baseball, football, hockey, and 8 rock concerts. We live with particle pollution every 9 day. Diesel trucks, buses, cars, power plants, industry 10 and many other sources. Many of the people who live in 11 south and southwest Philadelphia are elderly, retired 12 and minority residents who can't afford to relocate to a 13 more healthy location. 14 To protect the public health, the residents 15 of south and southwest Philadelphia want the 16 administration to adopt an annual standard no higher 17 than 12 micrograms per cubic meter from the present 15. 18 And a daily standard no higher than 25 micrograms per 19 cubic meter from the existing 65. I want to thank you 20 for the opportunity to speak here today. 21 MS. KURNES: I say Amen to everything he 22 said. I won't even take five minutes. If you look at 23 me, this is what pollution does to the human body. I 24 could scoop up off of my window sills in my house, what 25 320 looks like, a man with a black beard used an electric 1 shaver. It's all little, little, tiny black hairs. 2 That's what it looks like. But the air management 3 people in Philadelphia tell me it's household dust. So, 4 now, just who are we fighting? The people that should 5 be concerned with people's health are telling me it's 6 household dust. That is not household dust. It's come 7 from the Sunoco refinery. And I even have storm 8 windows, but it still comes in my house. So I don't 9 even have to be outside to be harmed by it. It comes 10 into my home, and it has taken my health away from me. 11 There's 21 houses on the street that I live, 12 and five people have had heart surgery. That just can't 13 be their diet or their nationality. It's because of the 14 street that I live on. It's like we're retarded. But 15 what do you do when the air management people deny it? 16 I hope that you people are going to be able to do 17 something about it. Thank you. 18 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you very much for your 19 testimony. Next we have Dr. Gregory Kane. 20 DR. KANE: My name is Gregory Kane. I'm 21 going to just speak from the cuff, not with prepared 22 remarks. I've just come from Jefferson Hospital where I 23 teach residents and students and have an active patient 24 practice. In the hospital right now, I have seven 25 321 patients that are suffering from either emphysema or 1 asthma and are in the hospital because of exacerbations. 2 All but two of these patients have quit smoking 3 cigarettes. So their exacerbations are no longer 4 related to tobacco products, but the are related to the 5 air that we breathe and the quality of the environment 6 that we live in. 7 In my outpatient office this afternoon I saw 8 a young woman in her early 40s who has suspected lung 9 cancer, and she's never smoked a cigarette a day in her 10 life. As I see her and think about the potential 11 causes, one of the things that weighs heavily on my mind 12 is, what role did the environment that we live in and 13 the quality of air that we breathe is playing in 14 contributing to the etiology for this devastating 15 disease that could conceivably take her life at a very 16 premature age. 17 Without getting into the details, my point, 18 as a physician caring for residents in Philadelphia, 19 residents in the suburbs, residents in south Jersey, is 20 to ask you to advocate for the toughest quality of air 21 standards that we could possibly achieve. Anything that 22 we do now is only going to benefit future generations of 23 current patients, the next generation, our children, and 24 their offspring. So I'm hopeful that anything you can 25 322 do in this regard would be advocated in the strongest 1 possible terms. I'm happy to answer any questions you 2 might have for me. 3 MR. BACHMANN: Do you have any  obviously, 4 since you care for these folks, do you have any  are 5 there other anecdotal observations of your career that 6 lead you to believe that these people have a worse time 7 on days that are not so good for air quality or not? 8 DR. KANE: Absolutely. Today, in early 9 March, the air is really not too terribly bad; it's a 10 good temperature outside. When the summer months roll 11 around, when we get to July and August and my patients 12 who live in the city are dealing with the exhaust from 13 motor vehicles, or dealing with exhaust from industry in 14 their own neighborhoods in south or southwest 15 Philadelphia, I can tell you the number of calls that I 16 get for patients that need to be seen in the office, or 17 who are struggling to breathe and feel that they need to 18 be seen in the emergency room goes up dramatically. And 19 it is a cycle that I think those of us who take care of 20 patients with lung disease, sort of, get used to and 21 believe that it's just part of what's expected, but I 22 think if you step back and look at the bigger picture, 23 you probably would realize that we could do a lot better 24 to improve the air quality during these hazy, hot summer 25 323 days when the pollution lays low and contributes with 1 the humidity to really making it difficult for our 2 patients to breathe. 3 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you very much. The 4 next will be Dr. David Masland. 5 DR. MASLAND: I'm Dr. David Masland of 6 Carlisle, Pennsylvania, born and raised in that county. 7 I was trained here in Philadelphia at Jefferson and 8 across the river in Camden. In those days, even this 9 area was not so bad. Today, when I look at my valley, 10 my beautiful valley, I see nothing but smog. We have 11 one of the largest truck depots in the country. 12 Recently we battled another home depot for 13 trucks in Carlisle and the people would spoke there, I 14 think, have probably spoken here today. And they 15 awakened me to the cause and effect of some of the 16 diseases which I have seen in my career and the 17 increasing incidence of asthma in our valley, and the 18 increasing deaths from asthma in our valley, and the 19 reason why I can't any longer see across my valley about 20 half the time. 21 When I was child, you could stand on one 22 mountain and look 14 miles away and count the trees on 23 the other mountain. Today, half the time, you can't see 24 it. Because of this and because of what I learned from 25 324 some of the speakers you had today about the diesel 1 pollution, I became interested in it, and I spoke to one 2 of our pulmonologists in Carlisle, Dr. Phil Carey 3 ( phonetic), and you have his letter " When You Can't 4 Breathe Nothing Else Matters," which is something we've 5 lifted from the American Lung Association, and he has 6 written, here, a letter, which I sent to them, to all of 7 the physicians, in the Cumberland County. This, and the 8 other letters I have at home, represents a 75 percent 9 response from that one letter that I sent to  and the 10 doctor signed this. There's over a hundred physicians 11 here and another hundred here, and there were about 20 12 who were not included, because, one, I couldn't read 13 their names, and two, they came in too late to be 14 included in the advertisement. We put this in two 15 advertisements in two papers, and, then, following that, 16 there were articles written by the newspapers, which you 17 have a copy of there, which is one of the articles which 18 was written. There were several, and there were many 19 letters to the editor written supporting our point of 20 view. 21 At that point, I started studying the 22 subject and looking into it a little deeper, and I 23 talked to Dr. Carey, who has written this article, and 24 asked him if he has seen  he's been there for 25 years 25 325  if he has also seen an increasing incidence of asthma 1 and increasing difficulty in treating it, and he said, 2 yes, he has. 3 I, then, just, fortuitously  you might 4 guess that at my age I'm retired. I retired last year 5 at the age of 81. That's not anything that I'm all that 6 proud about. I would love to be back working, but I 7 couldn't any longer continue for several reasons. I do 8 still read the journals and I have a copy of the 9 December JAMA article. If you gentlemen are interested 10 in this subject, as I presume you are, and you probably 11 have read or had this article pointed out to you before. 12 They used mice in this and they exposed different mice 13 to different degrees of pollution. They could not find 14 any safe level. No matter what level it is, there was 15 no safe level unless the air was completely free of 16 PM2.5. The fact of the matter is, the higher  it's a 17 linear curve and it goes straight up and like that, no 18 bumps, no jumps in it. It just goes straight up. The 19 higher the degree of pollution the higher degree of 20 damage to the blood vessels. And they sacrificed all 21 these mice and looked at their blood vessels, looked at 22 their lung, and they saw damage in both areas. 23 As you know, and I'm not going to go into a 24 lot of science in the subject, but that was just 25 326 fortuitously published in December of this year, in 1 JAMA. And I have used this article at home with groups 2 who were less sophisticated in this material that I'm 3 sure you all are. 4 The last thing I would like to say is, 5 PM2.5, you've heard about today, and you may have had 6 this pointed out to you before, but if you haven't, I 7 think it's worth doing. Dr. Carey, when he came to 8 speak to one of the groups that I asked him to speak to 9  and he, by the way, can't be here because he's a busy 10 practicing physician, and he had appointments scheduled 11 at this time even before this meeting was set. When you 12 use a nebulizer, you will notice that  when you use a 13 nebulizer, what size does the manufacturer make these 14 particles? 2.5, because that's what it takes to the get 15 to the lowest recesses of your lung, and, therefore, 16 they use this. 17 MR. BACHMANN: I did want to make sure that 18 you got that demonstration in. I suspected that's what 19 you were going to do. It's certainly worth knowing. 20 Thank you very much. 21 Dr. Turner. 22 DR. TURNER: Thank you. My name is William 23 Turner, Vice President of the Clean Air Board of Central 24 Pennsylvania. I appreciate the time to testify in front 25 327 of the panel. 1 In central Pennsylvania, especially in the 2 Carlisle area where Route 81 and the Pennsylvania 3 Turnpike intersect, soot from diesel engines operating 4 and idling day and night is a very clear and persistent 5 threat to the health of residents. In the 6 Harrisburg/ Carlisle metro service area, the lifetime 7 cancer risk level is currently 412 times greater than 8 the EPA's acceptable level of one in a million. And for 9 the record, I don't know how there can ever be an 10 acceptable level for risk for cancer, but be that as it 11 may, at these levels I would suggest that our 12 community's cancer risk is lethal. And our air quality 13 can only get worse, because as the transportation 14 industry knows, from Carlisle you can reach two thirds 15 of the population of the United States within one day's 16 drive. So more trucks and more warehousing for trucking 17 activities are coming. 18 Right now over 700 truck parking spaces 19 exist in truck stops in one township east of Carlisle, 20 Pennsylvania. An estimated 600 of these spaces are home 21 to trucks that idle an average of ten hours per day to 22 comply with safe driving regulations. In addition, 23 several million square feet of warehousing now exists in 24 Cumberland County, which surrounds Carlisle, and several 25 328 million more square feet or planned. Each day thousands 1 of trucks accelerate and decelerate to and from loading 2 and unloading activities throughout the plethora of 3 warehouses that exist, the distribution centers that 4 exist, and the trucking terminals, and they do so 5 spewing and spreading toxic fumes wherever they go. 6 In August 2004, 24 hour PM2.5 data gathered 7 by an industrial hygienist at two points near the truck 8 stops I just described outside Carlisle, indicated 9 readings of 56.4 and 63.2 micrograms per cubic meter, 10 four times your current daily health limits. And last 11 month on February 16th, in the Harrisburg metro service 12 area, we experienced the worst air quality in the entire 13 U. S. New diesel engines that require ultra low sulfur 14 fuel will take decades to have an impact on this 15 problem. 16 That is why the Clean Air Board is working 17 with local, county, and state officials to address this 18 deadly problem now before breathing becomes more 19 hazardous. 20 Truck Chaplin Dan Dilehi ( phonetic) who 21 walks these lots every day tells me the smell really 22 don't bother him much anymore. The stresses of driving 23 a truck are significant, and Dan knows that regardless 24 of the air quality that the driver's spiritual and 25 329 mental health needs his attention. With one vehicle per 1 second passing through the Pasture's Carlisle Parish, he 2 certainly has a lot of healing to do. 3 The physical health of these drivers and of 4 the residents who are largely unaware of the hazards 5 that this booming transportation economy brings requires 6 your diligence in setting the safest possible air 7 quality standards. Your very name mandates that the EPA 8 protects U. S. citizens. 9 Therefore, the Clean Air Board of Central 10 Pennsylvania asks you to lower the EPA's ambient air 11 quality standards for PM2.5 soot pollution to 12 12 micrograms per day for the daily limit and to 25 13 micrograms annually to reflect your acknowledgment of 14 the most recent comprehensive scientific evidence 15 presented to you, and in so doing, you will save lives 16 as well as protect the children, the elderly, and other 17 sensitive people in central Pennsylvania and throughout 18 the nation. Thank you. 19 MR. BACHMANN: Just to be clear. I just 20 want to make sure. Did you really mean 12 micrograms 21 annually and 25 daily? 22 DR. TURNER: I probably had that flipped; 23 I'm sorry. 24 MS. HASSETT SIPPLE: Just another point of 25 330 clarification, the monitoring levels that you talked 1 about by the truck stop, 56.4 and 63.2, those were 2 24 hour monitor values. 3 DR. TURNER: Those were 24 hour and I have 4 cited the reference there in my document, which has been 5 presented to your staff out front. 6 MR. BACHMANN: But that means they were four 7 times the annual standard level and close to the current 8 level and certainly above the proposed level. Just to 9 be clear for everybody. Any questions? 10 Dr. Masland, I also want to be clear, I 11 think you sort of answered it, and I did the math, but 12 it was the 1930s and ' 40s when you could see across that 13 area, across that particle area. 14 DR. MASLAND: I was away from home for a 15 long period of time. I suspect you're a physician as 16 well, and you know you spend a long time in training. 17 So I don't know what the air was like then, but I do 18 know what it was before I left and I know what it was 19 when I came back, and I know that it's gotten steadily 20 worse. 21 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you very much. The 22 next group is Tom Benjey and Reverend Jennifer McKenna. 23 REV. McKENNA: Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer 24 McKenna. I'm an ordained Presbyterian minister. I 25 331 serve the Second Presbyterian Church in Carlisle, 1 Pennsylvania. I'm a native Pennsylvanian, and I care 2 deeply about all the people in Pennsylvania. I have 3 several nieces and nephews who have asthma, and I have 4 people in my church who are suffering with all sorts of 5 respiratory diseases. We have one woman who's actually 6 wearing a mask around town now. I helped form the Clean 7 Air Board and am currently serving as its President in 8 the response to the alert that the physicians gave us 9 about the health dangers presented to us by these unseen 10 particles in our air from diesel emissions. 11 Our area is clearly out of compliance with 12 the Clean Air Act, and I'm determined to help see that 13 our community's risk to most vulnerable citizens is 14 eliminated. 15 This is our holy season of Lent. Lent is a 16 time of purification. It's a time when we redirect 17 ourselves to what is most important in life. Certainly 18 advocating for those who are most vulnerable is one of 19 the most important parts of our call as Christians. We 20 trust that the earth is God's and we are caretakers of 21 the earth. Jesus has called us to be the salt and the 22 light of the world. One of the qualities of salt is to 23 preserve it's environment. We are called to preserve 24 what is around us today. 25 332 So I support the adoption of the most 1 protective options evaluated by EPA for fine particulate 2 matter. We oppose the weak standard proposed by EPA. 3 We urge you to adopt the 24 hour standard for coarse 4 particulate matter set well below that which has been 5 scientifically demonstrated to have been harmful to 6 human health. 7 The EPA should close the loopholes excluding 8 rural areas from full protection from soot pollution, 9 and we urge you to eliminate loopholes exempting 10 agriculture and mining industry from soot pollution 11 standards. 12 On behalf of the citizens of central 13 Pennsylvania, we support the EPA staff and Clean Air 14 Scientific Advisory Committee that a secondary standard 15 protecting local urban visibility should be adopted as a 16 supplement to rules protecting the regional visibility. 17 The religious and the medical and the civic 18 leaders of our community agree that particle pollution 19 poses a serious health threat for our community. Our 20 state has some of the worst pollution in the nation. We 21 can and we must do better. The environment is a moral 22 issue. So we ask you to please do the right thing for 23 the future of the children, that I know and love, and 24 also for all of our citizens. 25 333 Dietrich Bonhoeffer once stated that the 1 only question we face is how will future generations 2 live. Let's make decisions that my nieces and nephews 3 will have a future to be able to breathe freely. Thank 4 you. 5 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Benjey. 6 MR. BENJEY: My name is Tom Benjey, and I'm 7 a resident of Cumberland County. Cumberland County, as 8 you know, is the county at the western most edge of the 9 eastern block of counties that are in non attainment of 10 the PM2.5 standards. And given that the winds blow from 11 the west to the east, there's a good chance that we are 12 right now breathing some of the pollution that was 13 generated back home. So I feel that any improvements 14 that can be made in Cumberland County are going to 15 profit those east of us, throughout Pennsylvania and in 16 New Jersey. 17 PennDot on their I81  currently I81 has a 18 very high truck rate of truck traffic. We're told that 19 we're on the corridor from Mexico to Canada. Roughly 20 half of the vehicles on I81 are currently trucks. And 21 PennDot's I81 widening study  because the roads were 22 insufficient to handle current traffic  projects a 23 dramatic increase of truck traffic over the coming 24 years. So the traffic is going to get much worse. 25 334 Now, I'm going to talk about a topic that 1 isn't frequently talked about. It is how this pollution 2 is bad for business. We're told often that the trucking 3 enterprises in Cumberland County are what is keeping our 4 economy afloat because we do have low employment in 5 Cumberland County. We also have a brain drain that you 6 here a lot of wringing of hands about. A very high 7 percentage, above 80 percent, of our young people are 8 going away to college or other technical schools and 9 getting educated, but they don't return home. The 10 reason they don't return home to work is quality jobs 11 are not being created. And the warehousing industry 12 produces  the primary job is forklift operator. 13 People don't spend tens of thousands, in some cases, 14 hundreds of thousands of dollars in college education to 15 become a forklift operator. Also, industries that 16 require  let's say a semi conductor manufacturer, 17 requires clean air for their process. So companies that 18 require clean air for their process are not locating 19 there. Highly paid executives are not  and not even 20 just executives, skilled workers, are not going to bring 21 their families into such a polluted environment. 22 So the pollution is hurting the business in 23 our county. And a nearby county has recognized this 24 fact. Berks County is currently having some testing 25 335 done, some studies done, because the climate, the 1 business climate, in Berks County is already being 2 harmed by the pollution and the knowledge  because 3 they're also in non attainment, that the knowledge is  4 they feel the hurt already, the pinch. Thank you. 5 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Daniel Favre who 6 is testifying on behalf of State Representative Mike 7 McGeehan. 8 MR. FAVRE: Hello. My name is Daniel Favre 9 and I'm here to testify from a brief document from State 10 Representative Michael McGeehan, that reads as follows: 11 Thank you for the opportunity to submit 12 testimony on the important issue of particulate 13 pollution, an issue that affects me, my constituents, 14 Pennsylvania, and communities throughout the country. 15 I represent the 173rd house district of 16 Pennsylvania, an area of northeast Philadelphia whose 17 borders are not too far from where this hearing is being 18 held today. As is the case for all of Philadelphia, my 19 district is burdened with some of the worst soot in the 20 country. The health impacts of this pollution have been 21 well documented, asthma attacks, strokes, lung cancer, 22 cancer, and premature death. And as an elected 23 official, I have an obligation to do everything I can to 24 eliminate this public health threat for my constituents. 25 336 That is why I'm submitting this testimony today. 1 At the state and local level I have 2 supported numerous initiatives to protect the public 3 health of my constituents and of Pennsylvania as a 4 whole. But given that soot pollution can travel across 5 state borders, and that federal standards drive much of 6 the work we do to reduce air pollution, there's only so 7 much we can do at the state level. 8 Strong particle pollution standards are 9 crucial to fulfilling our responsibility to reduce air 10 pollution and protect our citizens. Given this, I was 11 extremely disappointed to hear that the Agency's current 12 proposed fine particle pollution standards don't go far 13 enough to protect public health. 14 According to the Agency's own analysis, the 15 Bush Administration's decision to reject the 16 recommendations of its own science advisors on this 17 issue makes for bad policy at any level, but it is 18 inexcusable given the potential public health impacts of 19 this decision. As the Agency's science advisors noted, 20 both the annual and daily standards for particle 21 pollution need to be substantially strengthened to 22 protect public health. My constituents deserve better 23 than the Agency's current proposal. 24 I urge the Administration to adopt an annual 25 337 fine particle standard of no higher than 12 micrograms 1 per cubic meter, and a daily standard of no higher than 2 25 micrograms per cubic meter, the standards that have 3 been called for by the public health community. Thank 4 you again for the opportunity to submit testimony on 5 this important issue. 6 MR. BACHMANN: We're going to suspend the 7 hearings until we have other witnesses. We will take a 8 break at 6 in any event. There are number of people who 9 have signed up that haven't shown up and they may do so 10 before that. Thank you. 11 ( Whereupon, a brief recess was taken at 5: 09 12 p. m.) 13 ( Whereupon, the hearing resumed at 5: 31 14 p. m.) 15 MR. BACHMANN: We're going to go ahead and 16 open again. We've had a couple folks who've shown up. 17 One change from a little earlier for the rest of this 18 hearing. Judy Katz from our regional office in 19 Philadelphia has left and Carole Kempker from our 20 regional office, Atlanta region, is taking her place, 21 and Steve Silverman has left. 22 We now have Zoe Warner and Dennis Winters. 23 Basically, if you haven't seen it, you just come up and 24 sit at this microphone; we have two people sit at a 25 338 time. We will ask Zoe to go first. And each of you 1 first state your name and spell it for the stenographer, 2 and you'll get five minutes. A yellow light will come 3 on when there's two minutes left, and the red light will 4 come on when time is up. We've been relatively strict 5 with other people, there's very few people now, so we'll 6 be slightly looser, but not a lot looser, because the 7 other folks only got that amount of time. Okay. Ms. 8 Warner. 9 MS. WARNER: My name is Zoe Warner, Z O E 10 W A R N E R, and I just prepared something, so I'll just 11 read it. My husband suffers from asthma. We never 12 realized how much the air here affects him until we went 13 abroad for nine months. As we traveled from the high 14 altitude mountains of Ecuador to the desert of Jordan 15 from the coasts of West Africa to New Zealand, my 16 husband rarely needed his inhaler. But now that we are 17 home, when he walks out of our suburban Philadelphia 18 home, his inhaler must always be within reach. 19 This is because our great state suffers from 20 some of the worse particle pollution in the nation. 21 Aside from his asthma, my hundred is a healthy man, but 22 it is disturbing to think of how our state's air effects 23 others who struggle to breathe, especially children and 24 the elderly. In fact, particle pollution is so 25 339 dangerous that each year tens of thousands of Americans 1 die prematurely due to pollution related ailments. But 2 for some reason we resist strengthening air quality 3 standards that could make a huge difference in so many 4 people's lives. 5 We hear about the growing number of asthma 6 sufferers and rising health care costs, but it seems the 7 government is unwilling to recognize the connection 8 between environmental conditions and public health. 9 According to the Clean Air Act, air quality 10 standards must be based solely on the health effects of 11 particle pollution and the EPA must have uniform air 12 quality standards that protect all Americans. But 13 scientific studies clearly demonstrate the current 14 standards for particle pollution are far to weak to 15 protect public health. EPA has proposed provisions to 16 existing coarse particle standards recommending a new 17 size range from 2.5 to 10 microns. 18 However, the new standards would only apply 19 to urban areas and would exempt pollution related to 20 agriculture and mining activities. It has been proven 21 that breathing coarse particles is associated with 22 elevated rates of illness, hospital admissions, and 23 premature death. In the western United States where 24 industrial activities include industrial agriculture, 25 340 mining, and oil and gas development, many small and mid 1 size communities already have high levels of coarse 2 particles in the air they breathe. Why is EPA breaking 3 with standard practice to create separate standards for 4 urban areas and major industrial sectors when this could 5 have the most serious impacts on public health. 6 Additionally, the Bush Administration has 7 rejected lowering the annual standard of fine particle 8 pollution and has proposed only a symbolic reduction in 9 the daily standard. Going from 65 to 35 micrograms per 10 cubic meter will have little impact on public health. 11 Even though the Bush Administration's 12 independent science advisors and the EPA staff 13 scientists concluded that adverse health effects occur 14 at levels well below the fine particle standards and 15 have recommended these standards be strengthened, our 16 president seems to prefer to simply maintain the status 17 quo. 18 It is unprecedented and unconscionable for 19 an administration to override recommendations made by 20 its independent clean air science advisors. Advisors 21 who are acting according to the requirements of the law. 22 Is this because the current administration values the 23 polluters over the public? Does it support industries 24 continued pursuit of profit even when it has a negative 25 341 effect on the American people? Are industry lobbyists 1 simply that convincing? I certainly hope this is not 2 the cause. 3 Rather, I hope the Administration 4 appreciates the damage that can be caused by the air we 5 breathe. I also hope it recommends we adopt uniform 6 coarse particle standards and annual fine particle 7 standards no higher than 12 micrograms per cubic meter, 8 with daily standards no higher than 25 micrograms per 9 cubic meter. 10 It is fundamentally important to remember 11 air quality standards lay the ground work for reducing 12 air pollution nationwide. Therefore, these decisions 13 are some of the most important decisions this 14 Administration will make about air pollution and the 15 health of our nation. 16 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 17 MR. WINTERS: My name is Dennis R. Winters. 18 I am the Vice Chair and Conservation Chair of the 19 Southeastern Group of the Sierra Club. On behalf of the 20 approximately 10,000 members of Sierra Club in Chester, 21 Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties, I want 22 to thank the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for 23 this opportunity to comment on this critical public 24 health issue. 25 342 The Southeastern Pennsylvania Group of the 1 Sierra Club would like to add its voice to others who 2 are calling for the most protective option the EPA 3 evaluated for fine particulate matter, that is, the 4 12/ 25 micrograms per cubic meter respectively annual and 5 daily standard. The Clean Air Act is supposed to 6 guarantee all Americans clean air. The EPA should close 7 loopholes that exclude rural areas from full protection 8 from soot pollution; exempt mining and agriculture from 9 particulate standards; and excuse a week or more of bad 10 air from being included in the calculation of average 11 annual air quality. 12 In addition, the Southeastern Pennsylvania 13 Group urges you to adopt a 24 hour standard for coarse 14 particulate matter set well below that which has been 15 scientifically demonstrated to have been harmful to 16 human health and an annual standard comparable to 17 California's PM10 standard of 20 micrograms per cubic 18 meter. We also support the EPA staff and the Clean Air 19 Scientific Advisory Committee proposal to adopt a 20 secondary standard protecting local urban visibility as 21 a supplement to rules protecting regional visibility. 22 Scientists and medical professionals have 23 urged the EPA to create standards in keeping with the 24 plethora of scientific findings detailing the damaging 25 343 health effects of soot pollution on the respiratory and 1 circulatory systems and the increased risks for illness 2 and death. More than 2,000 scientific studies have 3 shown that exposure to even smaller amounts of soot 4 cause serious health damage. We strongly urge the EPA 5 to take actions essential to protect our health from air 6 pollution. 7 And I would just like to add that this is 8 brief because I've been involved in Clean Air Hearings 9 for over 30 years since the original enactment of the 10 Clean Air Act, and I know you hear the same things over 11 and over and over in the course of a hearing, but do not 12 take the brevity of this statement as a sign that 10,000 13 members of the Sierra Club in our area do not take this 14 issue seriously and do not understand that they already 15 are breathing some of the dirtiest air in the country. 16 We would encourage the EPA to adopt the strongest 17 possible standard for particulate matter. Thank you. 18 MR. LORANG: I didn't follow the reference 19 to California's PM10 standards, were you recommending 20 for fine or coarse standard? 21 MR. WINTERS: That's coarse standard. 22 MR. LORANG: As a daily standard? 23 MR. WINTERS: Right. Actually that's an 24 annual standard, comparable. 25 344 MR. BACHMANN: It's a coarse particle 1 equivalent. I think one other person had recommended 2 that as well. Coarse particle equivalent to their PM10. 3 And Ms. Warner, you don't have to answer 4 this because I'm going to ask about your husband's 5 reaction to things, your travels included traveling to 6 Jordan. And, obviously, in some of these areas of the 7 world there is dust and so forth, so I just wondered if 8 in those travels he experienced exposure to dust and had 9 any issues with it in any of those places you mentioned. 10 Obviously, things got worse when he got back here, but I 11 was just wondering if there was anecdotal evidence from 12 him or your observations of him with respect to that. 13 MS. WARNER: When we were Cairo his asthma 14 got really bad. 15 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you very much and I 16 also appreciate your  especially at this hour  17 appreciation of our day. Thank you very much. 18 I'm going to suspend this hearing now until 19 after our dinner break. We'll reopen at 7: 30. 20 ( Whereupon, a dinner break was taken at 5: 42 21 p. m.) 22 ( Whereupon, the hearing resumed at 7: 30 23 p. m.) 24 MR. BACHMANN: I am going to formally open 25 345 this evening session, and as was the case in the morning 1 session, the afternoon session, I need to start out with 2 a, roughly, five, six minute opening statement, which 3 I'll try to condense a little bit, but this statement is 4 being read at the comparable times in three different 5 places across the country. We want to make sure that 6 everybody, at least, hears our opening statement about 7 the meeting and how it's run. So if you'll bear with me 8 a little bit before we get you up. 9 Good evening and thank you all for attending 10 the Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing on 11 two proposed rules for particulate matter. I know a lot 12 of you have come a long way to get here, and we 13 appreciate your effort. My name is John Bachmann. I'm 14 the Associate Director for Science and Policy and New 15 Programs in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 16 Standards. I'm going to be chairing the hearing today, 17 and we're here today to listen to your comments on EPA's 18 proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 19 Standards for Particulate Matter and proposed revisions 20 to the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program and 21 Regulations. As a reminder, this is a hearing, an 22 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 23 rules. The panel members may answer questions that seem 24 to clarify what we propose, but the purpose of this 25 346 hearing is to listen to your comments, not to discuss or 1 debate the proposals. 2 Before we move to the comment period, I'm 3 going to do a very brief summary of the proposed rules 4 that are the subject of today's hearing. Both proposed 5 rules were published in the Federal Register on January 6 17th, 2006. 7 The first part of it really defines what 8 we're talking about here, the pollutant particulate 9 matter, also known as particle pollution. It includes a 10 mixture of solids and liquid droplets. The particles 11 come in a range of sizes. Some of are emitted directly 12 and others are formed in the atmosphere when pollutant 13 emissions like sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, 14 and volatile organic compounds, which are gases to start 15 out with, react together chemically to form particles. 16 Exposure to particles has been associated with premature 17 death as well as significant adverse cardiovascular and 18 respiratory effects. 19 The proposed revisions to the National 20 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 21 address two categories of particles: fine particles, or 22 what we call PM2.5, which are particles smaller than a 23 nominal 2.5 micrometers. And the other is inhalable 24 coarse particles, which we term PM10 2.5, which 25 347 are those particles that happen to be smaller than 10 1 micrometers in diameter, but larger than PM2.5. We've 2 had National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5, or 3 fine particles, since 1997, and for particles 10 4 micrograms or smaller, or PM10 since 1987. We've 5 proposed, here, specific revisions to the current PM 6 standard and have requested comments on a wide range of 7 alternative standards for both fine and inhalable coarse 8 particles. The proposed revisions address changes to 9 both the primary standards to protect public health and 10 secondary standards to protect public welfare including 11 visibility impairment. 12 Now, without going through every detail of 13 this or even a summary of the details in this, which you 14 can find out at the table, I'll just say that there's 15 three major components to the action on those standards 16 for fine and coarse particles. One is to lower the 17 24 hour standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 18 35; to keep the current standard of 15 micrograms per 19 cubic meter; and to establish a new standard for coarse 20 particles that would replace eventually the old PM10 21 standard, and that standard would be at 70 micrograms 22 per cubic meter and be qualified to exclude certain 23 kinds of particles that originate in more natural 24 crustal materials, like agriculture, mining or windblown 25 348 dust. 1 And with respect to secondary standards  2 by the way, these standards, we're asking for comments, 3 not only for what we proposed specifically, but also on 4 a range of options which goes as high as the current 5 standards in some cases, and substantially lower numbers 6 for fine particles of 12 for annual standards and 25 for 7 24 hour standards, and for coarse particles down to 50 8 micrograms per cubic meter. At any rate, with respect 9 to secondary standards, we propose to make the secondary 10 fine particle standards and the secondary coarse 11 particle standards equal to the primary standard but we 12 propose an alternative secondary standard that would 13 have a shorter aggregate time. 14 So the other point to make now, because it 15 would be a while before these standards could be 16 implemented especially for inhalable coarse particles, 17 we are proposing to decide what to do with the current 18 PM10 standard while we have this interregnum when we are 19 still monitoring for coarse particles. And we propose 20 that the current scientific evidence doesn't support an 21 annual standard for inhalable course particles, so we 22 propose to revoke the current annual PM10 standards in 23 all areas immediately upon making a final action if we 24 decide to go with this approach. 25 349 If we finalize the 24 hour primary standard 1 for inhalable coarse particles, PM10 2.5, we've 2 proposed to revoke the current 24 hour PM10 standard 3 except in areas that have at least one monitor that's 4 located in urbanized areas with a minimum population of 5 100,000 people, and that is measured in violation of the 6 24 hour PM10 standard based on the most recent three 7 years of data. 8 Now the second major rule, which I have 9 already said is about ambient air monitoring 10 requirements for, not just particulate matter, but all 11 so called criteria pollutants that we have air quality 12 standards for. Proposed changes would support the 13 proposed revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter 14 including new minimum monitoring requirements for 15 inhalable coarse particles, criteria for approval of 16 applicable sampling methods. These proposed changes 17 would establish a new nationwide network of monitoring 18 stations and taking an integrated and multi pollutant 19 approach to ambient air monitoring in support of 20 multiple objectives. The proposed amendments would 21 modify the current requirements for ambient air monitors 22 by focusing them on populated areas with air quality 23 problems. The purpose of these proposed changes is to 24 enhance ambient air quality monitoring to better serve 25 350 current and future air quality management and research 1 needs. And, again, more information on all that in the 2 proposal in the Federal Register, but also out on the 3 table there in summary form. 4 So, let's talk about the comment portion of 5 today's hearing  this evening's part of the hearing. 6 This is one of three public hearings on these matters 7 today in San Francisco, California, Chicago, Illinois, 8 and of course here in Philadelphia. We're preparing a 9 written transcript of this hearing. The transcripts 10 will be available as part of the official record for 11 each rule. We're also accepting written comments from 12 the two proposed rules until April 17th, 2006, and we 13 have a handout available at the registration area with 14 detailed information on how to submit comments. 15 So let me talk about how we will proceed 16 from here on for the rest of the evening. I'll call the 17 scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. In this 18 case, I think we only have one at this time, so it's 19 just one. In any case, when you come up  and, again 20 we'll ask you to state your name and affiliation. And 21 we have a court reporter here who is taking down every 22 word that goes into our rulemaking docket, so we'd like 23 you to spell your name, if you could, to make that 24 easier. In order to be fair to everyone, even though we 25 351 don't have a full house tonight, we did earlier, and we 1 limited people to five minutes each, and we'll try to do 2 that again tonight in fairness to them. If there are 3 two people, we'd like you both to remain in the pair 4 until you are finished. After you finish your 5 testimony, one of our panel members up here, may decide 6 to ask a question, in which case that won't be part of 7 your time. It will be after your testimony. 8 As I mentioned already, we're transcribing 9 today's hearing, and each speaker's oral testimony will 10 become part of the official record. So please be sure 11 to give a copy of any written comments to our staff at 12 the registration table so we'll have the full text of 13 your written comments in the docket for you. 14 We have a time keeping system, and it's 15 right here, consisting of green, yellow, and red lights. 16 When you begin speaking, the green light will come on; 17 you'll have five minutes to speak. The yellow light 18 will signal that you have two minutes left to speak. 19 We'll ask you to stop speaking when the red light comes 20 on. 21 We've had a fairly full schedule of speakers 22 already, but I don't think we have as full a schedule 23 this evening. But we will stay as late as we need to. 24 As long as people want to talk, we'll be here. We'll 25 352 close at 9 o'clock or once we run out of people, 1 whichever comes first. 2 If you'd like to testify but you haven't 3 registered yet, you can sign up right now at the 4 registration table, and, again, we do have slots for the 5 evening. For those of you who've already registered, 6 we've tried to accommodate your request in terms of 7 time. We ask for your patience if there are any 8 problems, although, again, I doubt that there will be, 9 we may need to make some minor adjustment if somebody 10 comes in at the last second. 11 I'm going to introduce who we have on the 12 panel. To my right is Carole Kempker who is with EPA's 13 Regional Office Air Programs in Atlanta, Georgia, region 14 4 of EPA. On my left is Phil Lorang with the Office of 15 Air Quality Planning and Standards' Ambient Air 16 Monitoring Group, and Beth Hasset Sipple who is with the 17 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' Ambient 18 Standards Group. So thanks again for all of you who are 19 participating today. 20 We can get started with our first member who 21 is Milton Alter and Cindy Parker. We'll take both of 22 you as a panel. And we'll start with Dr. Alter. 23 DR. ALTER: Thank you for the opportunity of 24 addressing you. My name is Milton Alter. I'm a 25 353 clinical professor of neurology at Drexel University 1 Hospital. My work is in the academic field as well as 2 caring for patients, and my research area in particular 3 is epidemiology which is very important for measuring 4 causes and effects. The toxins in our environment are 5 often subtle but nonetheless deadly. As a physician I 6 see many patients who develop a disease, the cause of 7 which is not obvious. 8 Let me mention one that has made the 9 headline in the last few days: Mrs. Reeve's lung 10 cancer. She was not a smoker. One in six women with 11 lung cancer have never smoked. Could she have inhaled a 12 toxin? This is suspected, and the toxin that has been 13 implicated in some cases is radon, sub particulate 14 perhaps, but nonetheless, very important. Radon is a 15 known carcinogen. Closer to my field are brain tumors. 16 The cause of the most common brain tumor, glioblastoma, 17 is unknown. Could a toxin play a role? Why not have 18 industries that are known polluters of the atmosphere, 19 oil refineries for example, put a portion of the profits 20 to research designed to determine the effect of 21 pollutants and specific cancer risks. Make the 22 donations tax deductible. Look how much had to be paid 23 to individuals who developed diseases from asbestos 24 exposure. How much better it would have been had 25 354 industry set aside some profits to research possible 1 toxic effects of their products. 2 The industrial polluters alter the 3 environment in many ways, not the least of which  very 4 popular in discourse currently is global warming. 5 Thereby environmental change being considered as a 6 possible cause of the state of hurricanes that affected 7 the southern part of our country, causing thousands of 8 deaths and destruction and millions of dollars, not to 9 mention the misery of displacement of many thousands 10 more. Could this, perhaps, have been avoided had 11 industry paid attention to the possible effects on the 12 environment of their products. 13 Industry does not pay the full cost of the 14 damage. They don't pay any of the cost of the damage in 15 most cases. You and I do in the form of taxes. I close 16 by mentioning the ill effects of lead poisoning among 17 children who live in homes, old homes in the poor 18 sections of our old city. Lead based paints have been 19 shown to cost 10 to 15 IQ points in children exposed to 20 lead powder that comes off of the walls of the paint in 21 their homes. Again, we shall have to look at industry 22 to lead the charge against such a toxic scorch. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. BACHMANN: Cindy Parker. 25 355 DR. PARKER: Good evening. I'm Cindy 1 Parker. I'm on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins 2 Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Department of 3 Environmental Health Sciences. I'm also here speaking 4 with the Baltimore Chapter of Physicians for Social 5 Responsibility. When thinking about what's really 6 important here in trying to decide how stringent these 7 standards should be, I looked back at the original Clean 8 Air Act and what the EPA Administrator is charged to do, 9 and as you're probably well aware  this has, kind of, 10 helped to shape my thinking  the two sections of the 11 Clean Air Act that actually govern the establishment and 12 revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 13 are Sections 108 and 109. Section 108 directs the 14 Administrator to identify pollutants that " may 15 reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and 16 welfare, and to issue air quality criteria for them." 17 These air quality criteria are intended to " accurately 18 reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in 19 indicating the kind and extent of identifiable effects 20 on public health or welfare pollute which may be 21 expected from the presence of a pollutant in ambient 22 air." 23 So it was interesting that nowhere in 24 Section 108 does it direct the Administrator to issue 25 356 air quality criteria for these pollutants, as long as it 1 doesn't inconvenience those who are emitting the 2 dangerous pollutants. And, in fact, the emphasis of 3 Section 108 is quite appropriately on protecting the 4 public health and welfare. So that really sets the tone 5 in that this is the job of the Administrator and the EPA 6 to protect public health and welfare. Section 109 7 directs the Administrator to propose and promulgate 8 primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality 9 Standards for pollutants identified under Section 108. 10 Section 109 also defines a primary standard as one, " the 11 attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of 12 the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing 13 an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect 14 the public health." So there's that emphasis again on 15 protecting the public health. 16 And then taken from a variety of staff 17 papers written over the years for the board NAAQS 18 standards, there is, again, " in selecting a margin of 19 safety the EPA considers such factors as the nature and 20 severity of the health effects involved, the size of the 21 sensitive population or populations at risk, and the 22 kind and degree of the uncertainties that must be 23 addressed." So you probably have already heard this  24 interesting timing that this paper came out in JAMA just 25 357 this morning  I'm sure you've already heard about this 1 and probably read it yourself, Fine Particulate Air 2 Pollution in Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and 3 Respiratory Diseases. And the paper's conclusions are 4 that for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter reduction 5 in the daily PM2.5 level, there are a certain number of 6 reductions and annual hospital admissions. And so I 7 would say  going back to the statement about how to 8 select the margin of safety, it's mentioned nature and 9 severity of the health effects. So the nature here  10 just in this one paper that just came out, and obviously 11 the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee has looked at 12 stacks and stacks of papers which all show some fairly 13 negative effects with higher concentrations of 14 particulate matter. So the nature of the health effects 15 from this one paper, the cover cerebral vascular 16 disease, they cover peripheral vascular disease, 17 ischemic heart disease, heart rhythm problems, heart 18 failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19 respiratory infections, all fairly serious health 20 effects. The severity  and you're probably well aware 21 of some of the numbers  for every 10 micrograms of 22 cubic meter increase in PM2.5, there is an additional 23 1,836 hospitalizations for cerebral vascular disease, 24 3,156 additional admissions for heart failure, 2,085 25 358 additional admissions for respiratory tract infections, 1 and the point is that these are 100 percent preventable 2 hospital admissions. If the standards are tightened and 3 the particulate matter concentrations are decreased, 4 these are 100 percent preventable. And that seems 5 fairly significant to me. 6 The size of the sensitive populations  7 well, we're talking about folks over 65, so in these 204 8 U. S. urban counties, that was 11.5 million people; 9 infants and children, about 60 million in this country; 10 urban poor, people with asthma, I don't know how many, 11 but quite a few. So we're talking about a very sizable 12 sensitive population as well. And the kind of degree of 13 uncertainties, well, there's a whole range of those that 14 we don't have time to go into, but there's a whole lot 15 of folks who already fit into these vulnerable 16 categories and a whole lot more folks who we don't know 17 which vulnerable categories they might fit into. So my 18  19 MR. BACHMANN: Actually  I know we're not 20 pressed for time here, and it's almost silly to stop you 21 in mid sentence at this point, but since I had to stop 22 people when we were crowded, I do have to stop you. I 23 appreciate it, but I promise you we have read the paper. 24 DR. PARKER: My recommendation is to lower 25 359 the annual standard to 12 micrograms and 24 hour 1 standard to 25 micrograms. Thank you. 2 MR. BACHMANN: Any questions? I did have 3 one for Dr. Parker, and that is, by citing  I know 4 you're using the paper as an example of new information. 5 Obviously we haven't assessed it yet in any formal way. 6 It certainly wasn't part of the criteria. And one of 7 the issues in the  I don't know if you're planning to 8 submit written comments or not, but I'm sure the 9 Physicians for Social Responsibilities at Large will, 10 but one of the issues for us is how we address in any 11 direct or indirect way the use of new material that has 12 come out since the formal document, criteria document, 13 was closed, in terms of papers and, obviously, a lot of 14 papers have come in. So, without  I don't want to put 15 you on the spot to answer now, but to the extent that 16 you inform what the group writes about, we are 17 particularly interested in an opinion of how we use that 18 more recent information or whether we hold it over to 19 the next review. Obviously there are a lot of new 20 studies that have come out since 2003 or so. Thank you 21 very much. 22 Next up is Dr. Gwen DuBois and Dr. Lawrence 23 Egbert. 24 DR. DuBOIS: I'm an internist in practice in 25 360 Baltimore City. I'm also an instructor at Hopkins 1 School of Medicine. I'm on the Public Health Committee 2 of the Maryland Medical Association, and a National 3 Board Member for Physicians for Social Responsibility. 4 Baltimore City, like Philadelphia, is an 5 urban area with severe air pollution problems. Dirty 6 air translates into sick patients and dying patients. 7 The costs are economic, emotional, and as a city, we're 8 deprived of the richness of lives that are taken from us 9 prematurely. 46,000 people in Baltimore have asthma. 10 In our area we have six old coal fired power plants that 11 are contributing a disproportionate share of particulate 12 matter pollution to our region and beyond. And, 13 interestingly, on February 14th this year, Dr. Levy from 14 the Harvard School of Public Health published a study 15 that estimated that these six power plants, just in our 16 region, caused 80 deaths and 4,000 asthma attacks in 17 Maryland yearly, but nationally, contribute to 600 18 deaths and 20,000 asthma attacks and 600,000 person days 19 of what he calls minor restrictions and activities. So 20 each state has power plants like this, like ours, 21 causing local morbidity and mortality but contributing 22 even more to the national state of ill health for 23 cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions. Each state 24 contributes its own share of bad air because the EPA has 25 361 not done what the law mandates, as Dr. Parker said, and 1 set standards to protect public health. Dr. Levy 2 concluded, " These findings indicate that these power 3 plants may have an annual public health impact on the 4 order of hundreds of millions of dollars in Maryland and 5 billions of dollars nationally, emphasizing that further 6 analysis might be warranted to determine the most 7 appropriate public health measures to adopt. 8 Now, EPA standards can make a huge 9 difference. I know because I've been involved in 10 medical waste issues, and I remember 1997, the EPA set 11 regulations for medical waste incineration. Now, 12 medical waste incineration was once a major source of 13 mercury and dioxin pollution, but once EPA placed these 14 standards, put medical waste incinerators under 15 regulatory control, medical waste incinerators either 16 shut down in favor of cleaner technology or retained the 17 required scrubbers. And the result has been a great 18 reduction in mercury and dioxin pollution from this 19 source. My own hospital  I was looking at EPA data 20 that just came out on mercury, for example, 2002 data's 21 just come out. And my hospital was fifth or sixth for 22 mercury pollution because it had an incinerator. My 23 hospital, Sinai, closed its incinerator because of the 24 EPA regulations and now they have a cleaner technology. 25 362 We're separating waste and that was because of what EPA 1 did. 2 And despite the predictions of industry 3 people that we would have a medical waste crisis, there 4 has been none. The air is cleaner, and we don't see 5 medical waste washing up on the shores of our oceans or 6 rivers. 7 If EPA set the medical standards recommended 8 by its own advisory board staff scientists, major 9 organizations like the American Heart Association, 10 American Cancer Society, the American Thoracic Society 11 and Physicians for Social Responsibility and National 12 Environmental Physicians Group  which if I said, I'm 13 on the national board, then these old power plants would 14 add needed pollution controls or have to shut down. 15 Vehicles would have to burn cleaner fuel or have higher 16 efficiency standards. The results would be fewer heart 17 attacks, fewer asthma attacks, fewer cases of lung 18 cancer, greater work productivity, fewer days missed of 19 work for adults, fewer days missed of school for 20 children. There would be fewer visits to doctors' 21 offices and emergency rooms, and any cost to the fossil 22 fuel industry would be offset by savings to employers 23 and to employees like the rest of us. Industry will cry 24 that the old power plants will shut down, rates will go 25 363 up, brown outs will occur; the automobile industry may 1 also predict the end of domestic auto industry. But 2 like the medical waste story, these industries, if they 3 are robust, will make the changes and we'll be in better 4 shape to compete as pollution controls are enacted in 5 Europe and the rests of the world. Let us not be the 6 last nation to protect its citizens from illness born of 7 archaic technology. Thank you. 8 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Dr. Egbert. 9 DR. EGBERT: My name is Lawrence Egbert. 10 I'm an Assistant Visiting Professor of Anesthesiology in 11 Critical Care Medicine at the John Hopkins School of 12 Medicine. I'm also the current President of Physicians 13 for Social Responsibility for Baltimore; she's the 14 former President; and he who is going to follow, is also 15 a former President of the chapter. 16 I wish to recommend that the Environmental 17 Protection Agency adopt and average PM2.5 standard of 12 18 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24 hour PM2.5 standard 19 of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 20 I recommend this standard because under the 21 present conditions, which are very well documented, we 22 in the United States suffer an unacceptable mortality 23 rate from heart disease and respiratory disease plus an 24 intolerable impact upon the health of children and even 25 364 fetuses, all of which is it well documented and not 1 corrected. 2 On a personal level, I have to say that my 3 personal asthma gets worse when wind is not blowing. 4 When the wind comes up in Baltimore my asthma gets 5 better. 6 Much would be accomplished with a tighter 7 restriction on what is tolerable for society in terms of 8 tiny particle pollution. I should add that I think that 9 smaller communities, in particular, agricultural 10 communities and mining communities should not be 11 exempted from this. 12 I said when I started that I worked in 13 intensive care over a number of years and I had an 14 opportunity a number of years ago to help write a 15 textbook on intensive care respiratory care, and my part 16 of the text was to write about preventing what leads to 17 the less likelihood of getting into an intensive care 18 unit, other factors being equal, and also what leads to 19 the likelihood of getting out of the intensive care unit 20 alive, other things being equal. And one of the 21 biggest, single factors in the likelihood  if you have 22 something else that goes wrong with you that you need 23 intensive care, if you get really sick  of getting 24 into an intensive care unit breathing regularly foreign 25 365 particles in the environment, and the same thing applies 1 for the likelihood for getting out of the intensive care 2 unit alive. Those who are not exposed to foreign 3 material were more likely to get out of intensive care 4 than if they had a head smashed in or a big trauma, that 5 sort of thing, that matched up. Smoking was the biggest 6 factor for them to get into the intensive care unit and 7 not to get out of it. Thank you. 8 DR. DuBOIS: I did say that I would 9 recommend that you follow the recommendations of the 10 scientists who proposed this  the recommendation of 11 the Science Advisory Committee with the stronger 12 regulations of the 20 micrograms  13 MR. BACHMANN: Let me ask about that. The 14 Clean Air Science Advisory Committee made the 15 recommendations, and I could ask both of you the same 16 question. What they recommended was for the annual 17 standard, a range of 13 to 14 and a 24 hour standard 18 range of 30 to 35. There were in the staff paper ranges 19 as low as 12 and 25, which a number of commenters have 20 recommended here, but I think it's important  if you 21 would want to align yourself with the Clean Air Science 22 Advisory Committee recommendations, those were their 23 recommendations. 24 DR. DuBOIS: I would align myself with the 25 366 strong regulations of 12 and 25. The American Cancer 1 Society, for the annual, for example, they estimated 2 that for every 10 micrograms per meter squared annual 3 2.5 micron particles, a 4 percent increase, and all 4 cause mortality  you guys know this stuff  6 percent 5 increase in cardiovascular mortality and 8 percent 6 increase lung cancer mortality. The point is, the lower 7 it is, the fewer people are going to die. 8 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you both of you. We 9 have now Dr. Richard Humphrey and Dr. Steven Shapiro. 10 DR. HUMPHREY: My name is Dr. Richard 11 Humphrey, and I'm on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins 12 University School of Medicine and Hospital and was for a 13 time on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg 14 University School of Public Health. I've been 46 years 15 there. I'm partially retired now, which gives me the 16 opportunity to do these kinds of public service 17 activities. My specialty was in oncology. I trained in 18 internal medical oncology pathology and in the School of 19 Public Health Health Policy and Management, and as 20 mentioned, previous Baltimore Chapter Physicians for 21 Social Responsibility President and current Treasurer. 22 My most important criteria here is that I'm a 23 grandfather of a beautiful little girl now a little over 24 three years of age. The purpose of my testimony is to 25 367 add my voice to the plea that the EPA follow the 1 recommendations of their own staff scientists in 2 relationship to particulate matter exposures. 3 These more stringent regulations would 4 reduce particulate matter mortality by 86 percent, and I 5 would also like to support the request that these 6 standards be applied uniformly across urban and rural 7 areas without exempting agricultural and mining 8 activities. 9 This is not a trivial problem, this 10 particulate matter exposure. In a recent editorial in 11 the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 12 Medicine World Health estimates that inhalation of 13 particulate matter causes 500,000 deaths a year. This 14 editorial was co written by a faculty member at Hopkins 15 in the School of Public Health. As an oncologist, data 16 from the American Cancer Society annual average exposure 17 for each 10 microgram per cubic meter increases lung 18 cancer mortality by 8 percent. Each 10 micrograms per 19 cubic meter increases by 8 percent. In a more recent 20 study in Los Angeles, mortality was nearly three times 21 greater for particulate matter exposure. The average 22 shortening of life is one to three years by exposure. 23 I'm going to come back to that if I have time in a 24 moment. U. S. power plants particulate matter exposure 25 368 more than 20,000 premature deaths annually. 1 Back to my role as a grandfather. 24 2 percent of all infant deaths and 16 percent of all 3 sudden infant death syndrome fatalities are attributable 4 to coarse particulate matter, PM10. And I cannot 5 imagine my life without my granddaughter. If my life 6 has been shortened by an average of one to three years, 7 I'd like to have those years back in order to watch my 8 granddaughter grow up. We got to make these regulations 9 as stringent as we can. Thank you. 10 MR. BACHMANN: Dr. Shapiro. 11 DR. SHAPIRO: Hello. My name is Steve 12 Shapiro. I'm a psychologist at Johns Hopkins Medical 13 Center. I oversee a community based program of ten 14 employees that work with children and families in the 15 community who have mental health and behavioral 16 disorders. And I'd like to provide a slightly different 17 perspective, although I'm also with the PSI Group from 18 Baltimore. My perspective is also a public health one 19 but it really is focused on mental health. I don't know 20 whether that's a perspective that you've heard much 21 about. 22 First let me tell you what we do. We work 23 with indigent children and families who live in inner 24 city poor conditions in Baltimore. They live in 25 369 substandard housing; they live in areas  we call them 1 socially unjust areas. They are located near highways, 2 located near factories, including the Bethlehem Steel 3 Plant, that's where most of these poor people live in 4 Baltimore. And so they're susceptible to pollutants. 5 And we'll get to the research in a minute. 6 But let me tell you a story about a young 7 lady I work with named Vicki. That's not her real name. 8 She's 12 years old. She suffers from asthma. She has a 9 whole variety of behavioral and mental health problems, 10 including anxiety, depression and she acts out publicly 11 in school, at home, in the community. The asthma 12 attacks that she has which are fairly frequent  they 13 happen regularly especially on high pollutant days that 14 happen in Baltimore frequently  land her in the 15 emergency room at Johns Hopkins Hospital which is close 16 to her home. And each time she has asthma, it seems to 17 exacerbate her mental health symptoms. There is 18 evidence for that. She's just one of the many types of 19 kids we work with who have both public health or 20 physical health issues that seem to exacerbate their 21 mental health issues. 22 There is some scant research  sadly it's 23 not much research, but there is some research that links 24 air pollution and what we're talking about today, the 25 370 particulates with actual mental health problems. The 1 research dates back to ' 84, but there are also some 2 recent studies. Psychiatric and emergency room visits 3 for mental health patients are increased on higher 4 pollution days. That's been studied. The risk for 5 schizophrenia, interestingly, is associated with 6 increased traffic air pollution. There's a correlation 7 between those. There are several studies that show that 8 there are significant developmental delays for children 9 who are susceptible, who are exposed to high pollution, 10 including air pollution. There's an increase of 11 learning disabilities and the first gentleman who spoke 12 about the lowers IQs, in fact, lower IQs are also 13 associated with increased pollution. And of course we 14 talk about the increase of the typical mental health 15 disorders: anxiety, depression, behavior disorders. 16 So there is some research. There are about 17 15 studies that have taken place since 1984 that make 18 the connection between these. And the costs, apart from 19 the public health costs, the medical health costs, the 20 public health costs in terms of mental health are 21 significant. So we're talking about more emergency room 22 visits because of air pollution; we're talking about 23 increased developmental delays; we're talking about 24 problems in schools; and we're talking about behavior 25 371 disorders with kids. So, I just wanted to make you 1 aware that there are connections between what you're 2 working on and the issues, and how it affects children 3 and their families throughout Baltimore and many other 4 communities throughout the world. Thank you for hearing 5 us out. 6 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. I want to start 7 off with  I have a feeling, having looked at a lot of 8 the criteria documents, that we may have completely 9 missed that whole topic, and maybe it's because of the 10 journals and EPA doesn't routinely search, but I would 11 appreciate it if you would find some way to send us a 12 list of  13 DR. SHAPIRO: Sure. 14 MR. BACHMANN: I think people have come at 15 it at from a different angle, in terms of the Clean Air 16 Act and the public welfare and personal comfort and 17 well being, which, sometimes, we've taken to be mental 18 health. You see it in terms of visibility, but nothing 19 directly at this kind of frank expression of mental 20 disease, that I can recall of, in any of the stuff that 21 I've looked at. Thank you very much. 22 Dr. Steven Alles and Sharon Wallace. 23 DR. ALLES: My name is Steven Alles. I'm a 24 public health physician here at the Philadelphia 25 372 Department of Public Health. I'm also board certified 1 in preventative medicine. I need to make it clear that 2 my contribution to this hearing does not necessarily 3 reflect the views and opinions of the Philadelphia 4 Department of Public Health. I'm here to represent the 5 American College of Preventative Medicine as an active 6 member of that college. As such I would like to ask the 7 EPA to accept the recommendations for fine particulate 8 matter, lowering the standards to 12 micrograms and 25 9 micrograms for daily and annual standards that were laid 10 out in a letter proposed from the American Thoracic 11 Society that the American College of Preventative 12 Medicine signed on to. 13 In addition, as a resident at the University 14 of Maryland, I conducted personal research looking at 15 asthma occurrences in hospitals in the greater Baltimore 16 City. People who went and sought medical care at ERs 17 and were admitted to hospitals in Baltimore and looked 18 to correlate those admissions and ER visits with fine 19 pollutants and elements in pollution. And what my 20 literature review, at that time, showed for me was 21 multiple studies that looked at the metal components in 22 particulate matter being related to inflammatory changes 23 in lung tissue and animal studies, and also some 24 observational studies in Spokane, Washington and British 25 373 Columbia that linked zinc and, to a lesser extent, 1 copper with asthma occurrences in those communities. 2 In addition, I was an internal medicine 3 resident here at Temple University Hospital in 4 Philadelphia and as such  which serves a very low 5 socioeconomic status population here in Philadelphia  6 as such, I treated and saw dozens of patients for asthma 7 exacerbation in the ER and admissions to the internal 8 medicine unit. I asked numerous patients if they had 9 any idea what the triggers were for their asthma 10 exacerbations  and these are adult patients with adult 11 onset asthma  and I would say 90 percent of the time 12 or more they didn't know. As Dr. Alter pointed out, it 13 could be air pollutants, we just don't really know what 14 happened to these people and why they have asthma. 15 In addition, some of the work I do at the 16 Philadelphia Department of Public Health right now is in 17 disease surveillance, and I analyze chief complaint data 18 from the emergency departments from 23 of the hospitals 19 of the 29 here in Philadelphia. Of approximately 4,000 20 daily visits to the ER for people who that live in the 21 city of Philadelphia, approximately 5 percent, an annual 22 average, are there for an asthma related cause. 5 23 percent of 4,000 is about 200 people per day. That's 24 all I have. Thank you. 25 374 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Ms. Wallace. 1 MS. WALLACE: Good evening ladies and 2 gentleman. As you said, my name is Sharon Wallace and I 3 am a critical care nurse. I am pleased to be here and 4 have this opportunity to testify and share my concerns 5 about the proposed changes to the standards and 6 regulations for particulate matter and ambient air 7 monitoring. I am also pleased to welcome you to the 8 state of Pennsylvania. It is because of Donora, 9 Pennsylvania that the first federal Clean Air Act was 10 passed in 1955. For those not familiar with the history 11 of this small town, buried chemical cylinders started to 12 emit a thick toxic, smog. You couldn't see your hand if 13 you held it out in front of your face. Within five 14 days, 20 people had died and 7,000 became ill. 15 Since that time, Pennsylvania's air quality 16 has improved. Yet, we are listed as the fifth dirtiest 17 or worst state in the country. Clean air standards set 18 by the federal government have never been met in 19 Philadelphia. According to AIR NOW, a U. S. government 20 web site, air quality conditions in Philadelphia today 21 are good. In fact, most of the country is rated as good 22 or moderate, except two cities in Texas. The air 23 quality in Beaumont Port Arthur is unhealthy for 24 sensitive groups. In El Paso, the air quality is 25 375 categorized as unhealthy. It is also interesting to 1 note that these hearings are being held in California, 2 Chicago, and Pennsylvania, the top polluting states. I 3 think there's a lesson here. 4 The health risks of environmental air 5 pollutants and environmental toxins are well documented. 6 The incidence of childhood asthma and autism are 7 skyrocketing. In 1992, only 595 cases of autism were 8 reported in Pennsylvania. Today, nearly 7,200 children 9 are reported to be autistic. Infertility rates are at 10 an all time high, and patients with respiratory diseases 11 are sicker more often. 12 I prefer not to cite statistics. Each of us 13 can quote a study to refute an opposing point of view, a 14 point duly noted from the EPA Proposed Rules web site. 15 Instead, I would like to offer and request from you the 16 wisdom of common sense. As a critical care nurse, the 17 wisdom of common sense is to first do not harm. For 18 you, the Environmental Protection Agency, the wisdom of 19 common sense is to look before you leap or better safe 20 than sorry. Either of these precautionary principles 21 will suffice. I came to this conclusion after reviewing 22 the position of various agencies, such as the American 23 Lung Association, the Clean Air Trust, or Clean Air 24 Watch, as well as others. These agencies are committed 25 376 to protecting air quality for health purposes. Not one 1 supports the proposed rule change. In fact, each agency 2 calls to strengthen standards and regulations required 3 to improve air quality. Right now, as we speak, the 4 children of New Orleans are developing a cough that has 5 been dubbed the " Katrina cough". Dry sediment of 6 arsenic, lead, dioxin, chromium, and other chemicals are 7 forming clouds of dust. Chemical levels vary by who's 8 testing and who's reporting. But from a clinical 9 perspective, it seems the toxins lying dormant in the 10 Big Easy will not go easy on the lungs of the young or 11 the old. The toxins are already at work. 12 The extreme environmental devastation 13 inflicted by Katrina is a rare event. But unlike 14 Katrina, ambient air quality is about ordinary everyday 15 life. The rules and regulations that govern everyday 16 life must be safe and sensible. To me, the most 17 troubling aspect of the proposed and enacted 18 environmental protection rollbacks is the concurrent and 19 varied scope of the rollbacks. It is an experiment that 20 lacks controls and it is contrary to a scientific 21 process. Our air, water, and food are connected in a 22 chain that leads to you and me. 23 When we become toxic from environmental 24 chemicals, how we will know if it was the California 25 377 strawberries or the Florida tomatoes? Both are coated 1 in methyl bromide. Will it be the emissions from idling 2 ship engines in the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, 3 a leading source of increased cancer rates? Or will it 4 be the particulate matter? Or will it be a combination 5 of the toxins that overwhelm our lungs, our neurological 6 function, and our immune system? Does it matter to you 7 that environmental toxins have been found in human 8 breast milk? Does it matter to you that we are 9 toxifying our children? Does it matter that 73 man made 10 hazardous compounds, including flame retardants and DDT, 11 are found in the blood of grandmothers, mothers, and 12 children in 12 countries? It matters to me. 13 MR. BACHMANN: Time is running out. Do you 14 have one summation? It's just fairness to all the 15 people that went earlier that didn't get longer. 16 MS. WALLACE: Absolutely. Two sentences. 17 That's why I'm here. I request that you strengthen 18 standards and regulations to protect our air quality. 19 We must. Current standards to protect our air, water, 20 and food are not working. I know that. I know that 21 because if they were working, pregnant women wouldn't be 22 restricted to a single serving of tuna per week. Thank 23 you for listening. 24 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Interesting link 25 378 between Donora where people first came up with zinc as 1 an element that came off of the precipitators that are 2 in particular agent as well as sulfur and so forth. 3 I'm interested, Dr. Alles, in your 4 assessment in  I don't know if you wrote it up at all 5  when you were at the University of Maryland on 6 looking a particular metals, which is a fraction of 7 particles, which is one of the issues we're obviously 8 looking at right now. We have proposed to keep 9 standards for all particles no matter what composition 10 at this point, but people are doing research. So if 11 there's anything that you have that is together enough, 12 as far as you're concerned, to send us to that look at 13 the literature that would be nice. 14 DR. ALLES: I'd be happy to. 15 MR. BACHMANN: Thanks to both of you for 16 coming. Next we have Chris Thoeny and Doug O'Malley. 17 MR. THOENY: First I'd like to thank you all 18 for giving me the opportunity to give you my comments. 19 Just in listening to her speak, I'm probably a little 20 less statistically prepared as far as numbers and things 21 go. My name is Christopher Thoeny, T H O E N Y. 22 Basically, I received an E mail from 23 PennEnviornmental who send me a multitude of E mails 24 regarding environmental concerns, things going on. And 25 379 when I read it, I thought about the subject matter, and, 1 basically, realized that it's something that affects me 2 and has affected me many times in my day to day life, 3 and I think it's one of the most common sources of 4 pollution that we're all exposed to in our daily 5 activities. We walk the streets of Philadelphia; we sit 6 in its traffic; some of us live next to some very busy 7 roads. If you know anyone who lives on those roads, 8 they have soot and dust from exhaust on their mantles. 9 So I thought this was something worthwhile to speak 10 about. 11 Diesel soot, and I guess many other things 12 associated with exhaust from diesel engines, are 13 associated with cancer. Soot is associated with causing 14 asthma problems, bronchial problems. The city of 15 Philadelphia, I just read on the Internet ranks 16th in 16 a study of 50 cities for major respiratory problems, 17 that includes admission to hospitals, prescriptions of 18 medicines, and doctor diagnoses. And my understanding 19 of the role of the EPA is to protect the environment, 20 which means protecting the citizens of this country, of 21 this city, and this region. I may not be aware of all 22 the effects, the toxicological effects, the breathing 23 effects of the particles that we may be exposed to, but 24 I don't see no reason why we can't make it more 25 380 tolerable to be exposed to the exhaust of a diesel truck 1 when we're standing on the corner. Or, for me, for 2 example, I work around several diesel engines, and when 3 someone carelessly parks their vehicle in your work 4 area, it's irritating, it makes you cough, gives you a 5 headache, and it's very obvious to me that whatever 6 standards the engines are under right now are probably 7 inadequate in this day and age. I don't see why we 8 can't lower our exposure to something that's obviously 9 bad for you. It just seems like common sense. You 10 don't wait for something bad to happen before you lower 11 your risk to it. You look ahead to the future. You 12 don't quit smoking cigarettes after you get cancer. You 13 look ahead and you realize this may be a good way to 14 help yourself. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 15 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Doug O'Malley. 16 MR. O'MALLEY: First, I'd like to thank the 17 panel for keeping the midnight oil burning, if not until 18 midnight, at least until 9 p. m. Also, for the fact that 19 I know over the course of the day, you've heard a lot 20 from doctors and scientists and health professionals. 21 In the evening, you get a chance to hear more from 22 regular citizens. I am not a regular citizen, but I am 23 here because I do want to give voice to some of the 24 citizens from New Jersey. I represent New Jersey Public 25 381 Interest Research Group, which is a partner organization 1 of PennEnvironment. I'm a member of the working group 2 from New Jersey DEP on our current efforts to reduce 3 soot pollution in the state. I worked with senators Bob 4 Smith and Assemblyman Jack McKean this spring to pass 5 legislation to clean up diesel engines in our states, 6 one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation that 7 will clean up diesel school buses, transit buses, 8 garbage trucks, and other public diesel vehicles in the 9 state, and then works to educate the public and to pass 10 this initiative on the ballot. 11 That being said, the total amount of soot 12 reduction is only ten percent. And I think it's 13 important in our outreach efforts throughout 2005, we 14 clearly said this was a first step. And with the work 15 that New Jersey and other states are doing right now 16 with the state limitation process is obviously the next 17 step. At the end of the day, though, we need to make 18 sure that when we get to the next step, when ideally New 19 Jersey and Philadelphia, which is going to be a tough 20 road to hope, get into compliance, that those standards 21 are fully health protective. 22 As you've heard from other health 23 professionals throughout the day, we belive that you 24 need to have a health protective standard of 12 25 382 micrograms for the annual standard for PM. 1 And I want to, kind of, just, pause here 2 because obviously you've heard the science. I want to 3 give voice to some of our members. We have, as I 4 mentioned, over 20,000 members, and here are some of 5 their stories from suffering from air pollution in New 6 Jersey, which as you probably know, has 13 counties that 7 are out of compliance. 8 This is from Ann Marie Bronoff from Toms 9 River, New Jersey in Ocean County. " My husband has been 10 recently diagnosed with asthma. He's a police officer 11 who began his career seven years ago and was running 12 five miles a day on the beach at the police academy. 13 Since then, he has served his community as an officer at 14 the Lincoln Tunnel and the Newark Liberty Airport, 15 mainly in the street as a traffic officer." Obviously, 16 this has put the gentleman at incredible exposure to 17 soot pollution. " A year or so ago he returned home 18 after a shift not feeling well. A few minutes later he 19 was gasping for air and fallen on the floor. ' If I pass 20 out before they come, roll me onto my side,' he said. 21 After that I could recognize no words just gurgling. I 22 called 911 that day and one other occasion since. He is 23 currently on two medications and takes his inhaler 24 several times a day. He has no stamina and engages in 25 383 few activities. Consequently, he's gained weight. He's 1 unable to cut the lawn or carry storage in and out of 2 the attic. Please clean up our air so my husband can 3 have the quality of life he so deserves as he happily 4 serves others." 5 Another story is from an a more elderly 6 citizen from south Jersey, which, obviously, is impacted 7 not only from the air pollution in New Jersey, but also 8 by the Philadelphia metro region. It's from an elderly 9 citizen. Obviously, the seniors are going to be much 10 more vulnerable. Her name is Jessie Weeks, and she 11 lives as in Cape May. " At 68 years of age I'm 12 experiencing more and more deep affects from asthma. 13 Last winter I fainted in the Cherry Hill Mall. Tests 14 have shown this episode was caused by the reflex affect 15 of asthma. Fortunately I was not injured, but the 16 results could have been much more serious. It is very 17 difficult for me to walk outdoors when air pollution is 18 severe. Recently walking outdoors in the winter is a 19 problem." Walking outdoors in the winter and summer. 20 That's unfortunately a story which we hear a lot. 21 One of the stories you do not hear is the 22 impact on school children. The number one reason why 23 kids in New Jersey miss school is because of asthma. 24 Asthma rates have skyrocketed in the state. It is very 25 384 clear to us in New Jersey that we're doing a lot to 1 reduce our soot levels. The amount of time, effort, and 2 energy going into this is really quite impressive. It 3 is going to take a lot of work in the regulatory 4 community to cut down on soot levels. But we need to 5 know that the federal government is setting levels that, 6 ultimately, if we get those counties into compliance, 7 that they will be health protected. And that's 8 something that we need EPA to be stronger on this issue. 9 We need EPA to listen to the signs. It's been out there 10 for a while. You've obviously heard a lot from it 11 today. We need it, not just for us, we need it for 12 people like Jessie and other citizens who are suffering. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. Doug, you said it 15 correctly. Anybody that can come here and tell us what 16 they feel about this is great. We're here to hear all 17 of this. It's not just from docs who we really want to 18 hear from, and scientists, and other people with 19 opinions, but I think people who think about it and have 20 their own reaction  so we do appreciate everyone who's 21 come to today. We particularly appreciate Chris coming 22 and talking about it, as well as anybody who's been able 23 to do it. Thank you again. 24 Eleanor Vine. 25 385 MS. VINE: I want to introduce myself, 1 Eleanor Vine, V I N E. I live in Collingswood, New 2 Jersey. I work in Montgomery County in Norristown with 3 the Public Health Department there, County Health 4 Department. So I have a leg in the two states, New 5 Jersey and Pennsylvania, and I know that's two different 6 EPA regions, but it's one area. My work is also 7 directed toward the New Jersey Environmental Justice 8 Alliance, and our south Jersey membership is 9 particularly strong in the Camden area. My hometown is 10 next to Camden. 11 Camden has been recognized as an 12 environmental justice community by the State of New 13 Jersey, and the DEP has been attempting to lessen the 14 disproportionate burden of pollutants on the people 15 living in this community in Camden, but the air quality 16 is just very, very poor. The measurements that you 17 adopt as the standards have profound effect on what can 18 be done for a community such as Camden. We have three 19 air monitors and, believe me, we pay a lot of attention, 20 and we take those readings as strong argument for why 21 things have to be changed, why industries have to be 22 scaled back as far as their pollutant. So it's real 23 essential what gets decided at your level. It can have 24 tremendous effect on our arguing power and what we can 25 386 do to reduce the burden on people who are living with 1 most severely impacted air quality. 2 One of the women who is very active in the 3 Camden Environmental Justice Group lives right by a 4 factory, which is a major source of fine particulates, 5 coarse particulates. She's near a major bus route. 6 There are trucks all the time coming in and out to the 7 factories in her town, and her livelihood is in 8 sheltering special need kids. She takes them to her 9 home, gives them her extra loving attention, but they're 10 in a very, very poor air quality area. And these are 11 kids with a lot of disadvantages already, medically 12 sensitive kids. So it's a very difficult situation. We 13 see it all the time. 14 The other side of that is for people who are 15 not so oppressed economically, or even with high 16 visibility industry in their neighborhood  but people 17 here in the city who are just out enjoying a run  my 18 own daughter who works at the zoo and lives in Roxboro, 19 participated in the Broad Street Run this past year, and 20 she can't even run anymore because of the exposure of 21 being out and moving in the air, and exercising 22 vigorously, she now has exercise induced asthma. She's 23 never had that before in her life, and her cousin who is 24 here now from Oregon, living and working in the City, 25 387 has experienced the same difficulty after going out, 1 exercising, trying to keep herself healthy, she's 2 finding that she's short of breath and can't go up and 3 down the steps easily. These are girls in their 20s so 4 it's very worrisome. And I feel discouraged that even 5 when science is supporting the need to tighten the 6 standards, that there's hesitation and reluctance at the 7 top to disregard that work. 8 In the past few months I've submitted 9 comments to the EPA for the toxic inventory that those 10 standards not be relaxed. There was distress throughout 11 our communities that instead of getting better reporting 12 we'll have weaker reporting. It's a very, very hard 13 precedent. We don't want to see things getting laxer or 14 easier for industry; we want to be able to account for 15 what's going into the bodies of our citizens and our 16 friends and neighbors. So if we relax standards, we 17 lose that ability to hold industry accountable and 18 ourselves. Because, certainly, we're all driving more 19 than we need to. 20 I was also very taken aback that EPA is 21 considering different standards for parts of the 22 country. I've never seen that before, and that's, I 23 think, just unconscionable. How can we say that one 24 area of the country can, just, suck it up, basically, 25 388 and there's no justification for that unless we are, 1 simply, in the business of accommodating certain 2 commercial interests. So I urge you, please, keep one 3 standard for all. Tighten the standards, and it really 4 matters when we assess the impact on affected 5 communities. It really does make a difference. Science 6 has gotten increasingly good at pointing out the effects 7 across our population on bad air quality days. And 8 we're seeing that it's lower levels than we thought that 9 trigger so many emergency room visits. So please be 10 mindful and stand with the science that has been showing 11 that we need to tighten our standards and keep the air 12 cleaner and healthier. Thank you. 13 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you very much. Since 14 there's no one else we will suspend until 9 o'clock. 15 ( Whereupon, there was a recess at 8: 37 p. m.) 16 ( Whereupon, the hearing resumed at 9: 00 17 p. m.) 18 MR. BACHMANN: I hereby declare this public 19 hearing on particulate matter standards closed. 20 ( Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 9: 01 21 p. m.) 22 23 24 25


[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 43960-43961]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-69]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 16, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC87-10-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits their
report under oath concerning matter relating to securities of other
public utilities.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, August 5, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER07-876-002.
    Applicants: Chevron Coalinga Energy Company.
    Description: Chevron Coalinga Energy Co submits the Order No. 697
Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 07/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100712-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Monday, August 2, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-416-006; ER06-1552-008.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission Operator, Inc submits
revised tariff sheets as directed by the Commission.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100714-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Wednesday, August 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1089-002.
    Applicants: EquiPower Resources Management, LLC.
    Description: EquiPower Resources Management, LLC submits additional
information to its 4/23/10 filing.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, August 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1443-001.
    Applicants: Criterion Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Criterion Power Partners, LLC submits amendment to its
Application for Order Authorizing Market-Based Rates, Certain Waivers,
and Blanket Authorization which was filed on 6/15/10.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Monday, July 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1773-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC submits request
for authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100714-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Wednesday, August 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1779-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, Inc submits an executed
interconnection construction service agreement with Blackstone Wind
Farm II, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Wednesday, August 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1780-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, Inc submits an executed Wholesale
Market Participation Agreement with Sustainable Energy Holdings, LLC et
al.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Wednesday, August 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1783-000.
    Applicants: REP Energy.
    Description: REP Energy LLC submits the Petition for Acceptance of
Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, August 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1784-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits jurisdictional agreement re the
Second Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100715-0235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, August 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-895-004.
    Applicants: The Detroit Edison Company.
    Description: Detroit Edison Company submits a request for an
effective date of the delayed Notice of Cancellation.

    Filed Date: 07/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100714-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Wednesday, August 4, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. e.t. on the specified comment date. It is
not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a
compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18311 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P