help 10 determine how lethal these particles might be to 11 people living in the small cities and rural areas 12 of the nation. 13 This decision is the most important 14 decision Steven Johnson will make in his tenure 15 as Administrator of EPA. This will be the 16 official decision telling the nation how much 17 particle pollution can be in the air we breathe 18 and still have it safe for us, all of us, to 19 breathe. Not just safe for healthy adults. The 20 air must be safe for newborn babies, 15 year olds 21 with asthma, for retirees with heart disease, for 22 mothers with diabetics, and for my colleague at 23 work who lost part of her lung. Safe for the 24 millions of Americans whose lungs and bodies put 25 14 them at risk from breathing these intrinsically 1 dangerous and tiny bits. 2 The American Lung Association recommends 3 the following standards instead of EPA's 4 proposal: 5 For PM2.5, an annual standard of 12 6 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24 hour standard 7 of 25 micrograms per cubic meter, 99 percentile. 8 For PM10 2.5, a 24 hour standard of 25 9 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter, 99th 10 percentile, based on particle size, not 11 composition or source. 12 These standards must be more protective, 13 not just because the Clean Air Act requires it, 14 but to do less means that we risk the lives and 15 health of millions of Americans. 16 Thank you for the opportunity to 17 comment. 18 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. Thank you very 19 much. And you did mention the JAMA article that 20 was published today. Are you going to be 21 submitting in your written comments  or I would 22 encourage you to submit in your written comments 23 that and any other studies that you would like us 24 to consider. 25 15 MS. STANFIELD: Good morning. My name 1 is Rebecca Stanfield, S T A N F I E L D. I 2 direct the Illinois PIRG, which is a nonprofit, 3 nonpartisan consumer and environmental advocacy 4 organization with 20 thousands members in 5 Illinois. Thank you for giving me the 6 opportunity to testify today. 7 I'm here to urge you to heed the 8 scientific community and protect public health by 9 substantially strengthening the air quality 10 standards for fine particles of pollution. 11 Air pollution impacts everyone, even the 12 hardiest people among us. Here in Chicago we are 13 exposed day in and day out to a level of fine 14 particle pollution that is unsafe to breathe, 15 even by the definition of unsafe adopted ten 16 years ago. Every resident of Chicago suffers a 17 level of heart and lung damage from exposure to 18 pollution on a daily basis, and we all know 19 people who are especially sensitive as well. 20 These are our parents, our grandparents, our 21 children, and the growing number of people with 22 asthma and other respiratory disease. They are 23 precious to us. They're having asthma attacks, 24 heart attacks, strokes, and dying early because 25 16 of exposure to air pollution. 1 So this debate isn't so much about 65, 2 35, 25 as it is that those numbers represent real 3 people that we care about in our lives that are 4 becoming sick and dying early because of air 5 pollution. 6 Over the last decade, numerous studies 7 have shown that fine particle exposure, whether 8 long term or short term has devastating health 9 effects, even at levels well below the current 10 standards. And the more we learn about the 11 health effects of soot, the more we realize the 12 severity of this threat. 13 For instance, a major study published 14 last November found that the chronic health 15 effects of fine particles are two to three times 16 greater than previously believed, and that for 17 each increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter 18 fine particles in the air, the risk of death from 19 any cause rose by 11 to 17 percent. 20 This kind of knowledge really demands 21 action, and the law also demands action. Under 22 the Clean Air Act, the EPA must set air quality 23 standards to protect public health, including the 24 health of sensitive groups, with an adequate 25 17 margin of safety. The agency must also review 1 air quality standards every five years to insure 2 that they reflect the latest scientific knowledge 3 and update the standards as needed. 4 Last year both the EPA staff scientists, 5 the Scientific Advisory Committee, the 6 administration's independent science advisors on 7 pollution issues, concluded that the current fine 8 particle standards are too weak to protect public 9 health. As a result they recommended that the 10 administration strengthen the standards. 11 The medical and scientific communities 12 both endorse the strongest standards within EPA's 13 recommended ranges. 12 micrograms per cubic 14 meter for the annual, 25 micrograms per cubic 15 meter for the daily. Regrettably, the 16 administration chose to disregard the advice of 17 its scientific advisors. 18 I want to quote an excerpt from a letter 19 sent to your agency last week from the members of 20 your own Children's Health Protection Advisory 21 Committee. These doctors said, " The proposed 22 standards do not provide an adequate protection 23 for infants and children." 24 Further they say, " It appears the health 25 18 of children was neither adequately nor explicitly 1 considered in determining the proposed 2 standards." 3 You received another letter in December 4 from a group of 104 doctors who urged you to set 5 stronger standards as advised by your Scientific 6 Advisory Committee. You also chose to ignore 7 this letter and to ignore your Scientific 8 Advisory Committee. 9 Thankfully, it is not too late to change 10 course. I was heartened by the remarks of 11 Administrator Johnson who conceded before a 12 Congressional panel that your proposal may have 13 been based on outdated studies and expressed a 14 willingness to reconsider. 15 I strongly urge the administration to 16 heed the science and adopt an annual standard no 17 tighter than  no higher than 12 micrograms per 18 cubic meter and a daily standard no higher than 19 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 20 Air quality standards are the foundation 21 for reducing air pollution nationwide, so this 22 decision is one of the most important that this 23 administration will make on air pollution issues. 24 Thank you. 25 19 MR. BURNETT: Thank you very much. And 1 a question. 2 You mentioned a study published last 3 November that  can you provide the details of 4 that study either now or in your written 5 comments? 6 MS. STANFIELD: I'll submit the full 7 study for the record. 8 MR. BURNETT: Okay. And do others have 9 any questions? 10 Thank you very much. 11 Next I would request that Dr. Garcia and 12 Representative Nekritz please come to the table. 13 Thank you. 14 I will say I do apologize if I 15 mispronounce anyone's name, and please correct 16 me. 17 DR. GARCIA: Hello. My name is Skip 18 Garcia, G A R C I A. I'm the Chairman of 19 Medicine at the University of Chicago. 20 Previously I was the Chief of the Pulmonary at 21 Johns Hopkins. 22 I'm a pulmonologist by training, and 23 today I'm speaking on behalf of that American 24 Thoracic Society. This is a medical professional 25 20 society with over 13,000 members who are 1 dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment 2 and research of respiratory related illnesses. 3 The American Thoracic Society is deeply concerned 4 about air pollution, both as an underlying cause 5 of respiratory illness and its effect of 6 exacerbating existing lung disease. 7 The ATS has significant concerns with 8 several aspects of the proposed EPA rule for 9 particulate matter pollution. My colleagues in 10 Philadelphia and San Francisco will comment on 11 our concerns with the PM2.5 PM2.5 and PM10 12 standards. I would like to focus my comments 13 today on the integration of expert opinion into 14 the rule making process and the need for 15 additional research to better inform future rule 16 making. 17 It is the strong belief of the American 18 Thoracic Society that emission standards should 19 be based on the available science and that 20 further research is needed to address the many 21 persisting uncertainties. That is why the 22 Society supports an ongoing research agenda to 23 continue studying and answering key questions 24 related to particulate air pollution. 25 21 We note that the National Research 1 Council of the National Academies of Science 2 recently published a work entitled Research 3 Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter in 4 which ten key priorities were identified. Of 5 particular importance is Research Topic No. 5, 6 The Assessment of Hazardous particulate matter 7 components. The ATS strongly concurs with this 8 priority and calls for continued research support 9 from the EPA and other federal agencies into 10 particulate matter research, research which we 11 believe will better inform future rule making 12 processes. 13 We offer the following recommendation: 14 That EPA use the framework put into place by the 15 Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate 16 Matter document to expand and fund its ongoing 17 research portfolio on air pollution. 18 While the ATS strongly supports the 19 development of future research data and 20 expertise, we are extremely concerned that the 21 EPA is not fully utilizing available data in this 22 expertise. We note that several studies have 23 shown adverse health effects from exposure to 24 PM 2.5 at levels below the average annual 25 22 exposure proposed by the EPA Administrator. 1 Additionally, EPA staff experts and the 2 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have 3 recommended lowering the annual exposure 4 standards to below 15 micrograms per cubic meter. 5 With its currently proposed standard, 6 the EPA is effectively ignoring available 7 research data, ignoring the recommendations of 8 EPA Clean Air staff, and ignoring the experts on 9 the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. 10 This marks the first time that the expert advice 11 has been ignored. The ATS believes discarding 12 the available science and the advice of experts 13 is an ill advised precedent to set in the Clean 14 Air Act standard setting process. 15 We offer the following recommendation: 16 The EPA should issue final rules for particulate 17 matter that do not exceed the recommendations 18 provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 19 Committee. 20 On behalf of the entire membership of 21 the ATS, I would like to thank the EPA staff for 22 this opportunity to comment. 23 MR. BURNETT: Thank you very much. I 24 will turn to my colleagues if there's any 25 23 clarifying questions. 1 One question for you. We have in the 2 preamble to the proposed rule that spelled out 3 the rationale for the Administrator's proposed 4 judgment, and I would be interested if you have 5 comments on that particular rationale if you're 6 able to provide written comments to that affect. 7 DR. GARCIA: We're happy to provide 8 written comments at a future day. 9 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 10 MS. NEKRITZ: Good morning. My name is 11 Elaine Nekritz, N E K R I T Z. I'm a state 12 legislator representing the north and northwest 13 suburbs of Chicago in the Illinois House of 14 Representatives. I currently serve as the Vice 15 Chair of the House Environment and Energy 16 Committee. 17 I support strong air quality standards 18 at levels that protect public health and are 19 applied uniformly across the country and across 20 industries. 21 Over the last two years, I have 22 sponsored legislation in the Illinois General 23 Assembly to limit excessive idling by 24 diesel powered trucks, buses and construction 25 24 equipment. I'm delighted to tell you that the 1 legislation is moving forward with strong 2 bipartisan support. But through that process, I 3 have heard from numerous people throughout the 4 Chicagoland area who are affected by soot 5 pollution. 6 There are folks like the gentleman from 7 Chicago who lives near a grocery store where the 8 trucks idle all night waiting to make a morning 9 delivery while the exhaust permeates his home as 10 well as that of his neighbors. Or the woman from 11 suburban Glenview who works at a local school and 12 each day watches as dozens of children breathe 13 concentrated exhaust from idling school buses 14 waiting to load or unload. Or one of my 15 colleagues in the legislature from DuPage County 16 who wanted to know whether the anti idling 17 legislation would prevent trucks from running 18 their engines needlessly in a local parking lot 19 while waiting to head out for the day. 20 These people are all concerned about one 21 thing: The impact to their health from air 22 pollution. They are concerned about asthma, 23 lungs disease and cardiovascular disease. They 24 are not scientists, but it doesn't take a 25 25 scientist to know that breathing that polluted 1 air is bad for their health. 2 Our state suffers from some of the worst 3 fine particle pollution in the nation, and our 4 public health statistics reflect our poor air 5 quality. The asthma hospitalization rate in 6 Chicago is nearly double the national average. 7 Asthma is the number one cause of school 8 absenteeism due to a chronic illness among 9 children. And our death rate for asthma is 10 higher in Chicago than in the United States 11 overall. 12 Illinois cannot fight this battle on its 13 own. Particle pollution can travel long 14 distances from its source, and, therefore, we 15 need strong national standards to help us fight 16 this public health crisis  strong national 17 standards that include an annual standard no 18 higher that 12 micrograms per cubic meter and a 19 daily standard no higher than 25 micrograms per 20 cubic meter. In addition, the current 21 recommendation to eliminate pollution monitoring 22 in small and mid sized communities and to exempt 23 agriculture and mining from control requirements 24 should be rejected. 25 26 The standards must be based on science, 1 not politics. Under the Clean Air Act, air 2 quality standards must be set at levels that 3 protect public health, including the health of 4 sensitive populations within an adequate margin 5 of safety. 6 It is distressing that the EPA would 7 ignore the provisions of the Clean Air Act as 8 well as the recommendations of its own 9 independent science advisors on the Clean Air 10 Scientific Advisory Committee in favor of 11 industry. Certainly the history of the Clean Air 12 Act demonstrates that when we as a nation set 13 high standards, industry finds a way to meet 14 them. We cannot abandon this concept that for 15 over 30 years has provided additional protection 16 for our health and our environment. 17 We in Illinois are working to protect 18 our citizens from asthma, lung and heart disease 19 caused by particle pollution. We want air that 20 is clean and healthy. However, we cannot be 21 successful if our partners at the federal 22 government fail to set the bar high enough. We 23 hope and expect the EPA to adopt air quality 24 standards that provide an adequate margin of 25 27 safety to our constituents. Thank you. 1 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. I appreciate 2 your comments on  and your actions on reducing 3 diesel pollution. It is one of the priorities 4 for U. S. EPA for the same reason that it appears 5 to be a priority for you. And I would just like 6 to say that I appreciate the work that you're 7 doing. 8 I'll ask my colleagues if they have any 9 clarification questions. 10 Thank you. Thank you both. 11 Next Mr. Paul and Mr. Maier. 12 MR. PAUL: My name is John Paul, and I'm 13 the supervisor of the Regional Air Pollution 14 Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio. That's Paul, 15 P A U L. 16 I'm also the President of ALAPCO, the 17 National Association of Local Air Pollution 18 Control Officials, and I appear today on behalf 19 of STAPPA and ALAPCO, the national associations 20 representing state and local air pollution 21 control agencies throughout the country. We have 22 three major concerns with EPA's proposal: One, 23 the levels of the PM2.5 standards. Two, the 24 source and population exemptions associated with 25 28 the coarse particulate standard. And, three, the 1 lack of funding for monitoring. 2 First, we find it troubling that EPA's 3 revisions to the annual and daily PM2.5 standards 4 are outside the ranges recommended by CASAC, a 5 Congressionally chartered group of outside 6 scientific experts. 7 While CASAC recommended tightening the 8 annual PM2.5 standard in conjunction with 9 lowering the daily standard, EPA is proposing to 10 just do the one standard. With respect to the 11 annual standard, the agency proposes no changes 12 at all, even though CASAC told EPA it did not 13 endorse the option of keeping the annual standard 14 at its present level. Even EPA's own staff paper 15 indicates that more deaths from fine particulate 16 are avoided by lowering the annual standard than 17 by lowering the daily standard. 18 With respect to the daily standard, 19 while CASAC recommended a range of limits, it 20 made the upper end of the range conditional on 21 tightening the annual standard. Regrettably, EPA 22 has chosen the upper limit of CASAC's 23 recommendation without the important condition of 24 tightening the annual standard. Unless EPA 25 29 strengthens its proposal consistent with the 1 recommendations of CASAC, our associations are 2 concerned we will continue to see significant 3 increases in premature mortality and adverse 4 health effects throughout the country. 5 Our second concern with EPA's proposal 6 relates to the coarse PM standard. While we 7 support the adoption of such a standard, we 8 believe that EPA's proposal is seriously flawed 9 in two major aspects. We're equally troubled 10 that the proposal exempts from control major 11 sources contributing significantly to coarse PM 12 emissions including agricultural, mining, and 13 other sources of crustal material. Excluding 14 these sources implies that their emissions are 15 not harmful. Yet EPA does not present any such 16 evidence. On the contrary, it is likely that 17 coarse particulates from agriculture and mining 18 activities pose risks similar to urban coarse PM. 19 These exemptions also raise serious 20 implementation questions for state and local 21 agencies. For example, are mining and 22 agricultural activities that occur in or near 23 urban areas to be exempted from controls even if 24 they are the dominant source of coarse PM 25 30 emissions in the area? 1 We're also concern that EPA's proposed 2 coarse PM standard has the practical effect of 3 ignoring the health and welfare of millions of 4 people throughout the country living in areas 5 with populations less than 100,000. Exempting 6 these areas from monitoring is an unprecedented 7 action and completely ignores the recommendation 8 of CASAC. Moreover, we do not believe the Clean 9 Air Act makes any provision for selective 10 protection of public health. Accordingly, we 11 urge EPA to rescind these exemptions from coarse 12 PM. 13 Finally, while it's critical that EPA 14 establish NAAQS that are fully protective of 15 public health and welfare, it is also vitally 16 important that we have adequate monitoring 17 networks that allow the public to know if their 18 air is safe to breathe. Unfortunately, EPA's 19 proposal and its fiscal year 2007 budget request 20 ignore the important funding issues associated 21 with deploying and operating monitoring networks 22 for both PM2.5 and coarse PM. 23 With respect to PM2.5, EPA has made no 24 provision to increase federal funding to address 25 31 the expanded monitoring requirements for the new 1 standard. In fact, the President's proposed 2 budget for fiscal year 2007 slashes fine 3 particulate monitoring by $ 17 million, which will 4 severely weaken existing monitoring programs and 5 likely result in significant staff cuts 6 throughout the country. Agencies will have 7 serious difficulties rehiring personnel who have 8 been laid off as a result of these budget cuts 9 and who would have been expected to operate these 10 monitoring networks. We urge that the proposed 11 FY 2007 budget cuts be restored and that EPA 12 provide funding in FY 2008 to expand the PM2.5 13 monitoring program. 14 We're also troubled that EPA has ignored 15 any commitment to funding the proposed coarse PM 16 network scheduled for deployment in FY 2008. 17 In conclusion we strongly recommend that 18 EPA: 1) follow CASAC's recommendation in setting 19 the PM2.5 air quality standards. 2) establish a 20 coarse particulate standard without exemptions. 21 Three, require PM monitors in rural areas. And, 22 4, commit to providing additional, not 23 reprogrammed, funds for PM2.5 and coarse PM 24 monitoring. 25 32 Thank you. 1 MR. BURNETT: Thank you very much. 2 Just a process point. We are, 3 particularly in the morning, given the number of 4 speakers, are going to try to limit to five 5 minutes. 6 I do have a clarifying question. 7 Mr. Paul, you said that you have evidence of 8 similar risks posed by urban coarse particles and 9 rural coarse particles. We have proposed what we 10 have proposed for two reasons: One, that there 11 appears to be a lack of evidence for rural coarse 12 particles, and there also appears to be some 13 evidence of a lack of health effects. 14 Wondering if you could clarify what you 15 mean by evidence of similar risks. 16 MR. PAUL: In our ten minute statement, 17 we have a study from California. So we'll 18 provide that in our written comments. 19 MR. BURNETT: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. MAIER: Good morning. My name is 21 Bruno Maier. That's M A I E R. I'm supervisor 22 of the Monitoring and Analysis Unit of the 23 Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, or RAPCA, 24 in Dayton, Ohio. 25 33 RAPCA is one of nine local air agencies 1 in Ohio. These local agencies play a vital role 2 in Ohio, protecting the health and welfare of our 3 citizens by implementing measures to achieve the 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which 5 include the fine particulate standards. 6 We're working on a full review of EPA's 7 proposed rule regarding revising the NAAQS for 8 particulate matter and will submit detailed 9 comments at a future date. Today, we would like 10 the opportunity to present to you our most 11 pressing concerns. 12 First, let us state our complete support 13 of the statement of John Paul which he delivered 14 on behalf of STAPPA/ ALAPCO. We would ask EPA to 15 pay special heed to the STAPPA/ ALAPCO comments as 16 they represent the comments of our nation's 17 frontline defenders of air quality. State and 18 local air pollution control agency directors and 19 staff take very seriously the finding of Congress 20 that the control of air pollution at its source 21 is the primary responsibility of state and local 22 agencies. 23 The RAPCA area is currently classified 24 as nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard and 25 34 modeling of air quality in 2009 through 2010 1 shows continued nonattainment. This modeling 2 assumes implementation of EPA's Clean Air 3 Interstate Rule and various mobile source 4 emission measures, including the Heavy Duty 5 Diesel rule. Modeling for all Ohio shows even 6 more severe nonattainment problems in the future 7 for the Cincinnati and Cleveland areas. Clearly, 8 fine particulates are a significant health issue 9 to our area residents. 10 It is with significant concern that we 11 find the suite of fine particulate standards 12 proposed by U. S. EPA to be outside the ranges 13 recommended by both the Clean Air Science 14 Advisory Committee and EPA's own staff. The 15 combined standards EPA proposes of 15 micrograms 16 per cubic meter annual with a daily standard of 17 35 micrograms per cubic meter are outside of what 18 the health science experts specifically 19 recommended. This is very disturbing as it 20 brings the standard setting process into serious 21 question. EPA needs to protect the integrity of 22 the system, either by following the advice of its 23 independent science advisors or by giving a very 24 detailed explanation as to why this proposal 25 35 differs. 1 The science, as amply documented in the 2 docket's supporting information, is clear. 3 Thousands of scientific studies have shown that 4 fine particulates cause serious health problems. 5 As a metropolitan area currently listed as 6 nonattainment for particulate pollution, we are 7 particularly concerned. Based on what the 8 science tells us now, our residents will continue 9 to be at risk at the standard levels proposed, 10 especially those with asthma, cardiovascular 11 disease, the elderly, children, and pregnant 12 women. 13 In the RAPCA area, transported sulfur  14 sulfate predominates the PM2.5 concentrations 15 measured on high days in the summer months. 16 Sulfates appear to skew the annual mean above the 17 standard. We believe that only by addressing 18 these precursors, through either a more 19 significant lowering of the daily standard, or 20 alternatively a lowering of the annual standard, 21 will we be adequately able to protect our 22 citizens' hit. 23 Further, EPA has taken the unprecedented 24 approach of excluding emissions from certain 25 36 sources. In this case, agricultural and mining 1 sources in its proposed rule making. NAAQS 2 standards are intended to be national in scope. 3 Yet the effect of this proposal will be to 4 exclude rural areas from the standard's health 5 benefit. EPA has never before excluded source 6 categories from control in proposing a NAAQS. 7 The result will undermine state and 8 local control efforts. The identified sources 9 will likely argue against regulation as EPA has 10 indicated there's no need for controlling them. 11 The effect will be to weaken state and local 12 authority and discretion in regulating emissions 13 from these sources in those cases where further 14 control would bring public health benefit. 15 We are also concerned with EPA's 16 proposal to site coarse particulate monitors only 17 in areas with a population of 100,000 or more. 18 Is EPA proposing that the health and welfare of 19 rural communities is not important? There are 20 many rural areas in the United States with 21 significant industrial sources of coarse 22 particulate emissions. We need to site monitors 23 and measure the air quality of such areas. 24 Additionally, as a local agency, we are 25 37 concerned with the lack of address of funding 1 issues associated with the proposal. At a time 2 when we are faced with major issues surrounding 3 the attainment ( sic) of the current standards for 4 ozone and fine particulate, EPA is proposing an 5 entirely new pollutant ( PM coarse) to be 6 monitored, yet is ignoring important resource 7 issues. And to make the situation even worse, 8 the President's proposed budget for 2007 cuts 9 state and local funding by 17 percent. This is 10 disheartening. 11 It should be obvious why we have 12 concerns regarding this rule proposal. Without 13 following the recommended standard levels 14 proposed by the scientific advisors and your own 15 staff, it appears the citizens of the RAPCA area 16 are destined to breathe unhealthy air. 17 So what do we  18 MR. BURNETT: Mr. Maier, I am going to 19 have to cut you off in the interest of fairness. 20 I apologize for that. 21 I'm wondering if you have a question on 22 monitoring? 23 MR. WEINSTOCK: I would just like to 24 encourage RAPCA and STAPPA/ ALAPCO nationally to 25 38 comment on all provisions in the monitoring rule 1 as well as the NAAQS. I realize the coarse 2 particulate monitoring aspects of the monitoring 3 rule have gotten a lot of attention, but there 4 are a lot of provisions elsewhere in the 5 monitoring rule that we can really benefit from 6 your comments on. 7 So in addition to that aspect of it, I 8 would encourage RAPCA and other agencies to read 9 the whole rule and take all the opportunities 10 they can to comment. 11 MR. MAIER: We will include comments in 12 our written testimony. 13 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you. 14 MR. BURNETT: Thank you both. 15 Now I'd like to request that Mrs. Scott 16 and Mrs. Woodard please come to the table. 17 Mrs. Scott. 18 MS. SCOTT: Good morning. Thank you for 19 the opportunity to testify here today. My name 20 is Janea Scott, J A N E A, and last name 21 S C O T T. 22 I'm testifying on behalf of 23 Environmental Defense, a nonprofit, 24 nongovernmental, nonpartisan environmental 25 39 organization with more than 400,000 members 1 nationwide. Since 1967, our organization has 2 linked science, economics, and law in tackling 3 environmental problems. 4 I want to begin my testimony today here 5 with a point that is too often overlooked. Our 6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are 7 effective. They work. They are the cornerstone 8 of the Clean Air Act, and they have successfully 9 driven our nation's efforts to solve its air 10 pollution problems. Since the inception of the 11 NAAQS in 1970, the concentration of lead in the 12 air we breathe has decreased by 98.5 percent, 13 carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide by 14 approximately 50 percent, and particulate 15 pollution by about 75 percent. At the same time 16 that this pollution has decreased, our economy 17 has flourished. Since 1970, our GDP has grown by 18 174 percent. So the past 35 years have clearly 19 demonstrated that the NAAQS framework can make 20 our air safe to breathe without inhibiting the 21 growth of our economy. 22 Now, however, the effectiveness of these 23 air quality standards is at risk. The 24 particulate matter standards proposed on 25 40 December 20, 2005, fall far short of the mandate 1 and the spirit of the Clean Air Act to provide 2 clean, healthy air for all Americans with an 3 adequate margin of safety. 4 Since 1996 when EPA last updated the 5 NAAQS for particulate air pollution, more than 6 2,000 peer reviewed, scientific studies have been 7 published. These studies validate earlier 8 epidemiological studies, expand the list of 9 health effects associated with PM, and identify 10 health effects at lower exposure levels than 11 previously reported. 12 Conclusions like these demand prompt 13 action to protect human health. But, 14 unfortunately, EPA has proposed standards that 15 are not as protective as those recommended by its 16 own career scientists and its independent 17 scientific advisory committee. 18 In Chicago, there are eight counties 19 that are not meeting the current basic public 20 health standards for fine particulates. And the 21 American Lung Association in its State of the Air 22 2005 report ranked the Chicago metropolitan area 23 as No. 13 on a list of the top 25 U. S. cities 24 most polluted by short term particle pollution. 25 41 This translates into more than 214,000 cases of 1 pediatric asthma, 532,000 cases of adult asthma, 2 and 278,000 cases of chronic bronchitis each year 3 in an area that has a population of about 4 9.5 million. 5 The Clean Air Act has been a model of 6 success in reducing environmental threats to 7 public health. A number of factors in the design 8 of the Act have contributed to the success 9 including the principle, upheld by the Supreme 10 Court in 2001, that the setting of national 11 standards be based solely on public health 12 science. Unfortunately, the proposed standards 13 we're discussing today fail to reflect the most 14 up to date public health science and are flawed 15 because they ignore the advice of EPA's external 16 advisory board by failing to adopt a sufficiently 17 protective daily standard for fine particles. 18 Furthermore, the proposal is flawed 19 because it seeks to exclude certain populations 20 from the protection of the NAAQS. The proposal 21 would create unprecedented and unjustified 22 exemptions for the agricultural and mining 23 industries and carve outs for rural areas. This 24 means that Americans living in rural areas or 25 42 places with a population of less than 100,000 1 will not be protected from coarse particles. If 2 adopted, this proposal would be the first time in 3 the history of the NAAQS that protection is 4 withheld from certain groups based arbitrarily on 5 the size of the community in which they live. 6 Therefore, Environmental Defense 7 strongly urges EPA to remove the categorical 8 exemptions for agricultural and mining 9 industries, to ignore any requests by other 10 industries for similar exemptions, and to apply 11 the coarse particle standard equally in all areas 12 of the country. 13 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 14 are supposed to be based on the most current 15 science, but this standard is not. National 16 Ambient Air Quality Standards are supposed to 17 protect all Americans, but the standard in this 18 proposal does not. Therefore, Environmental 19 Defense calls on EPA to listen to its science 20 advisory committee and set standards that protect 21 the health of all Americans with an adequate 22 margin of safety as required by the Clean Air 23 Act. This includes an annual fine particle 24 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, a 25 43 daily fine particle standard of 25 micrograms per 1 cubic meter, and daily coarse particles standard 2 of 30 micrograms per cubic meter applied 3 throughout the country. 4 Environmental defense is going to submit 5 detailed written comments. So thank you for the 6 opportunity today. 7 MR. BURNETT: Thank you very much. 8 A related question to one that I asked 9 earlier. If you have particular studies on 10 your  to support your recommendation for the 11 coarse particle standard to apply where the 12 ambient mix is dominated by sources such as 13 agriculture and mining sources, we would be 14 interested in such studies. As you may note, 15 CASAC and staff paper both recommended a standard 16 that focuses on urban areas, and we would be 17 interested in any studies to support your 18 recommendation. 19 MS. SCOTT: We'll be sure to get those 20 in. 21 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 22 Mrs. Woodard. 23 MS. WOODARD: Good morning. My name is 24 Julie Woodard  that's W O O D A R D  with the 25 44 Dow Chemical Company, and I'm here on behalf of 1 the American Chemistry Council. 2 We believe EPA and states should fully 3 implement the existing fine particle standard 4 adopting any tighter standards such as those 5 proposed on January 17, 2006. EPA's existing 6 fine particulate standard, through a series of 7 significant emission control programs, will 8 continue to provide necessary protection of 9 public health as EPA improves their understanding 10 of fine particulate emissions. At this time, we 11 do not believe the scientific evidence supports 12 further tightening of the PM2.5 standard. 13 ACC members understand and value the 14 importance of clean air, and we support 15 protecting public health and the environment as 16 demonstrated by this industry's significant and 17 continued progress in reducing our emissions. 18 Since 1988, ACC companies and the broader 19 business of chemistry have reduced air toxic 20 emissions by 75 percent, nitrogen oxide by 21 62 percent, volatile organic compounds by 22 78 percent, and fine particulate emissions down 23 34 percent. 24 More broadly, the nation's air quality 25 45 has significantly improved and continues to 1 improve with new programs being implemented, all 2 while our economy continues to grow. 3 Between 1970 and 2004, U. S. gross 4 domestic product increased 187 percent, vehicles 5 miles traveled increased is 171 percent, energy 6 consumption increased 47 percent, and U. S. 7 population grew by 40 percent. During the same 8 time period, total emissions of the six criteria 9 of air pollutants dropped by 54 percent. 10 These emission reductions were driven 11 primarily by EPA rule makings. These rule 12 makings will continue to be implemented over the 13 next ten years and include the 2007 Clean Diesel 14 Truck and Bus Rule and the Clean Air Interstate 15 Rule, or CAIR. The Clean Diesel Truck and Bus 16 Rule will result in diesel truck and buses being 17 95 percent cleaner than today's models for 18 smog causing emissions, and 90 percent cleaner 19 for particulate matter. CAIR, which covers 29 20 eastern status, would cut SO2 by more than 40 21 percent from today's levels by 2010, and NOx 22 emissions will be cut by 50 percent from today's 23 levels by 2010. 24 We believe that EPA, state, and industry 25 46 resources are already being taxed by these 1 emission reduction programs. Adopting new, 2 tighter standards for fine particulates, when the 3 implementation of the existing PM2.5 standards 4 are barely underway, will be confusing and 5 detrimental for achieving fine particulate 6 standard attainment as states struggle to meet 7 their current obligations. 8 States are just beginning to design and 9 implement emission reduction tools to reach the 10 current PM2.5 standard that has significant 11 deadlines looming. EPA and states are still 12 debating rules and guidance instructing states 13 how to meet the current PM 2.5 standards. States 14 must submit attainment plans for the current 15 PM2.5 standard by April 2008. 16 EPA should allow states to focus on 17 fully attaining the current standards before 18 making the states plan for a different target 19 with different deadlines. While the current 20 standards are being achieved, EPA could learn 21 more about health risks associated with 22 particulate matter and make scientifically sound 23 decisions on whether further action is needed. 24 This would also allow EPA to develop an 25 47 understanding of what part of the PM2.5 1 constituent may be contributing to adverse health 2 effects. 3 Lastly, I want to mention the increased 4 energy cost of tightening standards. We've 5 already seen firsthand the skyrocketing cost of 6 energy in this country, both for automotive fuel 7 as well as natural gas, which is increasingly 8 used to heat our homes and fuel our electricity 9 generating capacity. 10 The nation's natural gas bill was over 11 $ 200 billion last year; while in 1999, it was 12 just over $ 50 billion. Our industry share of 13 this total is $ 30 billion. According to the 14 National Association of Manufacturers, these 15 costs are a major reason why the nation has lost 16 2.9 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. 17 In conclusion, ACC recommends that EPA 18 retain the current PM2.5 standard, and not 19 tighten the standard further as proposed in 20 January 2006. Implementation of the current 21 standard will continue to provide necessary 22 health protection as EPA works to understand 23 what, if any, additional actions might be 24 warranted in the future. 25 48 Thank you very much for your time. The 1 American Chemistry Council will also be 2 submitting detailed technical comments prior to 3 the April 17th closing date. 4 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 5 I have one clarifying remark; that we 6 have also issued an advanced notice of proposed 7 rule making that addresses some of the 8 transitional issues between the ' 97 standards and 9 the standards that we're discussing today. That 10 may be of interest to you and others, and I 11 believe that there's information about that rule 12 making in the registration area. 13 I then just have a clarifying question. 14 You said that the  from your perspective, the 15 current standards are sufficient to protect 16 public health. I'm wondering if you have 17 comments or will offer comments on the studies 18 that we looked at in proposing a revision down to 19 the 35. 20 MS. WOODARD: Yes. We will provide that 21 in our more detailed comments. 22 MR. BURNETT: I'll ask our panel members 23 for any clarifying questions. 24 Thank you very much. 25 49 If I can ask Dr. Schraufnagel and 1 Dr. Cohen to come forward. Thank you. 2 DR. SCHRAUFNAGEL: I'm Dr. Dean 3 Schraufnagel. I'm a Professor of Medicine and 4 Pathology at the University of Illinois in 5 Chicago and also on the Board of Directors of the 6 American Lung Association, both nationally and 7 locally. But my comments today would be more in 8 keeping with my role as a chest or a lung 9 specialist and the patients I see. 10 When I greet a patient with lung 11 disease, especially with advanced lung disease, I 12 ask them, how are you doing? And the response, 13 if they're honest, is, almost always, well, I 14 have good days and I have bad days. And when you 15 ask them a little more carefully about what the 16 bad days are, they will often tell you, well, I 17 think it's the weather. I think it might be the 18 humidity, the temperature. And it's not the 19 temperature exactly, but I think it's the change 20 in the temperature. Or it's  they're never 21 quite exactly sure how it is, but they clearly 22 relate it to the environment. 23 Several studies that you're aware of  24 and I just would call your attention to the one 25 50 that's published in today's JAMA  relates this 1 factor to the air pollution and particularly the 2 particles and particularly the PM2.5s. These 3 particles and the levels in the atmosphere, as 4 you know, have been associated with excess 5 hospitalizations, excess deaths compared to the 6 days when they're normal. 7 Some of my patients will say, I  on 8 today's  the weather or the atmosphere  the 9 pollution is so bad that I won't go out today. 10 Now, for those of us who have normal lungs or for 11 me, I think it's just an ordinary, hot day. I 12 really don't understand how they can't breathe. 13 But for them, it's really a matter of life or 14 death. 15 So I'm encouraging you to pass the 16 stricter laws that are promulgated  actually 17 that are advocated by the American Lung 18 Association. Thank you. 19 MR. BURNETT: Thank you for those 20 comments. 21 Based on your experience, are you 22 recommending both a tightening of the annual and 23 of the daily standards for PM2.5. 24 DR. SCHRAUFNAGEL: Yes. I would do the 25 51 12 micrograms per cubic meter for the annual 1 standard, and for the daily standard of 25 2 micrograms. 3 MR. BURNETT: Okay. 4 DR. SCHRAUFNAGEL: Per cubic meter. 5 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 6 DR. SCHRAUFNAGEL: Thank you. 7 MR. BURNETT: Dr. Cohen  I'm sorry. 8 MR. WEINSTOCK: Doctor, I'm just 9 curious. Are your patients aware of the air 10 quality forecasts that are issued through the 11 AirNow web site? Do they take advantage of that? 12 MR. BURNETT: Some of them are and some 13 of them are not. And the ones that are do notice 14 and do take  some of them take care and stay 15 indoors when this... 16 I might say that these are not, you 17 know, like, end of line. These are sort of 18 ordinary people that are working and  you know, 19 but they just have  they have lung problems. 20 But they are aware of those, yes. Some 21 of them are. 22 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you. 23 DR. COHEN: Hi. I'm Dr. Bob Cohen from 24 Stroger Hospital of Cook County that was formerly 25 52 known as Cook County Hospital. I'm the Director 1 of Pulmonary Physiology and Rehabilitation there 2 and take care of many patients with advanced lung 3 disease. 4 And I'm going to speak also, like 5 Dr. Schraufnagel, on behalf of my patients. But 6 I also want to talk  I'm also the medical 7 director of the National Coalition of Black Lung 8 and Respiratory Disease Clinics nationally, which 9 is a group that is a coalition of 10 federally funded clinics diagnosing, treating, 11 and caring for coal miners and other victims of 12 occupational lung disease. So I also want to 13 speak to the separate category that you have for 14 coarse particles in rural and mining areas 15 because our miners and other workers in those 16 areas are going to be affected very strongly by 17 this. 18 I'm not going to speak very much about 19 the science behind this, but I am very convinced 20 by the literature that you've reviewed and in 21 general about the relationship between PM2.5 and 22 PM10 on increasing respiratory disease, cases of 23 asthma, exacerbations of respiratory disease, 24 cardiovascular mortality, and all causing 25 53 mortality. 1 But my patients are a group that is not 2 uncommon with very particularly sensitive  not 3 only because of their advanced lung disease, but 4 also because they are poor. I serve 5 African American, Latino, and poor white 6 populations that live in neighbors that actually 7 are very close to fossil fired fueled power 8 plants, that live next to heavy industry. Many 9 of my patients live near the Dan Ryan or 10 Eisenhower expressways and, therefore, are 11 exposed to diesel exhaust particulate. 12 They don't have garages next to their 13 homes with air conditioned cars to drive to nice 14 cool gyms to work out or to exercise. They have 15 to take the bus. They have to take the trains. 16 And, therefore, they are exposed to ambient 17 conditions and can't protect themselves as well 18 as other populations. They don't live in 19 beautiful tree lined streets unfortunately near 20 gorgeous bodies of water. 21 So my patients actually are often 22 imprisoned in their homes during the winter 23 because of our Chicago winters. But then when 24 spring and summer comes, we have to advise them 25 54 often that they cannot go out and exercise. They 1 can't even do their activities of daily living in 2 terms of shopping because of air quality 3 concerns, which are worse for them because of the 4 differential nature of the microenvironments that 5 they live in. And that's a huge concern. 6 And that's why it's very important for 7 me that the EPA adopt strict, very strict 8 standards, not only to protect the average person 9 that has decent incomes and can take care of 10 themselves, but also to protect the most 11 vulnerable members of our society. 12 And I think it's very important  we 13 all know that our patients exercise and  in 14 order to improve their life. We have a huge 15 problem in this country with obesity and lack of 16 exercise, but it applies particularly to patients 17 with advanced lung disease as well. Exercise 18 improves quality of life and improves  19 decreases hospital stays and numbers of 20 admissions. And they just can't do that because 21 of air quality in many cases. 22 As the medical director for the Black 23 Lung Clinics, I want to mention that we have 24 23,000 users in our federally funded clinics 25 55 nationally, which over 11 states, including 1 Wyoming, Montana, Utah, as well as, you know, 2 West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia and 3 Appalachian minor states that we're also familiar 4 with. 5 We think  we've had a lot of attention 6 recently drawn to people that have died in mining 7 disasters like the Sago miners who recently died 8 from overwhelming carbon monoxide exposures and 9 their very dramatic deaths from rock falls and 10 roof collapses. But we don't think about what 11 these people who often have lung disease from 12 heavy exposure to particulate matter during their 13 occupation careers now may have to live in 14 environments in their rural communities that are 15 going to have  be exempted from EPA standards 16 under the new proposed regulations and, 17 therefore, already suffering from chronic lung 18 disease, may have increased episodes of mortality 19 and chronic bronchitis and the other associated 20 diseases that we talked about because of the 21 protections that are not going to be afforded to 22 them under the proposed regulations. 23 So we, in this clinic, are very, very 24 concerned about what's going to happen to our 25 56 patients in the clinics in these rural mining 1 areas. They all live in environments that have 2 been destroyed in many cases environmentally by 3 the mining industry, and now we're worried about 4 their lungs after that. 5 So in summary I would like to advise the 6 EPA to lower the PM standards to below those 7 proposed. And I agree with Dr. Schraufnagel of a 8 12 microgram per cubic meter for the PM2.5, and a 9 24 hour daily average of 25 or 30 for the coarse 10 particulate in all areas of the country, not just 11 urban areas. 12 Thank you for allowing me to make my 13 comments. 14 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 15 And one question for you so that I 16 understand what you're saying. You know that, of 17 course, EPA does not regulate the occupational 18 exposure? 19 DR. COHEN: Of course. 20 MR. BURNETT: But what I'm hearing you 21 say  and I just want to make sure that I'm 22 clear  is that these individuals are 23 particularly vulnerable to the ambient 24 concentrations, and, therefore, we should pay 25 57 particular attention to their vulnerabilties 1 because of their occupational history? 2 DR. COHEN: Correct. They already have 3 chronic lung disease from their occupation. They 4 have retired. They're disabled. Living in these 5 communities that have mines and, therefore, are 6 going to suffer now the mines getting them later. 7 MR. BURNETT: I appreciate your 8 comments, and I thank you both. 9 Dr. Dorevitch and Ms. Clayborn, please. 10 Is Ms. Clayborn in the room? 11 Move on to Mr. DeSutter. 12 Doctor. 13 DR. DOREVITCH: Thank you. 14 Good morning. My name is Samuel 15 Dorevitch, and I'm an air pollution researcher at 16 the School of Public Health at the University of 17 Illinois at Chicago in the Divisions of 18 Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences 19 and in the Division of Epidemiology in 20 Biostatistics. 21 MR. BURNETT: Excuse me for one second. 22 Do you need a spelling for his name? 23 DR. DOREVITCH: D O R E V I T C H. 24 MR. BURNETT: Thank you very much. 25 58 DR. DOREVITCH: Sure. 1 I would like to express concerns about 2 the EPA's proposed revisions to ambient air 3 monitoring regulations published in the Federal 4 Register on January 17th, 2006. 5 Scientists within the EPA in their staff 6 report, scientists outside of the EPA on the 7 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in their 8 June 6, 2005, letter, and a hundred independent 9 air pollution public health experts in a 10 December 5, 2005, letter have provided 11 Administrator Johnson with a range or 12 recommendations regarding lowering the PM2.5 13 standard to better protect the health of the 14 public. 15 Unfortunately, the proposed revisions to 16 the standard fall far short  are short of the 17 thinking of experts in the field. The EPA's 18 proposed changes fail to meet its obligation 19 under the Clean Air Act to protect the public 20 health with an adequate margin of safety. 21 As interpreted by the courts, the Clean 22 Air Act requires that air quality standards be 23 set solely with public health and welfare in mind 24 and without consideration of economic factors. 25 59 Although the EPA was not convinced by 1 the recommendations of scientists within and 2 outside of the agency, I would like to add to the 3 body of evidence being evaluated by the agency 4 the results of three research studies that were 5 not available for EPA staff at the time they 6 produced the PM criteria document. 7 The first is by Dr. James Gauderman and 8 colleagues published in the New England Journal 9 of Medicine in September 2004. Dr. Gauderman 10 studied children in 12 cities and towns in 11 California. Those who lived in communities with 12 higher PM2.5 concentrations had less lung 13 development during their teenage years than 14 children living in cities with lower PM2.5, even 15 though the annual average PM2.5 concentrations in 16 a majority of the communities studied were below 17 15 micrograms per meter cubed. And in five of 18 the 12 communities, the average was below 10 19 micrograms per meter cubed. Not only was lung 20 growth diminished in relation to PM2.5, but there 21 was no suggestion of a threshold effect at 15 22 micrograms per meter cubed. 23 In the EPA's 2004 PM criteria document, 24 children with chronic respiratory disease, such 25 60 as asthma, were recognized as a group with 1 increased susceptibilty to the adverse health 2 consequence of particulate matter. Distinct from 3 susceptibility, the criteria document also 4 recognizes the concept of vulnerability: That 5 reduced access to health care or living close to 6 roadways with heavy traffic put groups at risk 7 for the negative health consequences of PM. 8 Here in Chicago, rates of asthma, 9 particularly among African American children are 10 quite high, exceeding 25 percent in several 11 studies. Many of the cities' children with 12 severe asthma live below the poverty line and 13 adjacent to heavy traffic on Interstate 90 94 on 14 the south side and Interstate 290 on the west 15 side. Thus, they are both susceptible as 16 asthmatic children and vulnerable to the limited 17 access to health care and proximity to heavy 18 traffic. As these children develop, they need 19 every bit of lung growth they can get as they go 20 through their teenage years. 21 The finding of Dr. Gauderman and 22 colleagues suggest that in order to maximize lung 23 growth into these susceptible and vulnerable 24 children, the PM2.5 annual standard should be 25 61 revised to a level substantially lower than 15 1 micrograms per meter cubed. 2 The second study I would like to 3 highlight is by Francesca Dominici and colleagues 4 published to today's issue of the Journal of the 5 American Medical Association. That research 6 focused on hospitalizations among the elderly in 7 204 counties across the U. S. In those counties, 8 the average annual PM2.5 concentration was 13.4 9 micrograms per meter cubed, lower than the 10 current annual standard of 15. Even at this 11 level of air pollution, day to day fluctuations 12 in PM2.5 were associated with hospitalization 13 among the elderly for cardiac, cerebrovascular 14 and respiratory disease. 15 Again, a group recognized by the 16 criteria document as being susceptible to the 17 harmful effects of PM, this time the elderly was 18 found to have life threatening health events when 19 the annual average PM2.5 concentration was 20 typically below the current standard of 15 21 micrograms per meter cubed. 22 The third study I'd like to bring to the 23 attention of the agency is that by Dr. Francine 24 Laden and colleagues to be published in the 25 62 March 15, 2006, issue of the American Journal of 1 Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, and 2 currently available electronically. 3 Dr. Laden and colleagues confirm that in 4 six cities, PM2.5 concentrations were associated 5 with higher death rates, even during a nine year 6 period in which four of the six cities had annual 7 average PM2.5 concentrations well below 15 8 micrograms per meter cubed. Significantly, they 9 also demonstrated that a 10.5 micrograms per 10 meter cubed reduction in PM2.5 concentrations was 11 associated with a 73 percent decrease in the risk 12 of death. 13 Taken together these three studies  14 MR. BURNETT: I'm going to have to ask 15 you to wrap up. 16 DR. DOREVITCH: Okay. 17 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 18 DR. DOREVITCH: Taken together, these 19 three studies suggest that with long term average 20 concentrations at or below 15 micrograms per 21 meter cubed, PM2.5 is harmful to children, the 22 elderly, and that the risk of dying can be 23 reduced substantially if PM2.5 concentrations 24 were lower. Lowering the acceptable level of 25 63 PM2.5 to 12 micrograms per meter cubed and the 1 annual standard  for the annual standard and to 2 25 micrograms per meter cubed for the 24 hour 3 standard would be good for both public health and 4 for the credibility of the EPA's commitment to 5 protecting it. 6 Thank you for the opportunity. 7 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 8 MS. SASSER: I have one follow up 9 question. Thank you for the additional 10 information on the studies. 11 Did you mention the time period for the 12 JAMA study, the length of time that the study was 13 from? 14 DR. DOREVITCH: I didn't mention it, but 15 I have the studies in front of me. And I can 16 tell you that now, or I can enter them into the 17 record. However you would like me to proceed. 18 MS. SASSER: If there's a short answer. 19 Is it a multiyear study  20 DR. DOREVITCH: Yes. 1999 to 2002. 21 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 22 DR. DOREVITCH: Sure. 23 MR. BURNETT: And I also have a 24 question. 25 64 On these studies, you have  I think 1 that you cited the annual averages. I'm 2 wondering if you  if the studies report the 3 daily values and what sort of protection that 4 these populations will be afforded by the 5 tightening  proposed tightening of the 24 hour 6 PM2.5 standard. 7 DR. DOREVITCH: Well, the studies 8 themselves don't recommend specific numbers in 9 terms of what the daily 24 hour average standard 10 should be. They do provide evidence that 11 lowering  especially the Laden study produced 12 evidence that lowering PM2.5 concentrations 13 produces decreases in the mortality rate, but the 14 studies did not specifically name a number for 15 what the 24 hour annual average standard should 16 be. 17 MR. BURNETT: Okay. Thank you. 18 MR. DeSUTTER: Hello. My name is Randy 19 DeSutter. I'm vice president of the American 20 Soybean Association. I'm from Woodhull, 21 Illinois, which is about 180 miles west of here 22 and 30 miles south of the Quad Cities. 23 My first part of the testimony I want to 24 tell you a little bit of what it's like to be a 25 65 farmer and grow soybeans, and then the second 1 part will be a little more technical. 2 I farm 6,500 acres with my family, about 3 half in corn and half in soybeans. So that's 4 about 3,250 acres each. My planting, I do it all 5 no till, which means there's no tillage. I plant 6 straight into last year's residue. So really 7 only two times a year do I have a potential to 8 create dust: That being at planting and 9 harvesting. 10 My planter's 40 feet wide, and I can do 11 about 20 acres an hour. So that means I do an 12 acre about every four minutes. Now, an acre's 13 the size of a football field in case you're not 14 sure how big an acre is. 15 Harvesting, that's the other time I 16 create dust. I have a 35 foot head on my 17 combine, and I can do about 15 acres an hour. So 18 that's one every four minutes. 19 Now, if you add this up, that's about 20 seven minutes a year that I'm on that acre maybe 21 creating dust. So it's very minimal. 22 Another thing, when you're out on the 23 farm, you can only work when it's dry. You can't 24 go out there on a rainy day and plant because 25 66 your planter will just chock up with mud, and 1 you'll compact the soil. So we have no choice 2 but to be out there when it's dry. 3 As far as harvesting, it's the same way. 4 You can't go out into a muddy field. In fact, 5 harvesting soybeans are particularly finicky. 6 You can't really start in the morning until the 7 dew goes off. Because if it's wet, they're 8 tough, they won't go through the combine, you'll 9 plug your combine. And the same thing happens at 10 night. Once it gets dark and the dew comes on, 11 you gotta shut down because you can't go any 12 other way. 13 I'd be willing to personally extend an 14 invitation to all four of you to come and visit 15 my farm if you'd like to see what it's like out 16 there. And you can wear your suits. We have 17 climate controlled cabs. I've had several people 18 ride in my combine. I take school children in my 19 combine. We have a farm by the high school. And 20 you wouldn't get dirty. You might if I maybe 21 grease the combine or something, but not just 22 riding. 23 I think if you  and if you are out 24 there in the field, you'll see that the dust does 25 67 quickly dissipate. It comes out behind the 1 machine, and then it just drops down pretty 2 rapidly. 3 I just question the need to regulate 4 agriculture like you do urban areas when we're 5 there so little time and there's so low 6 population density out there. I mean, there's  7 a lot of places there's not houses for miles. 8 Now, moving on to some of the more 9 technical stuff. The Clean Air Act requires U. S. 10 EPA to set standards to limit ambient air levels 11 of designated air pollutants including 12 particulate matter. Fugitive dust, which these 13 measures are designed to control, is comprised of 14 coarse particulate matter. 15 U. S. agriculture supports the use of 16 best available control measures by its members 17 and the agriculture industry to control this 18 particulate matter. 19 Numerous experts have raised concerns 20 about the validity, science, and rationale for a 21 coarse PM standard at this time. The scientific 22 evidence does not support the adoption of a 23 coarse PM standard at the concentration levels of 24 the existing standard or those proposed. Such a 25 68 regulation would impose huge costs on industries 1 that emit coarse PM and provide little or no 2 public health benefit. Few if any agriculture 3 operations could consistently comply with the 4 current or proposed standards. 5 A coarse PM standard study should not be 6 promulgated unless or until research, based on 7 sound science, justifies a health based standard. 8 Based on current knowledge, a coarse PM standard 9 is not warranted at this time. 10 The attempt to separate rural 11 particulate from urban particulate and exclude 12 rural dust from a proposed coarse PM standard is 13 technically difficult to institute and may be on 14 a very weak legal ground within the context of 15 the Clean Air Act. 16 Significant, long term, peer reviewed 17 research should be funded to determine the health 18 impacts of coarse PM for both urban and rural 19 particulate. 20 EPA and the Clean Air Science Advisory 21 Committee agree that coarse PM health science is 22 weak, and additional research is necessary. 23 Monitoring the proposal. Initially the 24 proposed revisions to the ambient air monitoring 25 69 sections appear reasonable. It is imperative 1 that the five part test design monitoring rules 2 insure effective exclusion of excluded emission 3 for agricultural sources, and other sources of 4 crustal material is to be appropriately 5 implemented. 6 MR. BURNETT: Mr. DeSutter, I apologize. 7 I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. 8 MR. DeSUTTER: That's good enough. 9 MR. BURNETT: Okay. I would be 10 interested in your comments on the fine PM 11 standards if you have any. And if you don't, I 12 have a related question on the coarse. 13 MR. DeSUTTER: Well, I think you get a 14 little bit of fine. Most of the stuff is coarse. 15 Very minimal is fine. And I think it all falls 16 out with the coarse when you're  you know, when 17 you're combining and planting, that sort of 18 thing. 19 MR. BURNETT: Okay. On the coarse, our 20 proposal, as you know and as you articulated, 21 does not cover agricultural sources. In fact, 22 there's an explicit exclusion of such sources. 23 I'm wondering if you believe that and will offer 24 written comments for your statement that at this 25 70 point we should not have any coarse standard even 1 in covering the industrial sources and 2 traffic related sources? 3 MR. DeSUTTER: I'm going to turn in 4 these comments written here, and also I believe 5 the National Cattleman's Association is kind of a 6 lead ag association that's done a lot of research 7 on that, and they're gonna have a lot more 8 in depth studies on that sort of thing to submit. 9 MR. BURNETT: Okay. 10 MS. SASSER: So is the primary concern 11 here that it would be difficult to separate out 12 agricultural sources that may be near urban 13 areas? I'm not sure that I understood completely 14 what the concern is with regard to the exclusion 15 of all sources versus just agricultural sources. 16 MR. DeSUTTER: Well, we're concerned 17 that agriculture will get locked in with 18 everybody else. And, you know, for a few minutes 19 a year, you know, you I can't combine my beans 20 unless it's dry. You know, for just a few 21 minutes a year, we just don't feel that that's 22 justifiable. 23 And, you know, I told you I farmed 24 around the school. You know, the kids come out 25 71 and ride in the combine. It's  you know, if 1 you stand right behind it, well, yeah you're 2 gonna get a lot of dust. But kids are smarter 3 than that, and people are smarter than that. The 4 dust quickly dissipates there. They're able to 5 have, you know, gym classes when we're out there 6 planting and harvesting, so it's not a big deal. 7 I don't know if I answered what you 8 wanted. 9 MS. SASSER: I was just trying to get a 10 better understanding of given, as we discussed, 11 the standard is written to exclude the 12 agricultural sources and actually said we will 13 not regulate those sources in meeting the 14 standard, I'm wondering what the concern is from 15 the standpoint of agricultural source as the EPA 16 has currently written. 17 Is it that it will be too difficult to 18 distinguish what contributions come from 19 agricultural sources versus  20 MR. DeSUTTER: Well, we just get 21 concerned that we'll get thrown in with everybody 22 else, and we want to make sure that agriculture 23 isn't thrown in with all industries that are 24 smokestacks, that are going 24 hours a day, 365 25 72 days a year. You know, for our seven minutes 1 that we're out there planting and harvesting, we 2 just don't feel that would be justified to go 3 after agriculture. 4 MR. WEINSTOCK: I guess, sir, I would 5 just clarify that the proposed coarse particle 6 max at a 98 percentile daily standard wouldn't 7 necessarily be impacted by a few minutes a year. 8 Several days would have to go back that could be 9 high and still be within the proposed standard. 10 On a daily sampling schedule, that would be like 11 a sixth or seventh average in the year. So I 12 would expect a few minutes of activities for 13 several days really wouldn't affect the standard 14 at all. 15 MR. DeSUTTER: That's good to hear. 16 Appreciate it. 17 MR. BURNETT: Thank you both. 18 Next, Ms. Clayborn and Mr. Suchecki. 19 MS. CLAYBORN: Hi, my name is Becki 20 Clayborn, C L A Y B O R N. Thank you for this 21 opportunity to speak. 22 Again, my name is Becki Clayborn. I'm a 23 regional representative for the Sierra Club, and 24 I work on clean air, clean energy issues in 25 73 Illinois and in the Midwest. Sierra Club has 1 been working for over 100 years to protect our 2 environment whether we're protecting national 3 parks from development or protecting people from 4 pollution. 5 The EPA's new proposal to limit 6 pollution has disappointed us. Since last 7 updated  since the EPA last updated its 8 standard in 1997, more than 2,000 scientific 9 studies have shown that exposure to even smaller 10 amounts of soot cause serious health damage. 11 Scientist urged EPA to create a standard in 12 keeping with the deluge of scientific findings 13 detailing the damaging health impacts of soot 14 pollution on the respiratory and circulatory 15 systems and the increased risks for illness and 16 death. EPA ignored the scientific advisors and 17 carved out weak standards riddled with loopholes. 18 The Sierra Club supports soot standards 19 that protect sensitive and vulnerable people like 20 infants, children, those with asthma or cardiac 21 conditions, and the elderly. 22 The Sierra Club does not support the 23 standards proposed by EPA because they are too 24 weak to protect all people, they don't provide 25 74 equal protection to urban and rural communities, 1 and they are riddled with loopholes. 2 We urge the adoption of a soot level 3 consistent with the most recent, comprehensive, 4 and reliable scientific evidence and is 5 protective of children, elderly, and other 6 sensitive people. The Club supports the most 7 protective option evaluated by the EPA, which is 8 the 12 micrograms per cubic meter of annual 9 standard and the 25 micrograms daily standard for 10 fine particulate matter. 11 We oppose the weak standard currently 12 proposed by the EPA. 13 Loopholes woven into EPA's proposed rule 14 undermine the annual particulate soot standard. 15 Under the 98th percentile portion of the rule, 16 data for a certain number of high pollution days 17 is allowed to be excluded from the calculation of 18 the annual average. In practice, this means that 19 air quality is permitted to exceed health based 20 standards for two weeks every year. 21 Sierra Club's position is that 22 statistical tricks should not be employed to undo 23 the findings of thousands of scientific studies 24 demonstrating that every day people breathe 25 75 polluted air  that every day people breathe 1 polluted air, injury may occur. The EPA should 2 close this loophole and require that every day is 3 a good air day. 4 In addition, the rule does not protect 5 all parts of the nation or all communities 6 equally. EPA has proposed that the National 7 Ambient Air Quality Standards should apply only 8 to those areas or populations of 100,000 or 9 larger. The national standard would then only be 10 an urban standard, and rural areas, towns, and 11 small urban populations would be left 12 unprotected. 13 Its point is that there is supposedly 14 benign nature of the rural particulate matter, 15 but in reality, this means we're exempting 16 mining, agriculture, and a lot of heavy industry 17 from the Clean Air Act and encouraging sloppy 18 operations in our small towns and rural districts 19 and denying equality to small town America. 20 Agricultural sources of coarse 21 particulate pollution are of a great concern. 22 Farm implements kick up soil, including coarse 23 particulates, and we should be  we should 24 insure that the general public, farmers, farm 25 76 workers and farm families are protected from 1 diesel exhaust, particulates of manure, bacterial 2 toxins, and pesticide residue which may be 3 associated with these particulates. 4 In addition to farming in rural areas, 5 the harsh reality is that the rural areas also 6 host some of the heaviest industrial sources of 7 coarse particulate matter in the nation, 8 including mines, coal fired utilities, cement 9 plants, and steel companies, which release 10 thousands of tons of particulate pollution 11 annually. 12 These rural communities should benefit 13 from the scientific advances of the last decade, 14 but they are being left behind, literally, in the 15 dust. 16 And finally, the Sierra Club urges the 17 adoption of the 24 hour standard for coarse 18 particulate matter set well below that which has 19 been scientifically demonstrated to harm human 20 health. 21 We understand the EPA is moving away 22 from the existing PM10 standards, which is all 23 particulate matter that is 10 microns or less to 24 a more definitive standard for coarse 25 77 particulates of PM2.5 to 10. This transition 1 should retain an annual standard for coarse PM to 2 insure protection of the public health. 3 The Sierra Club urges the adoption of an 4 annual standard comparable to California's PM10 5 standards of 20 micrograms. 6 We hope that our comments help and thank 7 you for your time. 8 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 9 I have one clarifying remark. For the 10 annual  the proposed daily standard is at 98 11 percentile form. The annual standard is an 12 annual mean actually averaged over three years. 13 And I thought that I heard a comment about the 14 exclusion of certain days for the calculation of 15 the annual standard, and I just wanted to clarify 16 that that's not the case. 17 The proposed daily standard, and, for 18 that matter, the current daily standard at 65 19 micrograms per cubic meter, is proposed to be at 20 98 percentile form, which is such that you 21 compare the 98 percentile day with the level of 22 the standard for determining an exceedance of the 23 NAAQS. 24 Just a clarifying remark. Okay. Thank 25 78 you. 1 MR. SUCHECKI: Good morning. I'm Joe 2 Suchecki  that's S U C H E C K I  Director of 3 Public Affairs for the Engine Manufacturers 4 Association. EMA is the international trade 5 association representing the major manufacturers 6 of internal combustion engines, and our 29 member 7 companies manufacture diesel, gasoline, and 8 alternative fueled engines that power much of 9 country's transportation and distributed 10 electricity generation infrastructure. 11 EMA has closely followed PM research and 12 has previously submitted comments and testimony 13 on the science of the Criteria Document, Staff 14 Paper, and Risk Assessment. Our interest in PM 15 is based on frequently cited statements that 16 heavy duty diesel engines are the major source of 17 PM in the nation and are also unregulated. 18 Neither of those statements is true. 19 First, if you look at EPA's National 20 Emission Trend Report for 2002, that report 21 actually shows that PM2.5 emissions from all 22 diesel sources account for only 2.5 percent of 23 the total PM inventory and that nationwide diesel 24 emissions have declined by 65 percent between 25 79 1990 and 2002. 1 And secondly, diesel engine 2 manufacturers are currently implementing 3 solutions that will reduce PM emissions another 4 90 percent from today's low levels to meet the 5 new stringent EPA standards for on highway and 6 nonroad engines. These near zero emissions 7 engines will start entering the market later this 8 year and will further reduce the ambient PM 9 levels across the nation regardless of any new 10 action on the PM NAAQS. 11 Regarding the proposed standards, EMA 12 has the following comments: 13 First, today's science clearly does not 14 support lowering the current annual PM standard 15 of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. Despite the 16 hundreds of millions of dollars that have been 17 spent on PM research since the 1997 standards 18 were established, there's really no new 19 scientific evidence to indicate that lowering the 20 annual standard is needed to protect public 21 health. 22 New information on long term exposure to 23 PM2.5 is limited to several epidemiology studies 24 that report a small association between PM2.5 and 25 80 health effects at ambient PM levels above the 1 current standard, but even these results are 2 confounded and complicated by the interaction of 3 other pollutants, effects of weather and 4 temperature, socioeconomic factors, and even the 5 various statistical models that are used for the 6 analysis. Importantly, the health effects 7 associated with annual PM2.5 levels decrease or 8 disappear when researchers use multiple pollutant 9 studies, thus providing evidence that reported 10 associations may not actually be related 11 specifically to PM2.5 but simply to the ambient 12 mixture off all pollutants. 13 There is no demonstration in the 14 Criteria Document that average annual 15 concentration of PM in any city is an accurate 16 predictor of health impacts or that lowering or 17 raising the annual average level of PM2.5 by two, 18 three or even more micrograms would result in any 19 significant change to human health. So absent 20 any significant new scientific result regarding 21 long term effects of PM2.5, maintaining the 22 current annual standard is the correct decision. 23 Secondly, EMA supports EPA's decision to 24 use total mass as the indicator for PM2.5 as 25 81 opposed to selecting a specific PM component. 1 Despite significant research efforts, we are no 2 closer today to identifying the constituents of 3 ambient PM that may be associated with health 4 effects. Both the National Research Council and 5 the Health Effects Institute have concluded that 6 there has been little progress on this question 7 since the last PM review. 8 Until the time that this or any other 9 research identifies a clear causal association 10 between a health outcome and any PM component, 11 there's really no justification to regulate 12 specific PM2.5 sources or components. EPA 13 recognizes this fact and correctly proposes to 14 use undifferentiate PM mass as the indicator. 15 Third, and largely based on our lack of 16 knowledge on the health effects of PM components, 17 EMA opposes EPA's proposed urban PM10 2.5 coarse 18 particle standard. The reason is that there's 19 really no justification for establishing a coarse 20 standard targeted at urban areas or at sources. 21 The epidemiology studies of coarse 22 particles report health effects from both urban 23 and rural locations. Speculation that ambient 24 coarse particles are more harmful in certain 25 82 areas has no basis in the scientific record. 1 Where are the data to show that coarse 2 PM a metropolitan area or an area with a certain 3 population size is more harmful than a coarse 4 particle collected outside that boundary? To 5 validate EPA's proposed coarse PM standard, one 6 is forced to conclude that a coarse particle 7 emitted from a facility in one part of the 8 country is harmful, but a coarse particle emitted 9 from an identical facility in another part of the 10 country is not harmful. 11 So there is really no scientific or 12 legal rationale to justify applying a NAAQS for 13 coarse PM to certain parts of the country. We 14 believe that approach is totally arbitrary, and 15 EPA should alter its coarse particle regulation. 16 And I think just to say that finally as 17 you look in your  at your final decision, we 18 really believe and strongly recommend that you 19 really need to look at the science here and make 20 the logical and appropriate decisions as you 21 consider these final standards. 22 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 23 today. 24 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. I have a 25 83 clarifying question. 1 Your opposition to the proposed coarse 2 standard, is your recommendation  would you 3 mind restating what your recommendation is. 4 MR. SUCHECKI: Well, we don't think that 5 there's any evidence to really state that coarse 6 particles in urban areas or, as the proposal 7 states, coarse particles from traffic or certain 8 industrial sources are really, you know, any more 9 or less toxic or harmful than coarse particles 10 from other areas. And I think, you know, that  11 there's been a lot of discussion this morning 12 about taking the recommendations of CASAC. And 13 the idea of this differential coarse particle 14 standard was actually hatched at a CASAC meeting, 15 and I think they're the ones who recommended that 16 EPA take this approach. And we disagreed with 17 it, and I know a lot of the environmental and 18 lung associations disagreed with it. 19 In terms of what we would recommend, I 20 think EPA just needs to go back and take a look 21 to see if there's enough information in the 22 science to come up with some standard for coarse 23 particles. We don't have a specific 24 recommendation on that. Obviously, we believe it 25 84 should be uniform across the nation, and you 1 should take a look and see if there's enough 2 information to develop one at this point in time. 3 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 4 MR. WEINSTOCK: Does EMA have a position 5 on the proposed tightening of the fine particle 6 daily standard? If I recall, your comments 7 addressed long term effects and the annual 8 average specifically. I don't recall hearing any 9 recommendations for the daily standard. 10 MR. SUCHECKI: Right. We  obviously, 11 you know, the basis of a lot of our comment is 12 that certainly at the bulk of the scientific work 13 that has been done has been on examining the 14 daily standards and the short term standards of 15 health effects. And that's where a lot of new 16 research has come in, and we have a lot more 17 information. 18 And it appears that, you know, there is 19 justification there that, you know, there is a 20 connection between short term and standard  21 short term health effects and PM that, you know, 22 we did not have the information for before. We 23 really don't have a specific relation on that. 24 The problem is that the data is so I think 25 85 uncertain at this point in time as to what that 1 standard would be. So we really don't have a 2 recommendation on the specific 24 hour standard. 3 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you. 4 MR. BURNETT: Thank you both for your 5 comments. 6 I would like to request that 7 Dr. McColley and Ms. Owen please come up to the 8 table. 9 DR. McCOLLEY: My name is Dr. Susanna 10 McColley, M c C O L L E Y. I'm here today 11 speaking as a private citizen, but I do feel that 12 I have some credentials that give me some 13 expertise in this. I'm a long term resident of 14 the City of Chicago. I'm a granddaughter and a 15 great niece and will tell you why that's 16 important in a minute. 17 I'm a division head of pulmonary 18 medicine at Children's Memorial Hospital here in 19 Chicago. I am a medical school faculty member at 20 Northwestern University Feinberg School of 21 Medicine. And I'm a taxpayer. I'm also a 22 long standing member of the American Thoracic 23 Society, and I have served second on its Board of 24 Director and currently chair it's strategic 25 86 planning process. I'm a former member of the 1 American Academy of Pediatrics, Pulmonary section 2 Executive Committee, and I'm a former member of 3 the Medical Advisory Council for the Cystic 4 Fibrosis Foundation. 5 I would like to start with a personal 6 story that has to do with the health of my 7 grandfather and my great aunt. They both 8 suffered from ischemic heart disease and they 9 developed it relatively early in life in their 10 sixties. My aunt also suffered from chronic 11 obstructive pulmonary disease. We tend to think 12 of these disorders as being lifestyle disorders, 13 things that you can avoid by having a healthy 14 lifestyle. In fact, neither of them smoked 15 cigarettes, neither were ever overweight, neither 16 ever had a measurably elevated serum cholesterol 17 level. 18 What they shared was that they were 19 long term residents of Los Angeles, and they 20 lived in Los Angeles in the 1950s and 1960s when 21 air pollution and particulate air pollution were 22 the highest that they have been in our nation's 23 history. And in fact to the extent that 24 particulate matter air pollution has decreased in 25 87 some communities, I do give you my appreciation. 1 As a resident of the City of Chicago and 2 the mother of two young boys, I worry about the 3 health consequences of air pollution every day. 4 I know that particulate matter, particularly fine 5 particulate matter in air pollution, causes 6 inflammation in the heart and in the lungs, and 7 this occurs, not only in people with chronic 8 illness, but in healthy people. 9 In experiments, healthy people exposed 10 to diesel exhaust develop inflammation of the 11 airways that's very similar to people who have 12 chronic asthma. Exposure to high levels of 13 particulate matter have been shown to impair lung 14 development in children, and lung development 15 stops at about the age of eight. And once you 16 lose that lung development, you cannot get it 17 back. There's more and more evidence now that 18 early insults to the developing lung are carried 19 through life and are a cause of lung disease in 20 adults. 21 I want my family to be physically 22 active. We like to go out. We ride our bikes on 23 the lakefront path and we run, but I worry about 24 the effect of breathing that air as we're out and 25 88 about. I myself developed exercise induced 1 asthma a couple of years ago when training for 2 the Chicago Triathlon. 3 I am concerned about my own health and 4 that of my family. But we're lucky. We don't 5 have any serious chronic illnesses. As a 6 pediatric pulmonologist, I worry a lot more about 7 the children who I treat every day at Children's 8 Memorial Hospital. These are children with 9 severe illnesses like cystic fibrosis and asthma. 10 Very simply put, children who have these diseases 11 are more likely to be hospitalized and have worse 12 lung function if they live in areas with high 13 levels of air pollution. And the science on this 14 is strong. 15 Chicago is No. 14 in the country in 16 particular matter air pollution. We're No. 1 in 17 asthma mortality. I think that these are 18 related, and we know that children here die of 19 asthma. Just this week, I lost a six year old 20 for severe  to severe cystic fibrosis lung 21 disease. 22 We know that there is a linear 23 correlation between particulate air pollution 24 levels and death rates and that there are 25 89 estimated to be about half a million deaths per 1 year around the world due to air pollution and 2 close to 5,000 in this country. This is 3 compelling, and I just want to remind you that 4 some of these deaths are going to be the deaths 5 of children. 6 As a faculty member of Northwestern 7 University Feinberg School of Medicine and as an 8 active member of the professional societies that 9 I mentioned, I believe that the application of 10 scientific methodology is our best hope to 11 improve the health of individuals and the greater 12 public. Epidemiology and clinical studies are 13 very difficult science, and it takes a long story 14 to be sure of something. But we have over 2,000 15 published articles since 1996 stressing the 16 correlation between air pollution and health 17 problems. This is strong scientific evidence, 18 and the Environmental Protection Agency staff and 19 the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have 20 reviewed this evidence and have recommended a 21 stricter standard for air pollution, and 22 particularly for fine particulate matter. 23 The American Thoracic Society and the 24 American Academy of Pediatrics, along with other 25 90 professional organizations, also recommend a 1 stricter standard: Specifically, 21 microns per 2 cubic meter for the average annual standard, and 3 25 for the 24 hour standard, and compliance 4 determined at the 99th percentile. I fully 5 support these scientifically based standards. 6 As a taxpayer, I just also want to 7 stress  8 MR. BURNETT: I'm going to have to ask 9 you to wrap up, Ms. McColley. 10 DR. McCOLLEY: All right. 11 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 12 DR. McCOLLEY: I was just at the end. 13 We need a reasonable margin of safety. 14 It's in the law. Thank you. 15 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. And I'd like 16 to offer my condolences to you and the family of 17 your patient. I am sorry to hear that. 18 DR. McCOLLEY: Thank you. 19 MR. BURNETT: I have a question about  20 you mentioned experiments with respect to diesel 21 exhaust and exposure to healthy individuals. 22 Wondering if you are offering in your written 23 comments the specifics of which studies  I 24 assume these are the CAP studies, but which 25 91 studies in particular are you referring to there? 1 DR. McCOLLEY: These studies have been 2 referenced in the American Thoracic Society 3 position and in a recent editorial. I don't have 4 all those  I didn't want to bring a huge pile 5 of paper with me, but I do have them, and I can 6 provide them, and I believe that they have been 7 provided by these other organizations. 8 MR. BURNETT: Okay. I just want to make 9 sure the studies are in the record. We are 10 for  everybody should know that we will be 11 doing what we refer to as a provisional 12 assessment of new science that has come in and 13 are particularly interested in any new studies 14 that may be submitted during the public comment 15 period. 16 Thank you for your comments. 17 DR. McCOLLEY: Thank you. 18 MS. OWEN: Good morning. My name is 19 Verena Owen, and I don't blame you for not trying 20 to pronounce that. 21 I've sat on your side of the table a 22 couple of times at EPA hearings, so I appreciate 23 the challenges of the job and thank you for 24 providing us an opportunity to address you. 25 92 I had the privilege to work with EPA 1 over the last two years on a major project, and I 2 want to make sure that my remarks today are not 3 aimed at them. There are really good folks 4 working for the agency. My remarks are aimed at 5 those who want to play politics with public 6 health. 7 Let me start with a personal story. You 8 may hear that I wasn't born in this country. I 9 immigrated about 20 years ago, and I met my best 10 friend in an aerobics class. She had just had 11 her first child, and I just had my second, and 12 she was a wonderful person. We both ended up 13 having four boys, and you can just imagine what 14 our get togethers were like. 15 She was diagnosed with lung cancer after 16 her last child was born. She never smoked a day 17 in her life. And she was 35. She died before 18 her youngest, Matthew, went to kindergarten, and 19 she never saw Bill graduate from high school. 20 When I hear about premature deaths and 21 what soot causes, this is what I see. And I want 22 to put a face on it for you too. 23 Therefore, I am outraged. I am truly 24 outraged that EPA would even contemplate rules 25 93 that would not be protective of public health and 1 ignore scientific evidence. You know what the 2 health threats are. Soot is a lethal form of 3 pollution, and don't think that we don't know 4 that either. 5 I am the Clean Air Campaign Chair for 6 the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club. The 7 Illinois Chapter has 28,000 members in Illinois. 8 Thousands of our members live in areas that do 9 not meet the National Ambient Air Quality 10 Standards. 11 We believe that every day and every 12 where should be a clean air day. Seems pretty 13 straightforward goal for a clean air campaign, 14 and we have been over the last two, three years 15 working very diligently towards that goal. We 16 have challenged permits for major sources of 17 pollution that did not have an adequate best 18 available retrofit technology determination for 19 particulate matter. We have fought to have 20 condensables be considered a part of a BART 21 analysis, and we have petitioned the 22 administrator reject the permits that do not 23 include parametric monitoring ranges for PM 24 compliance for the 23 major coal fired power 25 94 plants in the state. 1 Speaking of the administrator, in a 2 phone interview that the transcripts were 3 available on EPA's web site, Mr. Johnson said of 4 the new rules, " This is a proposal. We are 5 beginning a public process. There are divergent 6 views, and I will base my ultimate decision on 7 best available science." 8 Okay. A bit disappointing that the 9 first round of rules did not live up to the 10 based on science edict he has, but it's not too 11 late to fix it. So let him get right the second 12 time around, please. 13 No loopholes. You're still working on 14 the loopholes from the 1970s, folks, okay. 15 Don't discriminate against people in 16 rural areas and small towns. Fund more 17 monitoring. 18 And lastly, adopt fine and coarse 19 particulate matter standards that are based on 20 scientific evidence that are protective of all 21 public health, including children, the elderly, 22 and the sensitive populations. And I thank you 23 for your time. 24 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. And I want to 25 95 similarly express my condolences for your friend 1 and for that story. It is one of the major 2 reasons why we're working aggressively on 3 particulate matter and why we have proposed a 4 tightening. I understand your comments and your 5 recommendations for a tighter standard still, and 6 I appreciate your remarks. 7 Anyone have questions? 8 Thank you both. 9 MR. BURNETT: Mr. Gard and Ms. Casten, 10 please. 11 MR. GARD: Good morning. David Gard, 12 G A R D. 13 Thank you very much for this opportunity 14 to express our views. I represent a group called 15 the Michigan Environmental Council, and we are a 16 group of 72 member organizations around the State 17 of Michigan. We have groups such as the American 18 Lung Association of Michigan, and 10,000 member 19 Michigan Nurses' Association, and many others. 20 Total individuals in our coalition number about 21 200,000, so I'm really here on their behalf 22 today. And I will also say that my remarks here 23 will be supplemented by filed comments that I'll 24 submit electrically later. 25 96 Basically the people in our coalition 1 are extremely troubled by the proposal as has 2 been laid out in December. Like many other 3 people today across the country, I am devoting 4 this entire day to come here and offer five 5 minutes of comment because this is such an 6 important issue. And we really just want to, you 7 know, make it clear  get the clear message 8 across to the agency that people around this 9 region are extremely dissatisfied with the 10 proposal. 11 Last September, the Detroit Free Press 12 highlighted at least the cases of asthma in 13 Michigan, pointing out that nearly nine percent 14 of the people in Michigan have asthma, over 15 800,000 people, many of those in Southeast 16 Michigan Detroit area. And Michigan ranks fourth 17 in the country, as you probably know, but this is 18 beyond just asthma, as bad as those numbers are. 19 This is about a number of other cardiorespiratory 20 diseases, cancer, many negative health impacts. 21 So that's why I'm here today. 22 And this is a year around problem. Just 23 before the winter holidays, Michigan had a string 24 of days that were forecasted as moderate or 25 97 unhealthy for sensitive populations regarding the 1 existing PM2.5 standards. 2 By law, air quality standards must 3 reflect the latest health science. And it's 4 worth emphasizing that's not a strong suggestion; 5 that's a requirement. They must reflect the 6 latest science. And that's highlighted by the 7 fact that it needs to reflect an adequate margin 8 of safety for the sensitive population: Infants, 9 children, people with asthma or cardiac 10 conditions, and the elderly. 11 As has been said before today, thousands 12 of peer reviewed studies, since the last time the 13 agency examined the standards, have been done. 14 They all point in the same direction. But for 15 the first time, the agency has rejected these 16 recommendations of its own scientific advisors. 17 And I think that's what really is troubling a lot 18 of people who may not have the time or the 19 expertise to understand the actual numbers. They 20 just know that the best scientists have provided 21 this information, and it has not been received as 22 they intended. 23 So for the first time, again 24 unprecedented, this committee has formally stated 25 98 their discontent for the agency. 1 Just to move along in terms of what the 2 Michigan Environmental Council would like to see 3 changed in the proposals. We support the 4 American Academy of Pediatrics and their 5 recommendations that the standards be lowered to 6 an annual standard of 12 micrograms per cubic 7 meter and also the daily of 25  PM2.5. We 8 support the American Lung Association 9 recommendation that the PM  the coarse particle 10 standard be lowered to at least in the range of 11 25 to 30 in order to protect the sensitive 12 populations. 13 And in conclusion, there are a number of 14 other things I'll highlight in my written 15 comments when they're submitted. But just in 16 conclusion, I want to state that policy on 17 particle pollution shouldn't reflect power 18 company politics, shouldn't reflect engine 19 manufacturing politics or any other special 20 interest. It's based on public health and must 21 reflect the scientific studies. 22 To be frank, from the people at the 23 grassroots level in Michigan anyway, it's really 24 undermining people's trust in their government. 25 99 And I also suspect that a number of the 1 scientists who have been involved in this process 2 are also questioning whether their time spent in 3 this effort for its better public health is worth 4 their time in their busy schedules. 5 Again, thank you very much for the 6 opportunity to comment, and I will submit written 7 comments. 8 MR. BURNETT: Thank you for your 9 comments. 10 Many people have put in long hours into 11 what has ultimately culminated in this proposed 12 ruling and I want to acknowledge the  your 13 comment in terms of the time that CASAC 14 scientists have put into that. We very much 15 appreciate their comments, and we also very much 16 appreciate the effort that people have made to 17 come here today. So I'd just like to acknowledge 18 that. 19 Ms. Casten. 20 MS. CASTEN: Thank you. 21 My name is Liane Casten. I have been a 22 cofounder and chair of an organization called 23 Chicago Media Watch for 14 years. I'm also an 24 environmental journalist, and I have published a 25 100 book on breast cancer and its proven connection 1 to the environment. 70 percent of breast cancers 2 are indeed environmentally caused. 3 But I'm not here to talk about the 4 science. I'm here to talk about the politics. 5 It's really not about our lungs or our 6 asthma or our cancers. It's not about scientific 7 research or scientific advisory panels. It's 8 about this present administration's priorities. 9 That simple. It's about priorities and it's 10 about integrity. It's about business profits 11 that support business as opposed to the value of 12 a human life. There's enough evidence to support 13 what I'm saying all over the map. 14 Right now, business profits have become 15 supreme. Many times regulatory administrators 16 are chosen because they had been, at one point, 17 heads of the very industries that were doing the 18 polluting. And there's a long list of that. 19 Okay. 20 Often these priorities include fighting 21 in a public arena to suggest that the data is yet 22 uncertain; that we will always need more studies. 23 We know that scientific advisory panels 24 are ignored. We know that scientific conclusions 25 101 can be at this point seriously flawed. And 1 outspoken scientists are asked to leave. We see 2 this in the climate change area. 3 So I suggest we do something that's 4 rather radical. We have today a moral vacuum if 5 there is any chance of considering the health of 6 a human life of value. So I urge the EPA to find 7 some kind of collective conscience. There's a 8 higher principle operating. It's called the 9 precautionary principle. Divergent views indeed 10 have value, but they must be placed in balance 11 with a deep respect for human life. 12 Thank you for letting me say these 13 words. 14 MR. BURNETT: Thank you for coming 15 today. I will simply note that the  you're 16 right. The statute requires and the 17 administrator has made a preliminary judgment 18 based on the health science. And if you have 19 particular comments on the rationale for the 20 interpretation of that health science, we would 21 also welcome those in addition to your comments 22 today. Thank you very much. 23 Ms. Brock and Ms. Bledstein. Please. 24 Miss Brock, please. 25 102 MS. BROCK: Hello. I'm Belinda Brock. 1 I'm not here today to furnish you with data and 2 epidemiological studies. I'm not a doctor. And 3 certainly you have scientific evidence and 4 recommendations that you've received from CASAC, 5 which apparently have been rejected, at least by 6 the administration. 7 What I am is a concerned citizen, a 8 taxpayer. I myself have a debilitating 9 multiple chemical sensitivity. But at this 10 moment, since I do not have a lot of time, I 11 would like to focus briefly on my son, Max, who 12 suffers from asthma. His allergies and asthma 13 and pulmonary function deteriorated sharply after 14 an exposure to unhealthy air quality several 15 years ago in his elementary school. 16 Now it's necessary for him to take 17 several medications every day, the impact of 18 which on his growth we are not sure about. He 19 has to curtail many of his activities. And even 20 so, an asthma attack can still be triggered by 21 particle pollution. 22 You're probably thinking, well, what is 23 so unusual about this? There are a lot of kids 24 who have asthma. And that's my point exactly. I 25 103 mean, hey, I'm his mom. I know he's special. 1 But there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of kids 2 all over who have asthma, and I want you to think 3 about these kids. 4 My son is a wonderful boy. He's a good 5 student. He loves science, political science, 6 and history, math. He is not yet cynical. Even 7 more importantly, he is a good person, a fact 8 that was recognized by our city a couple of years 9 ago. He received a Character Counts Award for 10 having demonstrated outstanding and valuable 11 character traits. 12 He also loves sports, watching and 13 paying. He had a great natural talent for 14 soccer. Unfortunately, with the toll asthma has 15 taken on him, he was unable to continue with the 16 demands that any team sport makes. 17 He's a good student, and we are starting 18 to think about colleges. His concerns are a 19 little different than the average student who is 20 just thinking about ACT scores and grades and 21 recommendations. Our issues are can he go away 22 to school? How far can he go? And what is the 23 air quality in the particular city in which he 24 might be interested in attending. 25 104 Just as there are many children and 1 young people like Max, there are many parents 2 like myself who lie in bed at night and dread 3 hearing that cough, that deep, deep cough in the 4 middle of the night, and I often lie in bed 5 feeling helpless. 6 But you are not helpless. In this life 7 there are many things over which we have no 8 control. In this instance, you're fortunate in 9 that you're able to exercise control. 10 I don't want to be presumptuous or 11 preachy, but I think that your mission, your 12 obligation is to protect our planet, our 13 environment, our health  literally, our future. 14 So I am urging you to not let business and/ or 15 political issues cloud your vision and deter you 16 from your path. 17 Be courageous, not shortsighted. Heed 18 our scientists, our doctors, all the people who 19 have come here today to speak. Act also for 20 those who are too young, too old, too 21 disadvantaged, too sick to advocate for 22 themselves. 23 Please don't betray the trust of our 24 young people. After all, you are the United 25 105 States Environmental Protection Agency, so I urge 1 you to adopt the most protective form of 2 standards for daily and annual levels of 3 particulate air matter. 4 Thank you very much for allowing me to 5 speak. 6 MR. BURNETT: Thank you for your 7 comments, and I  would you mind telling us 8 what  you mentioned your son had exposure in 9 elementary school several years ago. 10 MS. BROCK: They were doing construction 11 and didn't go about it in the right way. And 12 this is in Highland Park, and really you would 13 think that the administration, you know, would 14 have  the school administration would have 15 known better. 16 And they did a lot of things during the 17 day when the kids were at school instead of 18 leaving it for vacation, weekends, or even 19 after school hours. And my son had a lot of 20 accumulated exposures of things that were going 21 on. I tried to take him out of school when I 22 knew in advance what was going to happen. In the 23 last instance, the principal didn't tell me that 24 anything was being done that day, so I let my son 25 106 go to school. You know, he wanted to go to 1 school. He's a good student, and he's  you 2 know, wanted to do the normal type things that 3 kids do. 4 And they used some petro chemicals, some 5 petroleum based construction adhesive to put up 6 sow boards on the wall, and fumes just filled his 7 area of the school. And he had  I had to rush 8 there and take him to the emergency room. He had 9 a terrible asthma attack and was out of school 10 for a week after that. And then after that, he 11 had to take about  has to take about ten 12 different medications every day. And, you know, 13 he worries that he's not  because of all the 14 steroids he took, that he won't reach the height 15 that he would have and the things along those 16 lines. 17 MR. BURNETT: My condolences go to your 18 son and to your family, and, again, I appreciate 19 your comments. 20 MS. BLEDSTEIN: My name is Adrien 21 Bledstein. That's B L E D S T E I N. And my 22 story is also personal. 23 I am founder and president of I Can 24 Breathe! Inc. In Chicago, we design and 25 107 manufacture air filter masks so individuals may 1 control their environment when the air is not 2 clear. 3 Twelve years ago I was a literature 4 teacher and writer, not a business woman. Due to 5 ill effects of air pollution, in desperation I 6 created masks to regain my quality of life. I 7 support more stringent standards to control 8 particulate air pollution. I am one of those 9 sensitive people for whom even moderate pollution 10 is unhealthy, and this is my story. 11 Before 1994, I was swimming four to five 12 times a week. I never smoked. I was leading 13 five literature classes, plus teaching eight 14 individual students reading comprehension, 15 critical thinking and writing. I was doing 16 research in archives, delivering papers, and 17 writing for publication. 18 That summer I developed a postnasal drip 19 that lasted through fall. I was often exhausted, 20 so I cut teaching to one hour a week and took no 21 individual students. All the research and 22 writing stopped. 23 One morning I woke up wheezing. After 24 three months of antibiotics made no difference, I 25 108 was diagnosed with asthma. Despite rigorously 1 adhering to asthma medications, three or four at 2 a time, I periodically experienced unaccountable 3 fatigue. Unable to think, teach, and write, I 4 was devastated. 5 " Avoid triggers," my doctor told me. 6 Following his advice, I experimented with wearing 7 a dust mask and noticed a dramatic increase in 8 energy and clear thinking. However, there were 9 still days when I couldn't function mentally or 10 physically. 11 Toward the end of summer 1997, I had an 12 " Aha!" experience. One day when I was listless 13 and confused, I rested for two hours with no 14 improvement. Through mental fog I wondered if 15 something might be in the air which my silk 16 comfort mask, good for screening 2 to 5 micron 17 particles, did not filter. I pulled from my 18 pocket a mask I developed to avoid fragrances and 19 cigarette smoke. In my fifth  in my fit test, 20 the carbon filter reduced exposure to one micron 21 particles by 99 percent, and the carbon captures 22 toxic chemicals. Within minutes of putting it 23 on, my body warmed, my energy returned, and my 24 mind cleared. The current air quality report was 25 109 particulate matter moderate, but damaging to me. 1 In Chicago, when the north wind blows, 2 the air is crisp and clean and energizing. But 3 when the air is stagnant, as it was this Monday 4 and Tuesday until mid morning, with the air 5 quality moderate, my mind would not function 6 without this mask. 7 Since I have been avoiding triggers, my 8 health is restored without medications. These 9 days, at 67 years old, I have a lot to do. As a 10 result of my experience in research, on days when 11 particulate matter drains my energy and ozone 12 irritates my asthmatic lungs, I take control of 13 my environment by wearing this carbon mask. I am 14 able to teach, do research, and publish papers. 15 But most of the time I run a business. 16 The mask I invented out of desperation for myself 17 are sold nationally for others who need immediate 18 relief for air pollution and other challenges. 19 Every weekday I hear from individuals who suffer 20 from lax pollution controls in our country. 21 In February of this year, I was dismayed 22 on two counts when I read in the Los Angeles 23 Times that regarding soot and dust, " The 24 standards put forward by the EPA administrator, 25 110 Stephen Johnson, ignored most of the committee's 1 earlier recommendations and could lead to 2 additional heart attacks, lung cancer, and 3 respiratory ailments." 4 First, that Mr. Johnson ignored 5 recommendations of independent scientists is 6 abhorrent to me. Second, from people who calls 7 us for help, I suspect that the excessive number 8 of people who die due to current standards may be 9 relatively small compared to the uncounted people 10 who are unable to function normally and to live 11 fully. 12 I urge you to press for rigorous 13 standards so that lives may be safe and uncounted 14 adults and children can breathe without wearing a 15 mask. Thank you. 16 MR. BURNETT: Thank you for your 17 comments and in particular for your story of what 18 you have gone through other the past few years. 19 I am interested in knowing more about 20 the  your mask technology. You said that the 21 mask that you're currently wearing gets 22 99 percent capture of PM of size one micrometer 23 in diameter; is that correct? 24 MS. BLEDSTEIN: Yes. I've had it tested 25 111 at Rayco, a fit test. 1 MR. BURNETT: And how does it function. 2 For other sizes of PM. 3 MS. BLEDSTEIN: The smaller sizes is not 4 as  this is not an N95 mask, so it doesn't go 5 down to the lower minus  to .2 or .5. I'm 6 working on finding masks for people that will do 7 that. 8 MR. BURNETT: Are there any other 9 questions? 10 I will thank both of you, and we're 11 going to take a five minute break. By my watch 12 it is 11: 15, so at 11: 20, we'll recommence. 13 Thank you. 14 ( Whereupon a break was taken.) 15 MR. BURNETT: Next I would like to 16 request Dr. Orris and Ms. Slaughtaire to come up 17 to the table. 18 Dr. Orris, I apologize. I know that you 19 signed in earlier and we're only now getting to 20 you. Please. 21 DR. ORRIS: Good morning. Thank you. I 22 appreciate being able to testify here today. 23 My name is Peter Orris. I'm a physician 24 specializing in environmental and occupational 25 112 medicine. I practice at Stroger Cook County 1 Hospital where I'm proud to be immediate past 2 president of the medical staff, and I also serve 3 as a professor on the faculties of the University 4 of Illinois, Rush, and Northwestern. 5 I must say it amazes me to be here today 6 on this particular topic. I thought, in my 7 naivete, that we had fairly well resolved these 8 issues, both scientifically and with respect to 9 policy in the late ' 90s. In the development of 10 that consensus at that time about PM2.5, a 11 torrent of words were expressed and mountains of 12 written materials developed. I'm not 13 substantially going to add to that work product 14 today. 15 I appear before you to restate the plea 16 contained in a letter sent on December 5th to 17 Administrator Johnson from myself and scores of 18 my colleagues from around the country. We ask 19 him to act on the recommendations of his of 20 staff, the EPA staff, as well as Clean Air 21 Scientific Advisory Committee to revise both the 22 annual and 24 hour average National Ambient Air 23 Quality Standards for fine particulate matter 24 significantly downward to protect public health 25 113 and to establish a stringent new 24 hour standard 1 for coarse particulate matter. 2 Specifically, we believe that standards 3 should be set at or below the low end of the 4 ranges recommended in final EPA Staff Paper. 5 Ample scientific evidence supports adopting lower 6 standards in order to protect the health of 7 people who are most susceptible to serious health 8 effects of these pollutants. 9 Specifically, we urged him to set 10 standards following health based NAAQS for 11 particulate matter to, 1) annual average PM2.5 12 standard of 12 micrograms per meter cubed; a 13 24 hour 2.5 standard of 25 micrograms per meter 14 cubed; a stringent 24 hour average PM 10 2.5 15 standard applied equally throughout the country, 16 because we mentioned that further we opposed the 17 allowance of " spatial averaging among air 18 monitors as such an approach would allow some 19 communities to become pollution hot spots without 20 any requirement to mitigate local air quality 21 problems." 22 As you are aware, the 2004 EPA Criteria 23 Document reviewed and confirmed the earlier 24 epidemiologic work in the late  that was 25 114 reviewed originally in the late ' 90s that 1 identified serious morbidity and mortality 2 associated with fine particulate exposure. In 3 fact, the newer studies that emerged since that 4 mid' 90s review identified adverse effects of 5 lower levels of exposure than the earlier work. 6 These studies and prior work take us a 7 long way to identify PM2.5s as causing a large 8 variety of adverse effects in people. These 9 include decreased functioning of the lungs, 10 cough, wheeze, missed school days due to 11 respiratory symptoms, increased use of asthma 12 medication, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, 13 emergency room visits, hospital admissions, lung 14 cancer, and, in fact, premature death. We now 15 know that short term exposure effects are 16 significant as well. And, as usual, infants, the 17 elderly, and people with heart and lung disease 18 are particularly vulnerable. Those of us working 19 in large public hospitals see that particular 20 vulnerability every day and the disproportionate 21 impact of this type of pollution on poor and 22 minority communities. 23 I invite this panel to tour our 24 pediatric emergency room at Stroger Hospital and 25 115 discuss with the staff the effects of both acute 1 and chronic exposure to these particulates on our 2 patients and their families. This is not an 3 abstract issue to us, but rather one played out 4 daily on the most innocent and defenseless of our 5 patients. 6 I implore the Administrator to listen to 7 the EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory 8 Committee, the staff of the Office of Air Quality 9 Planning and Standards, the Children's Health 10 Protection Advisory Committee as well as hundreds 11 of academic and community physicians from 12 throughout the country as well as other health 13 care professionals. 14 I urge him to reject the new " tobacco is 15 good for you" public relations campaign that has 16 been launched by industry and their paid 17 consultants placing their desire for windfall 18 profits above the health of my patients and their 19 communities. 20 I call upon him to carry out the mission 21 of the Environmental Protection Agency so 22 succinctly put in the EPA web site " to protect 23 human health and the environment." 24 Thank you very much for hearing me 25 116 today, and I appreciate it and will answer any 1 questions you may have. 2 MR. BURNETT: Thank you for your 3 comments and for your December 5, 2005, letter 4 which we are in  we do have. 5 You mentioned your opposition to spatial 6 averaging. For others here  and since I didn't 7 discuss this in my opening remarks, and I'm not 8 sure that it's in the fact sheet. For the 9 current annual standard, we do allow spatial 10 averaging. We're actually proposing to restrict 11 the situations when spatial av