to look at 19 Environmental Justice law and regulations to make 20 sure these standards are not causing disparate 21 impacts before you publish any final regulations. 22 Ethical and legal issues aside, I strongly 23 concur with the points that your regulations need to 24 be health protective. The country needs a direction. 25 113 And the standards that you set may not be 1 immediately feasible standards, but we need a 2 direction. We need to know where to go, and strong 3 regulations, health protective regulations drive 4 feasibility. They enable technological innovation 5 that make those standards feasible. Don't lose that 6 point, and please provide the most health protective 7 regulations you can. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. HANNON: Thank you. 10 Questions? 11 MS. STONE: You will submit the study in 12 your comments? 13 DR. BHATIA: I will leave the file on this 14 computer. Will that work? Thanks. 15 MR. HANNON: Dr. Bhatia, one question. You 16 were commenting on where people live and where 17 activities occur that lead to higher levels of 18 pollution. One of our proposals involves where 19 monitors will be sited. And I don't remember the 20 size, where San Francisco would fit, but at least for 21 larger areas there are minimum monitoring 22 requirements, but for larger areas monitors would be 23 located in different  have different criteria. I 24 think one would be at a generally representative of a 25 114 broad population. One of the monitors, at least one 1 monitor would be at a higher level of air pollution, 2 but still represented a population. 3 It might be useful to know where that 4 monitoring  given our monitoring guidance that 5 we're proposing, how that would fit with the maps 6 that you've presented. 7 DR. BHATIA: I would have a recommendation. 8 And I think it's important to have, as you're 9 saying, the monitors to represent the range of 10 exposures actually being suffered by people. So I 11 think you need to take into  I think the first 12 thing is that before we're setting up monitors EPA 13 needs to have some data about the variation and the 14 factors that cause the variation in that particular 15 city or locale. 16 So San Francisco, the air is relatively 17 clean in the west. But it would take air quality 18 monitoring at the street level and looking at the 19 variation to look to see where exactly those monitors 20 should be set. 21 The second page is you can use the relative 22 sort of burden of exposure, where are population 23 centers and where are vulnerable population centers 24 located in setting the location of those monitors. I 25 115 think the monitors need to be representative of the 1 high range of exposures and vulnerable populations in 2 population centers. 3 MR. HANNON: Well, my question is: We have 4 proposed certain monitoring requirements. It would 5 be useful to know whether our requirements as applied 6 to San Francisco meet the goals that you've just 7 identified. 8 DR. BHATIA: Yeah. I guess the point I'm 9 trying to make, I will review those and I would 10 provide those comments, but I would say that EPA has 11 probably insufficient local data about the variation 12 in exposure in order to be making any siting 13 decisions on existing data. 14 MR. HANLEY: Thank you. 15 Is Dr. Michael Lipsett here? 16 And John Sakamoto? 17 Great. Dr. Lipsett. 18 DR. LIPSETT: Thank you. My name is 19 Michael Lipsett. I am a physician epidemiologist and 20 have spent much of my career developing the Medical 21 and Public Health Foundations for California's Air 22 Quality Standards, including the Particulate Matter 23 Standard in 2002. 24 I'm an Associate Clinical Professor at UCSF 25 116 School of Medicine and also work for the State of 1 California. However, I am here representing only 2 myself and not any institution. 3 I'm going to focus mainly on the Course 4 Particle Recommendations from EPA, but I first wanted 5 to mention that there are a couple of omitted 6 studies, omitted relevant studies with respect to 7 course particles. 8 And on page 2657 of the Federal Register 9 Notice, the EPA cites three new U. S. and Canadian 10 epidemiologic studies representing associations 11 between shortterm exposure to course particles and 12 emissions for respiratory disease. This overlooks 13 two relevant studies. One in Canada in Toronto by 14 Lynn et al. published in 2002  and I have the full 15 citations I have submitted with written comments  16 in which the investigators identified strong 17 associations of asthma hospitalizations with course 18 PM. 19 And there's another study from the 20 University of Washington in Seattle published in 1999 21 in which the investigators observed statistically 22 significant risk estimates of comparable magnitude 23 with course and fine particles for asthma 24 hospitalizations. 25 117 Now throughout the Federal Register Notice 1 the EPA downplays the toxicity of rural relative to 2 urban particles, at the same time indicating that 3 there are few data on which to base such a 4 conclusion. If the EPA actually believed that its 5 mission were to protect public health, the 6 appropriate course of action would be to treat these 7 categories of particles the same unless and until 8 there are data to support making a principled 9 distinction between them. Instead the EPA repeatedly 10 prisons misleading generalizations in support of the 11 notion that rural particles are not worth regulating. 12 For instance, the Federal Register Notice 13 cites the relative lack of toxicity of volcanic ash 14 from Mt. St. Helens a couple of times. Most people 15 understand that this is not characteristic of course 16 particles throughout the rest of the country. 17 This bias is also present when EPA 18 categorizes nonurban particles as " natural crustal 19 dust of geologic origin," completely ignoring not 20 only the biologic constituents of course particles 21 such as endotoxin, but also human contamination of 22 these natural particles by burning crop residues, 23 applying pesticides or herbicides, and by driving 24 tens of thousands of vehicles a day on major highways 25 118 through otherwise rural factors. 1 In light of these factors it is 2 disingenuous to characterize particles in these areas 3 as  4 ( Microphone interference.) 5 DR. LIPSETT: Sorry. Can I have an extra 6 time? 7 MR. HANLEY: Yes, you can. 8 ( Comments off the record.) 9 DR. LIPSETT: The mic, is it working right 10 now? 11 MR. HANLEY: Why don't you test it, Doctor? 12 DR. LIPSETT: Okay. 13 MR. HANLEY: Can you hear him in the back? 14 [ SPEAKERS]: Yeah. 15 MR. HANLEY: Okay. Continue. 16 DR. LIPSETT: Okay. Thank you. 17 I think I had just said, and I'll repeat, 18 it's disingenuous to characterize particles  19 ( Microphone interference.) 20 DR. LIPSETT: I'm sorry. Am I being too 21 harsh; is that what it is? 22 ( Laughter.) 23 MR. HANLEY: Try to keep working through it 24 and I'm keeping note of the time. Thank you. 25 119 DR. LIPSETT: All right. So, okay, 1 moreover, there is evidence that nonurban particles 2 are assisted with mortality. While the EPA states on 3 page 2666 of the Notice that all the relevant 4 epidemiologic studies of mortality were conducted in 5 urban areas, this is simply wrong. 6 I think Dr. Ostro testified earlier today 7 about a study in which he and I are co authors of 8 looking at mortality in the Coachella Valley, a 9 desert resort and retirement area east of L. A. which 10 is also partially agricultural. Anyone who has ever 11 visited there knows that it is not urban, yet we 12 identified statistical significant associations 13 between course particles and cardiovascular 14 mortality. 15 Finally, there are no data cited in the 16 Federal Register Notice that justify excluding 17 agriculture and mining. The EPA notes on page 2667 18 that the limited evidence does not support either the 19 existence or the lack of causative associations for 20 community exposures to thoracic course particles from 21 agricultural or mining industries. 22 Again the dearth of evidence should not 23 mean that inhabitants of mining or agricultural 24 regions should be deprived of regulatory protection. 25 120 In addition to the human contributions to 1 particle toxicity in agricultural areas, soils 2 throughout the world contain large quantities of 3 endotoxins and other microbial products. The EPA's 4 own research laboratory has convincingly demonstrated 5 that endotoxin is found preferentially in the course 6 for action and causes pro and inflammatory effects in 7 experimental systems. 8 Moreover, it is well known that endotoxin 9 causes pulmonary inflammation and exacerbates asthma. 10 Agricultural  okay, I'm going to skip 11 now. I think I probably have about a minute left 12 here. That EPA adduces no evidence whatsoever to 13 justify excluding areas near mines from coverage of a 14 course particle standard. In fact there is no 15 discussion at all about different mining activities, 16 nor are any distinctions made among different types 17 of mining, whether it's coal, copper, gold, iron, and 18 so forth. 19 And the EPA even states on page 2665 that 20 urban particles are likely to be more toxic because 21 of larger relative amounts of iron, nickel, cadmium, 22 and chromium. Well, all of these metals come from 23 mines or quarries. While urban aerosols may be 24 enriched with some of these metals, it is not obvious 25 121 why mine tailings and particles generated in the 1 vicinities of mine would not. Absent compelling 2 supporting evidence, this exclusion, like that for 3 agriculture, appears arbitrary and capricious. 4 Thank you very much for your time. 5 MR. HANLEY: Thank you, Doctor, and I 6 apologize for the audio problems. 7 Do we have any questions? 8 Thank you. Appreciate you offering those 9 extra studies. And you did say those are and you 10 will have those in the record or submit those for the 11  12 DR. LIPSETT: Well, I have the citations 13 here that were submitted and they're easy to 14 retrieve. 15 MR. HANLEY: Okay. Appreciate that. 16 MR. SAKAMOTO: Good morning. My name is 17 John Sakamoto. I am Senior Vice President of 18 Eichleay Engineers of California. 19 As an engineering firm we are often asked 20 to design and construct projects that are driven by 21 environmental compliance needs. I applaud many of 22 the projects and have helped to  that have helped 23 to attend clean air standards and protect public 24 health. 25 122 I have designed, managed, and built many of 1 these projects that I can say was honestly worth 2 every penny of the cost of their installation. 3 However, new environmental standards must 4 balance the need for improved air quality against the 5 cost of compliance. It is too simple to state that a 6 regulation will make things better without 7 understanding the physical science, the health 8 science, and the proposed implementation costs and 9 cost effectiveness of the new regulation. 10 This new standard will impact businesses in 11 California. It would mean additional controls and 12 capital spending which will increase the cost of 13 doing business in California. No doubt consumers and 14 the public will pay for this increased cost of 15 business. 16 The new standard will also result in 17 significant portions of California being classified 18 as a nonattainment area, despite the fact that 19 California already has the most stringent industrial 20 and auto emissions standards in the nation and has 21 led the nation in reducing PM for decades. 22 Clearly human health must be protected. 23 Regulations to accomplish this will carry certain 24 economic costs, many of which will be borne by the 25 123 same persons whose health is being protected. 1 The EPA in adopting this new standard 2 should consider the costs of compliance. I ask you 3 to weigh the benefit of the public against the 4 expense of these very costly measures, especially 5 when balanced against other pressing needs of U. S. 6 society. Taken to an extreme there would be an 7 infinite cost to place the public in a sterile 8 bubble. 9 Thank you very much for your time. 10 MR. HANNON: Mr. Sakamoto, I'm sure you're 11 aware that we're not allowed under the statute to 12 take costs into consideration, implementation costs 13 in setting the level. At the same time the Agency of 14 course recognizes that there are costs associated 15 with rules. We did a regulatory impact analysis that 16 was not part of the rulemaking. It was not part of 17 justifying the proposal, but just for informational 18 purposes. 19 MR. SAKAMOTO: I understand. 20 MR. HANNON: Okay. And did you have any 21 comments on the costs analysis in that RAA or the 22 comparison to potential benefits? 23 MR. SAKAMOTO: In going through the 24 analysis I did not see the final cost of the 25 124 regulation as opposed to the implementation of 1 putting the regulation in effect as opposed to what 2 industry, what businesses, and what the public will 3 ultimately pay to attain each level of the standard. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: We will be doing a 5 final regulatory impact analysis when we issue the 6 final rule that will address that more fully. 7 MR. SAKAMOTO: Thank you very much. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 9 Laura Fultz and Marcie Keever. 10 MS. KEEVER: I'm Marcie. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay, Marcie. 12 Is Laura Fultz here? 13 Okay. Is Linda Weiner here? Okay. 14 MS. KEEVER: Good morning. My name is 15 Marcie Keever and I'm a Staff Attorney and Equal 16 Justice Works Fellow at Our Children's Earth 17 Foundation. OCE is a nonprofit organization 18 dedicated to protecting the public from the harmful 19 effects of air and water pollution. 20 EPA's proposal to make provisions to the 21 Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality 22 Standards for Particulate Matter causes grave concern 23 to our organization and OCE's members throughout the 24 country. 25 125 EPA's standards as proposed fail to 1 adequately protect public health as mandated by the 2 Clean Air Act. This would be a complete roll back of 3 more than 30 years of environmental and public health 4 protection. 5 Particulate matter exposure is linked to a 6 series of significant health problems, including 7 aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, reduced lung 8 function, irregular heartbeat, heart attack, 9 premature death in people with heart or lung disease. 10 Children are people susceptible to particle 11 pollution because of their developing lungs, because 12 they spend more time out of doors they are often more 13 physically active and breathe more rapidly, inhaling 14 more pollutants in proportion to their body weight. 15 The elderly are also at special risk and 16 constitute most of the premature deaths from particle 17 pollution because in general they are less able to 18 ward off disease. 19 Particulate matter is also the main cause 20 of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and 21 national parks; 13 of these national parks which 22 suffer from poor air quality on a regular basis, as 23 determined by the National Parks Conservation 24 Association. More 2,000 studies confirm the 25 126 relationship between particles and illness, 1 hospitalization, and premature death; and that these 2 deaths occur at levels well below the current PM 3 standards. 4 EPA's failure to propose a health 5 protective standard is inconsistent with its mandate 6 to protect public health and the environment under 7 the Clean Air Act. 8 Federal law is clear: Air quality 9 standards must be set at levels that protect public 10 health with an adequate margin of safety, including 11 vulnerable populations: Children, the elderly, 12 people with lung and heart disease, and diabetes. 13 While EPA's proposal lowers the 24 Hour 14 Fine Particle Standard, it sets a new 24 Hour 15 Standard for Course Particles. Neither of these 16 standards are set at a health protective level. 17 EPA also proposes to retain the Current 18 Annual Fine Particle Standard which again fails to 19 protect public health. Scientific studies and a 20 significant number of scientists, public health 21 advocates, and medical professionals concur that 22 these proposed standards are not low enough to 23 adequately protect public health and the environment. 24 More than 100 leading air quality 25 127 scientists and physicians called on EPA to propose 1 substantially more protective air quality standards 2 for particulates. The scientists urged EPA to adopt 3 an Annual Average Fine Particle Standard of 12 4 micrograms per cubic meter, a 24 Hour Average Fine 5 Particle Standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter at 6 the ninety ninth percentile, and a stringent 24 Hour 7 Average Course Particle Standard applied equally to 8 all areas of the country. 9 EPA's proposal to limit monitoring for 10 course particles to communities with populations 11 greater than 100,000 people is irresponsible and 12 violates the Clean Air Act. Any PM standard must be 13 set to protect all Americans, as the Clean Air Act 14 mandates. 15 EPA hasn't demonstrated that urban course 16 PM isn't present in many communities with populations 17 less than 100,000. And since the same sources and 18 processes, for example, traffic, road dust, and 19 industrial sources can affect communities of all 20 sizes, a protective standard must be established and 21 applied across the country. 22 EPA's proposal which grants a blanket 23 exception to agriculture and mining industries from 24 regulation under the proposed course particle 25 128 standard is also unprecedented and illegal. 1 Again EPA has not provided evidence that 2 course particles somehow are not emitted by 3 agriculture and mining operations, and in turn should 4 not be regulated. 5 OCE joins public health and environmental 6 groups across the country in urging EPA to adopt the 7 most health protective and stringent NAAQ Standards 8 for course and fine particulate matter. EPA should 9 set a 12 microgram per cubic meter annual standard, a 10 25 microgram per cubic meter daily standard for fine 11 particulates, and the most stringent standard for 12 course particulates for all areas of the country. 13 OCE asks EPA to err on the side of 14 protecting public health and the environment for all 15 Americans and adopt the most stringent particulate 16 matter standards recommended in its final rule. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to provide 18 comments. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. And I 20 just want to say if you are going to provide any 21 additional written comments, anything that you want 22 to offer us concerning health effects in rural areas 23 or studies in rural areas, if you are aware of any, 24 would be helpful to help us further understand your 25 129 testimony. Thank you. 1 Linda Weiner. 2 MS. WEINER: My name is Linda Weiner. And 3 I represent the American Lung Association of 4 California. I also represent the San Francisco Bay 5 Area Clean Air Task Force. This is an organization 6 of over 25 environmental public health and 7 transportation groups working collaboratively to 8 shape regional air quality policy with a focus on 9 Environmental Justice. 10 Many of the groups represented in the Task 11 Force have also spoken today as individual 12 organizations: The Sierra Club, the Natural 13 Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned 14 Scientists, Our Children's Earth, many others and a 15 lot of community groups. 16 I may repeating some of the things you've 17 heard today but perhaps in a different way. 18 The science is clear seems to be a theme, 19 and I would like to reiterate that. There has been 20 some indication that part of the reason the EPA 21 proposed such weak standards is because there was 22 some thinking that the science was biased, that it 23 was political. 24 Considering there are more than 2,000 peer 25 130 review studies linking the dangerous connection 1 between particle pollution and lung disease this 2 seems to be, on the face of it, unacceptable. If 3 there were five studies, maybe 10. But a body of 4 2,000 studies from reputable scientists all pointing 5 in the same direction seem to indicate that, yes, the 6 science is clear, indeed even clearer since the 7 recent article appeared in Epidemiology highlighting 8 that new research indicates the chronic effects of 9 fine particles may be two to three times greater than 10 previously believed. 11 The Clean Air Scientific Advisory 12 Committee, not exactly a wild eyed radical bunch, is 13 comprised a wide range of reputable scientists of 14 different political persuasion, conservative, 15 liberal. And they have all agreed that the science 16 supports strengthening the proposed standards, so the 17 science seems to be clear. 18 I remember well and not long ago, having 19 been involved in public health for a number of years, 20 when research on tobacco was called junk science by 21 the industry and by front groups for the industry. 22 And this was after reams of scientific studies had 23 clearly shown tobacco was harmful. 24 History has proved them wrong. And, as 25 131 history will do, I'm guessing, as many others, with 1 these proposed standards, because it appears the 2 science is clear, the law is clear. As you are well 3 aware, as others have said, the Clean Air Act states 4 that air quality standards must be set at levels that 5 protect public health with an adequate margin of 6 safety, including vulnerable populations. 7 The only thing EPA is allowed to consider 8 when setting a standard is how it protects public 9 health. It takes political will, but the bottom line 10 is that the goal of the Clean Air Act is to ensure 11 the air is healthy, period. So it seems the law is 12 clear. 13 These Proposed Standards impact real people 14 on a day to day basis. Policies at every level of 15 government obviously impact hundreds of thousands of 16 people. In this case it's been estimated that there 17 are 165 million people living in areas with particle 18 pollution at levels that adversely affect public 19 health. But it's been estimated that EPA's Proposed 20 Standards, even though higher than before, protect 21 only 65 million, leaving 100 million exposed. 22 This is particularly troubling for those 23 communities already impacted by multiple sources of 24 pollution. I don't live in an Environmental Justice 25 132 community, but I have taken toxic tours. And when 1 you see the pollution from diesel bus yards, from 2 sewage plants, industrial factories, cement 3 factories, power plants, ports, refineries, 4 construction sites, and railroad yards all in one 5 small geographic area spewing particle pollution, you 6 can understand why these communities are concerned 7 and why we all are about these weak standards. 8 And most of these communities are low 9 income communities and communities of color, which 10 already have a higher proportion of lung disease and 11 particularly asthma. So the point is these Proposed 12 Standards affect real people on a day to day basis. 13 No person should be excluded from these 14 laws and no industry should be exempted. There is no 15 precedent for EPA's proposal to limit standards for 16 course particle pollution to urban areas and exclude 17 populations under 100,000. 18 Additionally, to provide a blanket amnesty 19 for pollution from the mining and agricultural 20 industries is unacceptable. As we understand it, air 21 quality standards are set to protect all Americans 22 and not selected areas or selected industries. 23 The science shows that course particles, 24 like fine particles, do penetrate into the lung and 25 133 pose serious health risks. The Administration's 1 proposal to eliminate pollution monitoring in small 2 and mid size communities and to categorically exempt 3 agriculture and mining from control requirements is 4 unprecedented and unjustified. No person should be 5 excluded from these laws and no industry should be 6 excluded. 7 And, finally, this may be the only chance 8 in a decade to change these standards. Even though 9 EPA is required every five years to review the 10 standard, it has never kept to that schedule. Often 11 a lawsuit forces the government to the table, 12 followed by the review process, followed by more 13 lawsuits from industry. So this is our chance now 14 and may be the only chance we have in a decade to 15 ensure standards protective of public health. 16 And, finally, I will reiterate what I my 17 colleagues have said, that EPA should follow the 18 recommendations of the American Thoracic Society, the 19 American Lung Association, and other respected 20 medical and scientific leaders from across the 21 country and adopt the following: An Annual Standard 22 for Fine Particle Pollution no higher than 12 23 micrograms per cubic meter; a Daily Standard no 24 higher than 25 micrograms per cubic meter; and a 25 134 strong Course Particle Standard and monitoring 1 requirement that protects all Americans in urban and 2 rural communities. 3 And I thank you for the opportunity to 4 speak. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 6 Any questions? 7 MS. STONE: You will include the citation 8 of the Epidemiology study? 9 MS. WEINER: Thank you. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, please. 11 MS. WEINER: Thanks very much. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is Linda Fultz here? 13 MS. FULTZ: Laura. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Laura. I'm sorry. I 15 misread that. Laura Fultz and Kent Bransford. 16 MS. FULTZ: Good morning. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Fultz, good 18 morning. 19 MS. FULTZ: Or good afternoon. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think we're still 21 morning here. 22 MS. FULTZ: Okay. I'm Laura Fultz and I'm 23 from Fresno, California. I've lived there for over 24 25 years. I am a member of the Central Valley Air 25 135 Quality Coalition and a Contracted Field Organizer 1 with Environmental Defense, but I am here speaking 2 for myself as a private citizen. 3 Why I'm here is because I live in a severe 4 nonattainment PM10 and PM2.5 area, aka the Central, 5 San Joaquin Valley. I suffer from breathing problems 6 along with my twin sister, my mom, dad, niece, and 7 nephews. These I was not born with, nor were my 8 family members. They have developed by living in 9 this  the poor air basin and the air quality there. 10 I have longtime friends who have moved from 11 the Valley due to their children having asthma. Of 12 course they're the lucky ones who can move away. 13 Many people are not able to because their work is 14 there and they can't move, or their family. 15 Also doctors are encouraging anyone who can 16 move away who have breathing problems to do so. 17 These young professionals who are moving 18 away or those who consider moving to the Valley but 19 don't because of our poor air quality has increased 20 our brain drain. We have a limited number of people 21 with bachelor's degrees in the Valley. This puts a 22 strain  it affects our culture. It affects our 23 economy in the Valley. 24 And I just want to urge you and other 25 136 Valley citizens urge you to strengthen the PM10 1 standards, not keep the status quo, or wipe out 2 totally in the mining and farming areas, which we 3 have both of in the Valley, this wipe those out in 4 these areas. We need the standards strengthened now. 5 And the Central Valley cannot afford losing their 6 young professionals nor the cost it has on our 7 healthcare system and those who have to stay in the 8 Valley. 9 Thank you. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 11 I'm sorry. Go ahead. 12 MR. HANLEY: I have a question. I just 13 want to clarify. You did say do not keep the status 14 quo. And you might know that in the proposal we 15 actually offer the idea of keeping the existing PM10 16 standard, if that's even possible legally due to the 17 court challenges earlier, but is that what you were 18 referring to, is don't keep the existing PM10, that 19 you do support  20 MS. FULTZ: To strengthen it. 21 MR. HANLEY: To strengthen it, okay. 22 MS. FULTZ: Yes. Yes. 23 MR. HANLEY: Thank you. 24 MS. FULTZ: Um hum. 25 137 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bransford. 1 DR. BRANSFORD: Thank you. Appreciate the 2 opportunity speaking with you this morning. Do I 3 need to have the mic here? 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, you do. 5 DR. BRANSFORD: Okay. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: You need to have both 7 mics. 8 DR. BRANSFORD: My name is Kent Bransford. 9 And I am here today because I have patients that are 10 dying and some of them are dying unnecessarily. I'm 11 a medical oncologist, hematologist, cancer and blood 12 specialist. 13 And in addition to practicing medicine I 14 also serve as the National President for Physicians 15 for Social Responsibility, which is a group of about 16 26,000 members nationwide representing doctors, 17 nurses, public health officials, concerned citizens, 18 the business community. We shared the Nobel Peace 19 Price in 1985 and our work really tries to use a 20 medical perspective and expertise to address threats 21 to public health. 22 So I'm here today because we have a 23 definite threat to public health, as you have heard 24 from the folks who have come before me, a threat from 25 138 particulate matter, soot, air pollution. I have come 1 over 100 miles and devoted this day at my expense 2 because of the importance of this issue to my 3 patients. And I'm heartened to see other doctors 4 across the country, Philadelphia and Chicago, at 5 these hearings today doing the same thing. 6 So we're taking our time away from buys 7 hospitals and our practices because it's crucial that 8 the EPA enact and enforce regulations that are 9 protective of public health. We're here because the 10 proposed standards for fine particulate matter, in 11 particular, will lead to up to tens of thousands of 12 excess deaths compared to a more health protective 13 standard. 14 It's EPA's responsibility, as you know, to 15 protect the public's health using sound scientific 16 and medical evidence. And in the case of particulate 17 matter the evidence is overwhelming, as you have 18 heard this morning. And the Clean Air Act mandates a 19 health protective standard. 20 Many sources for fine PM, including burning 21 wood, diesel engines, generating electricity at power 22 plants, we have the technology to adequately control 23 these emissions. And adequate standards and timely 24 enforcement of those standards are really crucial to 25 139 protect the nation's health. 1 I'd just like to tell you about one patient 2 of mine with lung cancer. I'll call him Steve. 3 That's not his real name. And, as you know, 4 breathing elevated levels of particulate matter can 5 increase the risk of developing and dying from lung 6 cancer. 7 Steve went to an emergency room because of 8 chest pain and coughing up blood in his sputum. He 9 had a host of tests and was subsequently found to 10 have cancer that had spread to his bones and liver. 11 Now lung cancer at this advanced stage is 12 almost always fatal. Typical life expectancy without 13 treatment is less than a year. Recent advances have 14 extended quality of life and length of life a few 15 months, maybe a couple of years at best, definitely 16 not a cure. 17 Well, Steve was 56 when he was diagnosed 18 with lung cancer. He survived for 19 more months, 19 which was long enough to see his daughter graduate 20 from high school, long enough to play golf for an 21 extra year, most of that time on treatment. Not bad 22 for someone who otherwise wouldn't have lived a year, 23 but terrible when you're 56 and you think your best 24 years are ahead of you. 25 140 Now contrast Steve's struggle for those few 1 extra months with the effect of particulate matter, 2 those that are unfortunate enough to live in areas 3 where they're breathing high levels of particulate 4 matter may have their life shortened by one to three 5 years, depending upon the length of time and the 6 degree of pollution they're exposed to. 7 So what does my patient have to do with EPA 8 standards? As I mentioned, PM, particularly fine 9 particulate matter increases the risk of developing 10 lung cancer as well as dying from heart and other 11 lung conditions. And in fact many Americans live in 12 cities with high PM levels where their risk of dying 13 from cancer is at least eight percent above what it 14 would be if they were breathing cleaner air. 15 All the EPA must do is to enact a health 16 protective standard for PM to lower the lung cancer 17 risk of by eight percent or more for everyone exposed 18 to those elevated levels. 19 So, as you've heard, we're really talking 20 about a standard that was recommended by the Clean 21 Air Advisory Scientific Committee that advises EPA a 22 standard that's been endorsed by the American Lung 23 Association, the American Thoracic Society, American 24 Academy of Pediatrics, American Association  it 25 141 goes on and on, College of Preventive Medicine, a 1 standard that would lower not only the risk of dying 2 from lung cancer, my specialty, but also a standard 3 that would reduce the risks of dying from heart 4 disease, developing and suffering heart attacks, 5 asthma attacks, and hospitalizations in children, and 6 the risk of premature birth, as well as reduced lung 7 development in adolescents. 8 So we're talking about a health protective 9 standard that could save tens of thousands of lives 10 and reduce the risk of heart attacks, up to 40,000, 11 every year. So it's unprecedented that the EPA would 12 ignore the recommendations of its own scientists in 13 the advisory panel. 14 And I would like to, with the other 15 speakers, urge the EPA to adopt a health protective 16 standard of a maximum of 12 mics per cubic meter and 17 a maximum of 25  18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Dr. Bransford, your 19 time is up, so if you could just wrap up please. 20 DR. BRANSFORD: Thank you. 21 And the only thing I was going to add, 22 because I was wrapping up there, was on the way here 23 this morning, and I have not read it in detail, but 24 in the Journal of American Medical Association today 25 142 is a new article basically addressing the MediCare 1 population and the effects of PM and why the proposed 2 standard is not health protective. 3 Appreciate your time. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. We 5 appreciate your time. Thank you both very much. 6 MS. FULTZ: Thank you. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Brian Linde and Mary 8 Cranley. 9 Mr. Linde, do you want to... 10 DR. LINDE: Yeah. The good news is I won't 11 need five minutes to say what I have to say. 12 My name is Brian Linde. I'm a pediatric, 13 hospital based specialist, and I work at Kaiser 14 Hospital in Oakland. I'm a Board Member of the 15 Northern California Chapter of the American Academy 16 of Pediatrics, on which I have served for the past 17 six years. 18 Today I speak on behalf of this group which 19 is formally known as the American Academy of 20 Pediatrics, California Chapter 1. The American 21 Academy of Pediatrics is the largest and most 22 respected nonprofit organization in our country to 23 advocate for the health and well being of all 24 children. 25 143 The AAP is judicious and even conservative 1 in the creation of its recommendations and policies. 2 Every policy is carefully reviewed and almost all 3 are created with the input and collaboration and 4 approval of representatives from other respected 5 organizations. 6 So the AAP Policy Statement on Ambient Air 7 Pollution published 15 months ago had such 8 collaboration from representatives from the CDC and 9 NIH. Why is the AAP so cautious in the development 10 of its policies? 11 To answer that I would say I have worked as 12 a pediatrician for the last 13 years at a variety of 13 private and public hospitals, children's hospitals, 14 private community hospitals, a county hospital, and 15 now at a large HMO. And I can tell you that each of 16 these hospitals and clinics and every pediatric 17 office I have been associated with that provides care 18 for children will set its own policy based on the 19 recommendations of the American Academy of 20 Pediatrics. 21 If you have children or grandchildren or 22 nieces or nephews I say this on behalf of the 23 professionals in whom their health is entrusted. As 24 you've heard from so many other presenters, this 25 144 issue has significant implications for the health and 1 well being of children. So the American Academy of 2 Pediatrics, in line with the above mentioned policy, 3 endorses fully the U. S. EPA Staff Scientists' 4 Proposal for stronger health standards for PM2.5 and 5 the establishment of standards for PM10 to 2.5 in 6 order to protect the health of infants and children. 7 Specifically, the AAP supports the 8 establishment of tighter Annual Average and 24 Hour 9 Standards for PM2.5 and stringent new Standards for 10 PM10 to 2.5. 11 Given the many studies indicating health 12 effects at the lower ends of the ranges proposed, we 13 urge EPA to adopt an Annual Average PM2.5 Standard of 14 12 micrograms per meter squared combined with a 24 15 Hour PM2.5 Standard of 25 micrograms per meter 16 squared. 17 Would you want anything else for your 18 children? 19 Thank you for your time. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. Linde. 21 Ms. Cranley. 22 MS. CRANLEY: Hello. My name's Mary 23 Cranley. I've been a Nurse Practitioner for the last 24 13 years. And before that I was an Oncology Nurse, 25 145 working with cancer patients for four years in a 1 hospital setting. 2 I am currently working in an outpatient 3 adult medical clinic about 25 miles south from San 4 Francisco. 5 In the medical clinic where I work seeing 6 20 to 25 patients per day I have noticed that I've 7 had to prescribe an increasing amount of asthma 8 medications to help my patients breathe better. 9 I've come to learn that California has one 10 of the highest concentrations of fine particulate 11 matter. This most certainly explains the 12 exacerbation of asthma in my patient population. 13 That is the bad news. 14 The good news is that scientists have 15 discovered a means to help my patients. Through 16 numerous studies we now know that exposure to 17 particulate pollution has an associated increased 18 risk of death from all cause mortality, 19 cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, lung 20 cancer, diabetes, and among persons over 65. 21 We also know that diabetes has become an 22 epidemic, and the population is aging. Both of these 23 will contribute further to associated deaths from 24 particulate matter exposure. 25 146 Data from the American Cancer Society 1 Cohort estimated that for each 10 micrograms per 2 cubic meter increase an average exposure to fine 3 particulate matter, longterm cause mortality 4 increased by four percent, cardiopulmonary mortality 5 increased by six percent, and lung cancer mortality 6 increased by eight percent. Premature death from 7 exposure to particulate matter pollution is estimated 8 to shorten lives by one to three years on average. 9 A study was released today, as you've 10 heard, in the Journal of American Medical Association 11 showing a shortterm increase in hospital admission 12 rates associated with fine particulate matter. 13 The healthcare industry is already in 14 crisis. We do not need to exacerbate it with higher 15 hospital costs by ignoring recommendations to reduce 16 exposure to particulate matter. 17 On behalf of the Physicians for Social 18 Responsibility I'm asking the EPA to adopt an Annual 19 Average Fine Particulate Matter of 12 micrograms per 20 cubic meter and 25 micrograms per cubic meter for the 21 24 Hour Standard. These actions will reduce 22 particulate matter related mortality by 86 percent. 23 That is the good news. 24 Additionally, I'm asking the EPA to adopt a 25 147 Daily Average Course Particulate Matter Standard in 1 the range of 25 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter, 2 that it applies this standard uniformly across both 3 urban and rural areas and that it does not exempt 4 agriculture and mining from controls aimed at meeting 5 this standard. 6 As I prescribed stronger and stronger 7 asthma medications for my suffering patients, I don't 8 tell them that this will help only so much. I don't 9 tell them that their government, who is legally 10 required to protect their lives and health as 11 outlined in the Clean Air Act, is ignoring the good 12 news evidence that we know will help them breathe 13 better. 14 Today I ask you, I am doing all that I can 15 to reduce my patients' risk of dying. Are you? 16 I would like to give them that good news. 17 Thank you for listening. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Ms. 19 Cranley. 20 Thank you, Dr. Linde. 21 Any questions anyone has? 22 Okay. Thank you very much. 23 Gordon Fung and Teri Shore. 24 DR. FUNG: Hi. My name is Gordon Fung and 25 148 I'm President of the San Francisco Medical Society. 1 And I'm speaking on behalf of the over 1,000 2 physicians in San Francisco. I'm also Associate 3 Clinical Professor of Medicine in Cardiology at UCSF 4 Medical Center here. And I want to discuss a few of 5 my own personal experiences as a cardiologist and 6 urge that the EPA strengthen its standards to be in 7 line with the American Lung Association 8 recommendations, to reduce the morbidity and 9 mortality of problems presented by the current 10 standards. 11 In my practice as a cardiologist over the 12 past several years I've seen marked improvements in 13 the reduction of cardiovascular disease as we manage 14 critical cardiac risk factors: Diabetes, 15 hypertension, sedentary lifestyle, and smoking. 16 And then as we do a better job and we see 17 that the mortality is decreasing, there is now an 18 emerging group of patients who are having heart 19 disease without any of these risk factors apparent. 20 And a read of the literature suggests that the air 21 quality is contributing to this problem. 22 I've had very difficult times explaining to 23 patients and their families why they might be 24 suffering a heart attack or a stroke, and they have 25 149 absolutely no other cardiac risk factors to explain 1 it. And even then things that we can do to manage 2 their risk factors better, it would be difficult in 3 the face of this literature to have them go out and 4 exercise and get a good slug of clean air when we 5 know that the air is having a problem. 6 And we know at least in emergency rooms, 7 and I'm constantly asked to evaluate patients who are 8 having exacerbations of their asthma, to 9 differentiate it from an exacerbation of congestive 10 heart failure. And so we spend a fair amount of time 11 in that. 12 The data from the medical literature 13 certainly suggests that if we can improve the air 14 quality standards that we would see a reduction in 15 death. And I think that we need to work together, 16 the medical care community with the EPA, to optimize 17 the health of the public. Certainly the public 18 health, society has considered cardiovascular disease 19 one of the major crises of the current day society 20 and it remains the number one killer of adult 21 Americans. And I think that we're going to be ending 22 up fighting a losing battle if we don't work together 23 to help out the public in this manner. And I urge 24 your support for the changes. 25 150 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 1 Ms. Shore. 2 MS. SHORE: Yes. Good morning. My name's 3 Teri Shore. I'm representing Bluewater Network and 4 Friends of the Earth, an international environmental 5 advocacy  advocacy organization. Sorry about that. 6 I guess I'm a little nervous. 7 Anyway, I'm here to urge the U. S. EPA to 8 adopt the strongest and most health protective 9 standards for particulate matter and air quality. 10 And this should apply to all communities, all sizes, 11 and all people. 12 And we very much support the comments 13 previously today that we've heard from the public 14 health community and the medical community. They're 15 really the experts on this. And it's pretty clear 16 that the science is in and the law is clear, that the 17 EPA and the Bush Administration need to act to 18 protect people's health and to put people before the 19 profits of industry, specifically. 20 In terms of the actual standards, we do 21 support the 12 micrograms Standard for Fine 22 Particulate matter, the Annual Standard and 25 for 23 Annual, and to go lower than that, if at all 24 possible. 25 151 I experienced the results of weak 1 regulations and poor air quality both professionally 2 and personally. Professionally I advocate for 3 cleaner emissions from particularly ships, ports, and 4 marine vessels. And we are disappointed that the 5 U. S. EPA so far has failed to regulate foreign 6 flagship engines, which contribute significantly to 7 diesel exhaust and PM emissions in our country. 8 And here in the Bay Area where I'm based I 9 hear a lot of stories from people who live close to 10 ports and close to the goods movement corridors who 11 are suffering from asthma or suffering from cancer. 12 Recently at an Oakland hearing we heard from a woman 13 who said there was a railroad engine that was idling 14 behind her home for five days. There was another 15 woman there who was experiencing cancer from lifelong 16 exposure to diesel exhaust. 17 So I see that on a day to day basis and 18 it's very urgent that you adopt the strongest 19 standards, otherwise it sends a message to industry 20 that they can maintain the status quo. Business as 21 usual. And for the shipping and maritime industries, 22 that basically means that they do as little as 23 possible, they don't want to do much. And if you 24 don't adopt stronger standards they're not going to 25 152 be prompted to do anything more than they're doing 1 now. 2 For example, the Port of Oakland has huge 3 shipping emissions and absolutely no plan at all to 4 try to reduce those at any level. So it's very 5 critical, and EPA definitely does set the example for 6 the country and lead the way, as someone else 7 mentioned. 8 On a personal level I like to get out into 9 the out of doors myself and backpacking is one of my 10 passions. I get out there as much as I can. I go to 11 the national parks. And I think that's probably one 12 of the healthiest things that I can do for myself. 13 But I'm very shocked to learn that the air pollution 14 and the air quality in some of these parks like 15 Sequoia Kings Canyon are degraded by the air quality 16 that's coming in from industry that's being blown in 17 from the Los Angeles Basin. 18 So the thing that I'm doing that I think is 19 the most healthy for me could actually be 20 compromising my health by breathing unhealthy air. 21 And I recall on at least one occasion being in 22 Sequoia Kings Canyon being up on the Silliman Bench 23 and looking down into the Central Valley and it was a 24 beautiful orange and brown sunset, but it was very 25 153 disheartening because the orange and the brown is 1 coming from the bad air quality and the smog and the 2 air pollution. 3 So, once again, we urge you to please adopt 4 the strongest, most health protective standards that 5 you can, and implement them as soon as possible. 6 Thank you. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 8 I just want to check, are there any 9 questions. Just one for Dr. Fung, if there are any 10 studies of cardiovascular effects associated with air 11 pollution that are not in our record already, any 12 other literature you're aware of we would appreciate 13 knowing about that. 14 DR. FUNG: Sure thing. Thank you. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 16 MS. SHORE: Okay. Thank you. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Dawn Sanders Koepke, 18 I no doubt mispronounced, and Dr. Anthony Hansen. 19 MS. SANDERS KOEPKE: Good morning. My name 20 is Dawn Sanders Koepke. I'm with McHugh & Associates 21 on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology 22 Association, also known by their acronym of CMTA. 23 CMTA understands the importance of clean 24 air and protecting public health, however they 25 154 strongly encourage the essential notion that EPA 1 balance the need for air quality protection and the 2 economy. 3 New costs of regulations will drive 4 businesses out of business for little or no 5 environmental benefit. Further reducing emissions to 6 achieve the proposed PM2.5 Standards in California 7 will impose substantial costs on California 8 businesses and residents, preventing economic growth 9 in California while effectively providing incentives 10 for economic activity to expand in or relocate to 11 other states. 12 This is of particular concern when the 13 implementation of the current standard is just 14 beginning and despite the fact that CMTA believes 15 that key uncertainties remain regarding underlying 16 science. 17 Complex federal new source review 18 requirements for new and modified PM2.5 standards 19 emissions sources will add delay and costs to the 20 permits needed for businesses to locate or expand in 21 nonattainment areas by increasing the stringency of 22 required controls and requiring that emission offsets 23 be provided. 24 The existing shortage of PM10 and PM2.5 25 155 offsets in California could then block some proposed 1 projects if the required offsets are not available. 2 Lastly, CMTA would like to note that EPA's 3 own cost benefit analysis shows that the proposed 4 change to the PM2.5 standard has more cost than 5 benefit in certain areas. 6 Lastly, on behalf of CMTA, I ask that you 7 seriously reconsider adopting this more stringent 8 standard. With that, thank you for the opportunity 9 to present on behalf of the California Manufacturers 10 and Technology Association. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 12 One quick question. Well, first, as you 13 know, we don't consider costs in setting these 14 standards. But I just wondered, you said the 15 Proposed Standard had more cost than benefits. And 16 what were you  what document or literature were you 17 referring to? 18 MS. SANDERS KOEPKE: I'd be happy to have 19 that provided to U. S. EPA. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 21 MS. SANDERS KOEPKE: Absolutely. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Dr. Hansen. 23 DR. HANSEN: Do I need both of these? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. One is for the 25 156 court reporter. 1 DR. HANSEN: Good morning. My name is Tony 2 Hansen. I just recently retired as a Staff Scientist 3 from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the 4 University of California, where I spent my entire 5 career developing instruments and making measurements 6 of black carbon particles, otherwise known as diesel 7 exhaust. 8 What I'd like to say today is a commentary, 9 as some scientific commentary. I am not an expert on 10 health effects. My expertise lies in the global 11 disbursal of black carbon and its possible climatic 12 consequences. 13 The more famous Professor James Hansen, who 14 shares a last name with me but is also Director of 15 NASA Goddard, has estimated that black carbon 16 particles could have a climate forcing effect as 17 large as 50 percent of that due to increased CO2. In 18 other words, black carbon particles in the atmosphere 19 are important. 20 The direct solar absorption, brown air, 21 absorbs sunlight. Less sunlight reaches the ground, 22 the atmosphere heats up. The deposition of black 23 particles to snow and ice leads to premature melting. 24 Dirty snow melts quicker. 25 157 And the presence of particles in the 1 atmosphere can subdivide the available water in 2 clouds that are trying to condense into raindrops and 3 inhibit the formation of drops large enough to fall 4 as rain. 5 In other words, the presence of these 6 particles in the atmosphere can have quite serious, 7 direct, and indirect climatic consequences. 8 Black carbon particles don't disappear in 9 the atmosphere. Once they're released from the 10 diesel engine, they don't go away, they're not 11 consumed by reactions in the atmosphere. Some of my 12 instruments, for example, are on the West Coast of 13 Ireland, sampling air that's coming across the 14 Atlantic Ocean. When the wind comes directly from 15 the East Coast of the U. S., the black carbon numbers 16 increase. 17 Right now, today, March the 7th, the 18 concentration of black carbon particles over the 19 atmosphere of Greenland is between three and ten 20 times higher than the concentration of black carbon 21 right here in San Francisco. If you descend in a 22 plane over Barrow, Alaska and look out the windows 23 you see brown bands in the sky. All of that brown 24 stuff ends up on the snow and ice. When the sun 25 158 comes up in the spring, it melts. 1 If you draw enough air through a filter at 2 the South Pole you can make a black spot. I was 3 there a month ago, one of my instruments is there. 4 That black stuff doesn't come out of the snow. 5 So the possible effects of these particles 6 on global climate is undisputable. As I say, 7 Professor James Hansen has published by far the 8 largest body of work on this. Although that doesn't 9 fall within a public health perspective, if you're 10 killed by a hurricane you're still dead. 11 And so that's all I would like to say, is 12 that for the sake of protecting the health of the 13 climate, I urge the adoption of the strongest 14 possible standards. Thank you. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much, 16 Dr. Hansen. 17 Thank you, Ms. Koepke. 18 I'm sorry. I apologize. One of my 19 colleagues has a question. 20 MR. HANNON: A question for Dr. Hansen. 21 There hasn't been much attention today to 22 our Secondary Standards. There's been some mention 23 of visibility, but climate is one issue that was 24 discussed both in a criteria document, and I think 25 159 black carbon is discussed there as well as climate 1 effects of other kinds of PM. And our proposal was 2 to not base the Secondary Standard on climate effects 3 as well as a variety of other secondary effects, 4 based on an inability to quantify it, et cetera. 5 So any comments you have that are 6 specifically aimed at the discussion in the proposed 7 rulemaking about Secondary Standards would be useful. 8 I guess I would suggest you focus your comments on 9 the rulemaking, on  10 DR. HANSEN: Yes. 11 MR. HANNON:  what we've specifically 12 said about climate change and particulate matter. 13 DR. HANSEN: Okay. Thank you. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 15 Francisco Da Costa and Isaac Bloom. 16 Mr. Da Costa, do you want to go first? 17 MR. DA COSTA: My name is Francisco Da 18 Costa. I'm the Director of Environmental Justice 19 Advocacy, but more importantly I represent the First 20 People of this area, the Muwek Maohlone, M u w e k 21 M a o h l o n e, the Muwek Maohlone. 22 I've been paying attention to the experts 23 and what I do not see addressed here are the experts 24 thinking outside the box. And, secondly, what I see 25 160 missing in this rather meaningfully deliberations is 1 a holistic approach to this Earth. 2 We are placed on this Earth as caretakers. 3 And if we came here to San Francisco 300 years ago 4 we would see pristine rivers, the air would be clean, 5 and so on and so forth. But today we see a lot of 6 pollution. And in order to address the health of the 7 human beings and also to address the lifespan of the 8 frogs, insects, birds, and fish, we have a tendency 9 in our own guilty way to have some standards. And so 10 we have state and federal agencies that are supposed 11 to protect us. 12 And again and again we see that it takes a 13 lot of time for these state and federal agencies to 14 really work and preserve, protect and defend the 15 rights of the constituents not only of the United 16 States of America, but all over the world. 17 I have relatives all of the world, some of 18 them very educations, some of them scientists, and 19 they will always ask me why is it that this very so 20 called powerful nation contributes so much to global 21 warming. 22 You've heard many experts here in their own 23 way try to convince all of us that there are many 24 factors that adversely impact all of us. It's a fact 25 161 that global warming is going to impact us, and we see 1 the rise in the oceans. But I haven't heard it 2 discussed today that global warming will melt huge, 3 huge areas of ice blocks in which are trapped very 4 dangerous gases. 5 So in the future this air that we breath 6 will be a commodity. Thirty years ago most people 7 did not drink bottled water, but in the future it's a 8 possibility that we will have to buy clean air to 9 survive. 10 You've heard a young child today or a young 11 boy testify. And I deal with children daily, daily 12 in San Francisco, and they ask me, " Why is it that we 13 suffer from asthma? Why is it that our mothers 14 suffer from cancer?" And I have no answer. 15 Daily you have heard cite officials like 16 Dr. Bhatia, for example, come here and make some very 17 general statements about what they are doing in San 18 Francisco. We call ourselves a green city, but yet 19 very recently we clearcut over a thousand trees, 20 4,000 trees in Parcel A. 21 Some experts say one tree is worth a 22 $ 162,000 because of the role it plays in producing 23 oxygen, in neutralizing carbon dioxide and creating 24 nitrates. 25 162 I thank you very much for giving this 1 opportunity on behalf of the youth to express some of 2 the very many ideas and sentiments that I could have 3 if I was given more time. Thank you very much. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much 5 for taking the time to share your views with us. 6 MR. BLOOM: Good afternoon. My name is 7 Isaac Bloom. I am the Lead Citizen Outreach Director 8 with Environment California for Northern California. 9 I am here both in my official capacity and as an 10 individual. Thank you for taking the time to talk 11 with us. 12 I'm originally from Cleveland, Ohio. We 13 have some of the worst air quality in the country. I 14 was not born with asthma, but by my fifth grade year 15 I missed 35 days of school due to lung related 16 illnesses. 17 In terms of what I do professionally what I 18 do professionally is organize a staff of people to go 19 out and talk to people door to door about issues just 20 like these. I've been doing it for about four years 21 now. There is no equivocation among the people of 22 this country that clean air needs to be a priority. 23 California has some of the worst air 24 pollution in the country and that is a fact that is 25 163 on record. And the Clean Air Act clearly states that 1 air quality standards must protect public health. 2 The EPA needs to strengthen, not weaken 3 clean air standards for particulate pollution. It is 4 the job of the Environmental Protection Agency to put 5 the health and welfare of our nation's most 6 vulnerable, our sick, our youth, and our elderly over 7 the bottom line of the Bush Administration corporate 8 campaign contributors. 9 Thank you very much for your time. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 11 Any questions? Okay, thank you both very 12 much. 13 Anthony Myers and Carolina Simunovic. I'm 14 sorry. Simunovic? Thank you. 15 Well, at last we get to meet her there. 16 Would you like to go first? What's best 17 for you? Yeah. 18 MR. MYERS: Okay. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Myers. 20 MR. MYERS: Yes. My name's Anthony Myers. 21 I'm the Lead Field Manager for Environment 22 California here in San Francisco. And my capacity is 23 much like Mr. Bloom's, go out door to door and talk 24 to people about issues like this. And I think he's 25 164 definitely right: People unequivocally agree that 1 clean air is a priority. 2 I'd just like to say that, you know, I am 3 here both professionally and as a person who lives 4 here in the Bay Area. I have a friend, former co 5 worker and boss who both had asthma. And they both 6 had prescription medicine for it. They both had 7 inhalers. One of them had prescription, like 8 medication, like pills that he had to take for his 9 asthma, it was so bad. They both had asthma attacks 10 like every single week. You know I would hear about 11 it. 12 They don't know that I'm hear today, but 13 they probably don't even know about the standards 14 that exist that the EPA has control over, but they're 15 intimately acquainted with particulate pollution in 16 the atmosphere. 17 Particle pollution is the most dangerous 18 air pollutant that there is. And even at levels 19 below the current standards the damaging health 20 effects are well known and documented. Here in 21 California it causes strokes, lung cancer, asthma 22 attacks. 23 So I'd just like to say that before 24 finalizing the Air Quality Standards later this year, 25 165 the Bush Administration must strengthen the standards 1 and help protect public health instead of maintaining 2 the status quo and rejecting its own science advisors 3 and EPA staff and issuing blanket exemptions for 4 agriculture and mining sectors. 5 That's it. Thank you. 6 MS. STONE: I have a question. Mr. Myers, 7  8 MR. MYERS: Um hum. 9 MS. STONE:  does Environment California 10 have specific recommendations about the levels of the 11 Standards, the Fine Particle or Course Particle 12 Standards? 13 MR. MYERS: Yeah. We want to endorse the 14 American Lung Association's recommendations. 15 MS. STONE: Yeah. It's helpful if you're 16 specific. Thank you. 17 MR. MYERS: Thank you. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 19 Ms. Simunovic. 20 MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC: Thank you very 21 much. My name is Carolina Simunovic. I'm with the 22 Fresno Metro Ministry. This is Isabella and I had to 23 bring her for logistical feeding reasons, but I think 24 it's important actually today for you all to see us, 25 166 see her because what makes me the most scared right 1 now as a mother is thinking how old will my daughter 2 be before the air where we live is clean. How much 3 pollution will she have to breathe? How much can her 4 little lungs take? 5 Those are the fears that I have along with 6 millions of other mothers that are living in rural 7 areas across the country and especially in the San 8 Joaquin Valley, which is where we call home. 9 I put together a few of these pictures for 10 you quickly. And usually I'm very polite, but this 11 is my only chance to talk to you and I think I have 12 to be very frank. 13 I think that's what's happening here is a 14 crime against the San Joaquin Valley. I think the 15 EPA Proposals are irresponsible and unethical, almost 16 designed to harm the people that you need to protect 17 the most, people living in poor communities, rural 18 communities that are exposed to pollutants, exposed 19 to course particulate matter, fine particulate matter 20 on a daily basis and need this protection. 21 The rural definition that is in these 22 proposals will leave almost half of the Valley's 3.2 23 million people without these important air quality 24 protections. And as you know, we are one of the 25 167 dirtiest and largest air basins in the country. It 1 almost seem like these rules either forgot about the 2 San Joaquin Valley or were designed purposefully to 3 make getting clean air there more difficult. 4 Big cities that we consider like Visalia, 5 Clovis, Madera are considered rural here, according 6 to your definitions. And contrary to what is assumed 7 in the proposals, rural dust is contaminated dust 8 here. As you can see here, pesticide use in the San 9 Joaquin Valley is the highest in the nation. 10 I have recently learned from friends we 11 have hazardous waste dumps, I mean I have known that 12 before, but we have hazardous waste ash that is 13 coming off of refineries that is being piled up in 14 our agricultural fields near where people live. 15 Hazardous waste, designated hazardous waste put there 16 illegally, and I can get you that information. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good. 18 MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC: But people exposed 19 to that will not be protected. Hazardous waste 20 permitted in Buttonwillow, California. I mean that 21 is the San Joaquin Valley. We have become the toilet 22 bowl for the nation's waste. And the people here 23 have to breathe it. 24 This is what happened in Westley 1999, four 25 168 million tires burning for months. That is in a rural 1 area. The people had to use windshield wipers to 2 clear the ash from their cars. 3 These are the faces of people trying to 4 breathe in the San Joaquin Valley. Little kids have 5 to use medication in order to play. Our asthma rates 6 are on the rise. 7 These are our rural families. This is near 8 Allensworth State Park. These are our athletes that 9 need to use inhalers in order to compete. These are 10 our families that are trying to take action to clean 11 the air in their neighborhoods. We're at the 12 footsteps of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 13 Control District there. People want clean air. 14 People in the Valley deserve clean air. 15 We went to the Capitol again and again, and 16 we will go to wherever it takes to demand clean air 17 for the people where we live. I think we're scared. 18 we need the strongest protections in our Valley. 19 We're making some gains. We've been working with the 20 Air District to make significant gains, but this 21 would be a major setback. 22 What we need are stronger standards, like 23 those adopted by California for particulate matter, 24 those that are endorsed today by the American Lung 25 169 Association and many others. What we need are more 1 monitors, not less. Please do not remove any one of 2 our nine monitors that we have in the San Joaquin 3 Valley. We need to know what is in our air. If you 4 take those away it's like we won't know what's 5 killing us. 6 Please help us. Thank you. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much 8 for coming and for bringing Isabella. 9 MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC: Thank you. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: And thank you, Mr. 11 Myers. 12 Daniela Simunovic and is Leo Pedretti here? 13 MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC: No. He was unable 14 to make it today from Fresno. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Let me 16 just see. 17 Ray Leon? 18 Great. Thank you. 19 MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC: Hello. My name is 20 Daniela Simunovic and I too work along with Carolina 21 at Fresno Metro Ministry with the Environmental 22 Health Program there. And I am also a 15 year 23 resident of the San Joaquin Valley of Fresno and an 24 asthmatic. 25 170 And my daily reality is that if I don't 1 medicate myself twice a day using my control inhaler, 2 my lungs are at risk for inflammation. That puts me 3 at higher risk for asthma attacks that are aggravated 4 by the pollution that's in our air, in particular the 5 particulate matter pollution. 6 You know part of our job is going out into 7 the community and giving a presentation that we've 8 entitled " Pollution 101," explaining the problem that 9 we have in our Valley. And I go out there and I talk 10 to people about the ozone problem. 11 I go out there and when I get to the 12 particulate matter, that's when people get scared 13 because smog is something people have been familiar 14 with, but particulate matter, it's kind of the silent 15 killer. In the Valley there have been studies that 16 have proved, statistics that have shown longterm 17 exposure to PM2.5 to fine particulate matter has led 18 to an estimated of 1300 premature deaths in our 19 Valley in the eight counties that comprise the San 20 Joaquin Valley. 21 So when you tell people the statistic and 22 people become aware of the particulate matter that 23 we're exposed to, people get scared. And so my 24 concern is I'm going to go back into these 25 171 communities, many of which are rural communities, we 1 travel to the cities, small rural cities which will 2 be exempt for your regulation, like here or even the 3 communities of Clovis, which are right next door to 4 Fresno which for us are considered huge cities, large 5 cities that actually  Clovis and Fresno, I'm not 6 sure if you're familiar with the Valley, but have 7 actually kind of blended and can often be confused as 8 kind of one large city. 9 But under this regulation Clovis with its 10 population of 80,000 people will be exempt from these 11 regulations. So how will that affect Fresno? 12 But, anyway, my point is when I go out to 13 these small communities, that will be exempt. How am 14 I going to tell them that this Environmental 15 Protection Agency, who's been tasked with the duty of 16 passing regulations that will be protective of public 17 health of everybody, has said that: Well, here in 18 this rural area because there's not enough of you, 19 you don't count and they're not regulating for these 20 pollutants. 21 And I don't know with what good conscience 22 I can go to do that. And I'm here today asking you 23 and urging you to not create a second class 24 citizenry. 25 172 Here in California one of hugest problems 1 is that the San Joaquin Valley was long forgotten on 2 numerous levels, and one of those issues was air 3 quality. In the recent years we've been fighting. 4 There's been a growing movement of Environmental 5 Justice advocates, regular community members that 6 have been educated on the problem and are speaking up 7 and are going to the Air District meetings. And 8 those are really important people. Many of those 9 people are the people who will be exempt from 10 regulations if the current proposal passes. 11 So I'm asking you when you go  you're 12 tasked as EPA to create regulations that are 13 protective of public health and everybody, and to 14 take into account those voices. Because what kind of 15 public accountability will this Administration have 16 with those people. How will you have credibility in 17 the community? So I urge you again. 18 One of the other issues too is as I was 19 reading one of the fact sheet of our local colleagues 20 I realize that  I'm a former resident of Douglas, 21 Arizona, a small border community who is in 22 violation. They're nonattainment for PM10. 23 Douglas was also a rural, small community 24 on the border with many social justice issues in 25 173 economic and environmental due to the presence of the 1 mining industry there years back. And this community 2 of mainly Latino, low social economic people will be 3 exempt from your regulation as well. 4 I'm asking you to take into account that 5 because these hearings were held in Philadelphia, in 6 Chicago, and in San Francisco, not really rural 7 areas, many people were unable to be here to give 8 voice to their concerns and to their communities. 9 So I'm asking you next time that maybe the 10 hearings like this are taken into account that will 11 so severely affect rural areas, that maybe you 12 consider having one here and giving those people 13 opportunity. 14 But as somebody who was able to come here 15 and to talk on behalf of  here speaking on behalf 16 of my friends in Douglas, Arizona; I'm here talking 17 on behalf of my family in Fresno, California and my 18 nieces and my own lungs, you know there's a myth that 19 PM10, course particulate matter is bigger and it's 20 not affecting our lungs and it's PM2.5 we have to 21 worry about. 22 But the reality is the PM10 is still 23 smaller than the width of a human hair. And our 24 lungs are kind of like filters and the PM10, while 25 174 it's not getting to my deepest organs, is still 1 clogging my lungs. As an asthmatic, longterm 2 exposure to that is affecting me. 3 One in six children in our Valley have 4 asthma. That's not just me, and now we're seeing 5 this medical phenomenon with adult onset asthma, 6 which is not common. And which is something that's 7 just being now seen in studies in the San Joaquin 8 Valley. 9 These are important health issues that need 10 to be addressed in your regulatory policy, and I urge 11 you to make policy based on conscience and not just 12 conscience but science. The science is there 13 supporting. 14 You've heard numerous people come here and 15 talk about the different studies that support, that 16 show there is a link between exposure to particulate 17 matter, pollution, and health risks. And we're 18 living those on a daily basis in the Valley. We 19 don't need a study to show us that. 20 So I urge you just again to consider these 21 people and to not let voices go unheard. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 23 MR. LEON: Hello. Good afternoon. Buenos 24 tardes. My name is Ray Leon with the Latino Issues 25 175 Forum, Senior Policy Analyst. I'm also a native of 1 the San Joaquin Valley, born in Fresno, raised in the 2 farmworker community of Huron which is on the west 3 side of the Valley. 4 And the west side of the Valley, just in 5 respect to monitoring, there currently aren't any 6 monitors that have  that exist on the west side to 7 monitor PM10, PM2.5, or any of the gaseous toxins 8 that exact and on daily basis harm the community. 9 And if I may share a little bit about 10 Huron, Huron is a population of 6,000. It's an 11 incorporated community, farmwork, 98 percent Latino. 12 It is one of ten of the poorest communities in the 13 state. 14 The lettuce season comes twice a year. And 15 what that means is that diesel pollution, diesel 16 trucks come in which are NAFTA trucks, from Canada, 17 from down south, also from across the nation, 18 Florida. I've met truck drivers from all over the 19 country and the continent. 20 But what that means is diesel pollution, 21 it's a big issue. I mean that is on top of the past 22 decades in respect to pesticide drift, pesticide 23 laden dust. We have a creek nextdoor up the way, 24 there is an Acme Rockery. They do a lot of 25 176 excavation. And of course as you know, asbestos is 1 naturally released and therefore concentrated in the 2 soil. So there's asbestos all around the country. 3 So in the summer you can't have a car that is clean 4 for more than two days. 5 With my youth group in Huron we take heed 6 and have car wash fundraisers, but just to show the 7 dust with asbestos, with pesticides, and the diesel 8 toxins, it's harming everybody. 9 I always hear talk in the community, 10 currently we have a leadership institute in the 11 community of Huron of older folks talking about their 12 friends, their relatives have cancer. Of course 13 unfortunately there aren't any resources that are put 14 in to really identify what the problems are in these 15 communities, to effectively assist the impact of 16 asthma or other respiratory illnesses on children or 17 adults to really map out where the disease are 18 prominent or the cancer clusters exist. Those 19 resources don't exist for us and that is a huge 20 problem. 21 To weaken the standards, I mean if I was 22 coming in from another planet I would see all of this 23 taking place without knowing the politics and the 24 economics playing into and I would say that there was 25 177 a low intensity chemical warfare going on against 1 working families. 2 It's unfortunate to say or to even see it 3 that way because, I mean, there are people suffering. 4 I know there's a lot of folks up in D. C. that are 5 doing some good things, but then there are some folks 6 that think they're doing good things and they're 7 really harming and really creating a hazard for the 8 public health of folks, especially the working 9 families. 10 In California 40 percent of Latinos do not 11 have health insurance  a huge problem. If you have 12 a children with asthma, and such as on the west side 13 of Fresno we're working with a community, the Adams 14 community, at 3: 00 p. m. today, 3: 00 to 5: 00, they 15 will be having a rally in front of a concrete company 16 because while their community does not have a park, 17 does not have a youth center, does not have a clinic, 18 the city council and the government allows a concrete 19 company to come in across the street from the Adams 20 Elementary School, which is third highest in the 21 asthma rates where one out of seven children have 22 asthma, and they allow a concrete company to come in 23 to increase diesel traffic. 24 This is an elementary school that is 25 178 surrounded by two distribution centers, Freeway 99, 1 and the railroad track, so it doesn't make sense. 2 The cumulative health impacts are creating chaos with 3 the lungs and the health of our communities in the 4 Valley in the rural parts and also in the urban parts 5 where  I mean have you guys heard of the Brookings 6 Institute Report? Fresno was number one in respect 7 to the highest concentration of clusters of poverty. 8 Well, rural communities in the Valley are as bad if 9 not worse. But of course they're never researched 10 and never really identified. So how is the fact that 11 their health access is not as accessible as it should 12 be in this great nation and this grand democracy, and 13 the fact that industry is mega industry. 14 Let me just show this last example. Tulare 15 County, number one in terms of ag revenue, yet it's 16 the county with the highest rates of poverty in the 17 state of California. Why is that so? Why are 18 working class people, low income people put to the 19 ends of our focus in respect to public health and 20 human rights? 21 There's a huge problem going on. We need 22 you to help us to strengthen the standards and not 23 weaken them because it will further just compromise 24 our health and our community stability and the 25 179 economic development of our Valley. Thank you very 1 much. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you both very 3 much for taking the time to talk with us today. 4 Sarah Janssen and Mark Oldenkamp. 5 DR. JANSSEN: Mr. Oldenkamp first? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry? 7 DR. JANSSEN: Is Mr. Oldenkamp first? 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: No, you. 9 DR. JANSSEN: Okay. My name is Sarah 10 Janssen. I'm a physician here in the San Francisco 11 Bay Area and I'm speaking on behalf of San Francisco 12 Physicians for Social Responsibility. 13 In addition to being a practicing physician 14 in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, I'm also 15 an asthma patient. And I was the first in my family 16 to be diagnosed with asthma, but my younger two 17 sisters were also diagnosed with it. 18 And although genetics might play a small 19 role in it, I can't also help but wonder if the fact 20 that we grew up in the middle of rural Illinois near 21 a highway that had a lot of stop and go diesel truck 22 traffic, near the farm fields with a lot of blowing 23 dust, and near a lot of industries that produce soot 24 might have also played a role in us developing 25 180 asthma. 1 So I'm here speaking on behalf of myself 2 and my sisters and also my patients who I take care 3 of who have asthma, other chronic lung disease and 4 heart disease who are affected by the Particulate 5 Matter Standard. 6 So beyond my own personal experience with 7 asthma I see many patients who have asthma and we're 8 the sensitive and the vulnerable populations who the 9 Clean Air Act Standard is supposed to be protecting. 10 I have to carry my inhaler with me wherever 11 I go just in case I need it. I have a very mild form 12 of asthma so I don't need it very often. I think I'm 13 lucky, but a lot of my patients aren't able to work. 14 They're not able to go outside and enjoy the 15 beautiful surroundings of the Bay Area because of 16 their asthma. They have to use an inhaler or an 17 Nebulizer machine every day to help them breathe and 18 they often end up in our local emergency rooms and in 19 our hospitals. 20 I'm concerned that those of us with asthma 21 are not going to be protected by this new standard. 22 Under the Clean Air Act the EPA has to set Air 23 Quality Standards that protect the public health and 24 update them as needed. And I think all of the new 25 181 evidence that's come out in the last 10 years, 1 there's a good consensus amongst the medical 2 community, the scientific community, and the public 3 health community that the Current, Daily, and Annual 4 Average Standards for Fine Particles are not 5 protective of public health, especially those of us 6 who are in the sensitive and vulnerable populations. 7 And we also need a new standard for course 8 particles. 9 The Current Standard puts myself and my 10 patients at a higher risk for more asthma attacks, 11 requiring more medication, and possibly more 12 hospitalizations. It also puts young children at a 13 risk for developing lifelong asthma. A more 14 stringent standard would protect these vulnerable 15 populations. 16 There's an overwhelming amount of peer 17 reviewed scientific evidence that a stricter standard 18 would be more protective and EPA is ignoring the 19 calls of its own Staff Scientists and the Clean Air 20 Scientific Advisory Committee to strengthen the PM 21 Standards. 22 The proposed revision would leave the 23 Annual Standard unchanged and would reduce the Daily 24 Standard by only a token amount and will have little 25 182 impact on public health. 1 I think that it's a very dangerous 2 precedent, to disregard the recommendations of your 3 own science advisors and to not improve our nation's 4 air quality. So therefore I concur with the 5 consensus in the medical and scientific community 6 that the standards should be set at the most 7 protective levels, specifically the Administration 8 should adopt a Annual Standard no higher than 12 9 micrograms per cubic meter and a Daily Standard no 10 higher than 25 grams [ sic] per cubic meter when you 11 finalize the standards in September. 12 In addition, the Administration should 13 issue standards and monitoring requirements for 14 course particles that protect all Americans. There 15 should be no exemptions for communities less than 16 100,000. And the 24 Hour Course Particulate 17 Standards should be 25 micrograms per meter cubed. 18 19 The Administration's proposal to eliminate 20 monitoring in small and mid size communities and to 21 categorically exempt agriculture and mining from 22 control requirements is unjustified and it's not 23 protective of public health. It's not protective of 24 the young children who grow up in rural areas, like I 25 183 did. And it's going to result in more young children 1 developing asthma. 2 I think the current EPA proposal misses the 3 opportunity to do what's necessary to prevent disease 4 and premature death and I urge the EPA administration 5 to follow sound science and strengthen this proposal 6 to truly public health and vulnerable populations. 7 Thank you. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. 9 Janssen. 10 Any questions? 11 Mr. Oldenkamp. 12 MR. OLDENKAMP: Good afternoon. My name is 13 Mark Oldenkamp. I'm here today representing the 14 United Egg Producers, a trade association whose 15 members represent over 90 percent of U. S. egg 16 producers. 17 I believe we have representatives speaking 18 at the other two hearings today also. 19 I am egg producer and I have operations 20 that I am involved in in the western United States. 21 We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. 22 I want to first say that United Egg 23 Producers is proud to have many of our members along 24 with other animal species representatives who already 25 184 subscribe to the consent agreements. We have agreed 1 as an industry to fund monitoring studies that are 2 soon to start. And we have formed a scientific panel 3 to seek science based answers to the unquantified 4 emissions that come from animal production 5 facilities, in the belief that science will lead us 6 to the answers that we seek. 7 First with regard to PM Course. UEP 8 strongly supports your position not to establish 9 agricultural dust PM Course Health Standards under 10 the rules at this time. We do that because science 11 is not currently available to indicate that the 12 standard is needed. Urban PM Course Standards should 13 be questioned to whether they are prudent or 14 practical. 15 The scientific monitoring that is about to 16 begin we hope will provide the data to determine 17 whether urban PM Course Standards are really needed. 18 We must do this research first, in our opinion, and 19 great care should be taken to do this right and to 20 make sure before determinations are made. 21 With regard to PM Fine. UEP has previously 22 submitted comments regarding the proposed rules that 23 states could implement their own rules, and some 24 states are. 25 185 We have concerns that state by state 1 rulemaking could present problems in particular as it 2 relates to regulating ammonia as a precursor to PM 3 fine. 4 EPA must review each of those proposals 5 state by state and case by case, and for that reason 6 we object to state level programs because, first, the 7 sound science does not currently exist today to offer 8 states clear evidence to support the proposed rules 9 as it relates to ammonia as a precursor PM fine; and 10 the scientific community does not yet understand the 11 fate and transport of ammonia or VOCs as potential PM 12 fine formation precursors. Adequate science simply 13 does not exist today. 14 Under circumstances commonly found in field 15 conditions fundamental questions remain as to when, 16 how, why, and generally what circumstances emissions 17 of these substances from livestock operations do in 18 fact lead to PM fine formation. 19 We believe that focus on this science will 20 lead to answers on how to reduce ammonia or VOCs that 21 will reduce PM fine emissions. 22 Secondly, we object because EPA needs to 23 first propose in the public forum standards and 24 guidelines that they will use to review specific 25 186 state level plans. We believe that this is a major 1 challenge to EPA because the science is still lacking 2 in this area. And we are concerned that without a 3 predefined credible process for decisions to be made 4 on state level plans the decisions could be arbitrary 5 and inconsistent. 6 In a separate point, UEP expresses concern 7 that crustal matter is being considered under the PM 8 fine context. At this time we believe these 9 materials probably should be considered under PM 10 course, and we plan to further comment on this with 11 our staff working on this. 12 We, in summary, strongly urge the time to 13 be allowed to let the science tell us more what we 14 need to do. We're in support of following whatever 15 that science leads us to as an industry. UEP 16 believes the science is critical and that's why we've 17 supported it. 18 We thank you for the time to make comments 19 here today and UEP plans and reserves the right to 20 provide further comment and details. 21 MR. HANLEY: Thank you. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 23 Yeah, questions? 24 MR. HANNON: I'm wondering with regard to 25 187 ammonia, is your concern on behalf of your 1 association or is the concern the lack of the 2 connection of ammonia in the chemistry or is your 3 concern that at the end of the day if states were to 4 include in these their SIPs, ammonia in their SIPs 5 regarding emission inventories from agricultural 6 sources that you guys might be inappropriately 7 impacted when your contributions are not significant? 8 I'm wondering if it's a scientific argument 9 or an argument under the emission inventory. 10 MR. OLDENKAMP: As I understand it, we 11 believe that animal production does emit ammonias and 12 we are working on mitigation measures for that. 13 That's why we formed a scientific panel, so we do 14 believe that we will need to learn how much is there. 15 But we don't know, based on the science that we've 16 seen and what our professionals have told me, whether 17 it truly is a precursor that's going to be involved 18 in PM fine at the levels that we need to be concerned 19 about or whether the mitigation efforts that we're 20 working on will take care of the problem. 21 MR. HANNON: Thank you for answering that. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: And one question. 23 You talk about wanting clarity on the process by 24 which EPA will approve state plans or act on state 25 188 plans. We have a proposed rule on PM implementation 1 plans. Are you familiar with that? Because  2 MR. OLDENKAMP: I personally am not. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 4 MR. OLDENKAMP: But I will certainly refer 5 that to our staff and  6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. 7 MR. OLDENKAMP:  to see if they need that 8 information. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Yeah, because 10 we do have a proposed rule and I just wanted to 11 clarify if you're saying that rule is inadequate or 12  13 MR. OLDENKAMP: Yeah. There  14 THE HEARING OFFICER:  something else is 15 intended. 16 MR. OLDENKAMP: The concern that was 17 expressed to me is that there needs to be clear 18 guideline by which any state proposal would be 19 evaluated and approved. And apparently our staff is 20 not sure that that exist at this time, but if it does 21 we'd like to see that. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. My counsel 23 here is just reminding me, and I don't know if you 24 intend to do this, but we do have this proposed rule 25 189 out there concerning implementation of the current 1 Particulate Matter Standard. And if you are 2 interesting in commenting on that rule, I don't know 3 if your comments concerning this process were 4 intended to be on that rule since you weren't aware 5 of that rule. 6 MR. OLDENKAMP: It's my understanding that 7 UEP, who I'm just a member of and was asked to come 8 here today, plans to be engaged in this process all 9 the way through, including the volunteer effort on 10 behalf of members to participate in developing the 11 science. And we will be engaged all the way. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All right. 13 Well, you might just check about this  14 MR. OLDENKAMP: Yes. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER:  proposed rule in 16 case they did want to comment on that. Okay. 17 Thank you both very much. 18 MR. OLDENKAMP: Thank you. 19 DR. JANSSEN: Thank you. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: David Schonbrunn and 21 Molly Martin. 22 MR. SCHONBRUNN: Good afternoon. I'm David 23 Schonbrunn. I'm President of Transdef, the 24 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund. 25 190 We're a San Francisco Bay Area environmental 1 advocacy organization focused on smart growth and 2 sustainable transportation. We have sued EPA three 3 or four times on air quality issues. 4 Since you have heard so much today about 5 the science of setting Air Quality Standards and 6 since the proposed NAAQS have nothing to do with 7 science, I'm going to speak on the politics of the 8 proposal. 9 This proposal is blatantly political. It 10 cannot be said with a straight face that the proposal 11 is derived from existing science. Like so many other 12 policies coming out of this Administration it's 13 obvious that the Proposed Standard was written by 14 industry lobbyist. It's obvious that cost had a lot 15 of to do with this proposal, despite the denials that 16 we've heard here today. 17 It's also obvious that those same lobbyists 18 would object vehemently if their own communities were 19 subjected to PM pollution acceptable under the 20 proposed NAAQS. They obviously could care less about 21 environmental justice and the health of minority and 22 low income communities who live in PM hotspots. 23 Our nation is facing an epidemic of asthma. 24 It is beyond obvious that a principal intervention 25 191 needed to combat this epidemic is a reduction in the 1 PM NAAQS. Your Administrator has demonstrated 2 something close to criminal negligence in his 3 indifference to the asthma epidemic. He is at the 4 only place in our nation that there can be a very 5 substantial impact on asthma and other respiratory 6 illnesses. And this proposal is, as I said, close to 7 criminal negligence. 8 It's his job to protect the health of 9 Americans. Instead he is protecting the status quo 10 for business. The Proposed Standards are polluter 11 protective rather than health protective. 12 Numerous of your colleagues have resigned 13 from EPA because they were unwilling to allow their 14 professional skills to be used to dismantle 15 environmental protection. I ask EPA staff here today 16 if you are comfortable serving an Administration that 17 is asking you, in effect, to sign the death sentences 18 for many thousands of Americans. 19 Will you be willing to look back in 30 20 years and acknowledge your personal role in 21 finalizing this proposal. The justification that I 22 was just following orders didn't work at Nuremberg 23 and won't work here either. These are real lives 24 you're dealing with. It's not a video game. 25 192 This proposal is bad policy and worse 1 science. That said, should this policy and the 2 proposal nonetheless go forward, on a practical level 3 I need to tell you that the Inhalable Course Particle 4 Standard is completely unworkable. 5 First of all, the name is unworkable. Can 6 you imagine how tedious and painful it would be the 7 type out the term " PM10 to 2.5" dozens of times a 8 day? It's a ridiculous term. 9 The very definition of inhalable course 10 particle is unworkable as written. The definition 11 depends on the term high density traffic, which is 12 not a term of art in the transportation profession. 13 As a transportation professional myself, I 14 can tell you I have never seen the term " high density 15 traffic." What average daily traffic levels are 16 expected to be encompassed by that phrase? That's 17 the term that's used in transportation, " average 18 daily traffic," and that means a specific number. 19 How can it practically be determined 20 whether the majority of particles has come from busy 21 roads rather than from nonbusy roads? 22 I don't think it will be possible to define 23 nonattainment areas for this Proposed Standard 24 because of the unworkability of the definition. EPA 25 193 needs to go back to the drawingboard with this 1 standard and eliminate the source distinctions and 2 exemptions. Keep it simple and health protective. 3 We recommend you adopt the science based 4 standard suggested by the American Lung Association. 5 Thank you very much. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: One question from me 7 at least. On the average daily traffic, if you could 8 in your  if you do give us written comments, give 9 us some more information about that term and why that 10 would be the correct term assuming we do go forward 11 with this standard as proposed. 12 MR. SCHONBRUNN: What I'm suggesting to you 13 is I don't see how you can differentiate it, because 14 your language says " Where the majority of particles 15 comes from these high density traffic zones," so how 16 can you tell where the particle came from? All you 17 can tell is what its species is. 18 So, again, I don't see how you get there 19 from here. I think this is completely something you 20 can't go anywhere with. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 22 Ms. Martin. 23 MS. MARTIN: I'm Molly Martin and I'm a 24 citizen of San Francisco, California and the United 25 194 States of America and I guess I should also say the 1 world. 2 I do care about  I'm here because I care 3 about air quality everywhere. I'm an asthmatic and I 4 don't have any studies, but I do have some anecdotal 5 evidence about what you're calling large particulates 6 in rural areas causing and contributing to poor 7 respiratory health. 8 I grew up in Yakima, Washington. It's a 9 very beautiful place. It's a small agricultural town 10 east of the Cascade Mountains. And if I had to think 11 of what it reminds me of, more than anything it 12 reminds me of the Central Valley. I think they're 13 very much the same. 14 Yakima, oh, gosh, when I was growing up it 15 might have been 30,000, probably even less people 16 than that. My mother lived in Yakima all her life. 17 And she contracted asthma or was diagnosed with 18 asthma when she was in her fifties. 19 She had gone out to the Yakima Firing 20 Center on a windy day. And I think that the culprit 21 was dust. She was out at an outdoor event for a 22 World War II buddy of hers. And she came back and 23 had an asthma attack. And that's when she started 24 having asthma. 25 195 Of course I think we could point to dust 1 that day, but because we lived in a rural area, we 2 lived in the country, many things triggered her 3 asthma. And one  I remember a big one was haying. 4 When they were haying, she had to say inside. And 5 even then had a very difficult time breathing. 6 Crop dusting. Crop dusting was going on 7 all around us and all kinds of, who even knows what 8 chemicals were sprayed then. I don't even want to 9 know, but that made her very allergic. 10 Tilling the soil. I think smoke from wood 11 burning stoves, which is the way we heated our house, 12 was a big problem. And I can add the dust, the ash 13 from Mt. St. Helens because Yakima was right in the 14 path of Mt. St. Helens when it blew up. 15 Well, it's not surprising that my mother 16 when she learned she had asthma became a clean air 17 activist and an anti smoking activist, because that's 18 what happens to us when we start getting sick. We 19 really, really appreciate, start to appreciate good 20 air or air quality. And so I think I could consider 21 myself representing her today. 22 Her health began to deteriorate immediately 23 and she finally died in 1983. So I suppose she had 24 asthma for 15 years. In the midst of a coughing fit, 25 196 which she would have every morning, finally she just, 1 I don't know what caused her death, maybe it was a 2 heart attack, but certainly it was asthma. It was 3 respiratory illness. 4 And I believe that her life was cut short 5 by poor air quality. That's what killed her and I 6 think  7 ( Microphone interference.) 8 MS. MARTIN:  I think it killed her long 9 before she should have died. And that was the 10 primary reason for her death. 11 So now I'm also an asthmatic. I've been 12 diagnosed with asthma. I suppose in my thirties I 13 was diagnosed. You know I've tried to do what I 14 could to  you know I was desperate to help her and 15 I didn't know what to do for her. And I was, I have 16 to admit, desperate to keep from finding myself in 17 the same situation with the same fate. 18 I've done things like I moved from Yakima. 19 I don't live there anymore and I think the air is 20 better in San Francisco, honestly. It's kind of 21 ironic that I moved from this rural location to a 22 city and the air is better. I stopped driving and 23 public transportation is good here. You don't have 24 to have a car. Actually it's quite pleasant. 25 197 I tried to buy an electric car, but they 1 were smashed. And I wish we had that option. I 2 don't feel like do have the option of buying the kind 3 of a car that really is not a polluter. 4 I think when we're talking about needing 5 studies, I think we all know this is common sense, 6 that breathing in these particles, big or small, 7 makes us sick. No one has mentioned this today, but 8 I've known about farmer's lung for my entire life or 9 most of my life and carpenter's lung. I suppose it's 10 the same thing, but that's what we called it, 11 farmer's lung. You got farmer's lung if you were out 12 there on a tractor. I'm sure that's been true for a 13 century. 14 Anyhow, all I'm saying is we know what to 15 do. We know what to do to make our air cleaner and 16 keep from being ill and that is to adopt stronger air 17 quality standards. 18 I think my mother would be very 19 disappointed that things haven't improved any more 20 than have. She would expect my generation, and I'm 21 getting a lot older, to help improve things. So I 22 hope that my testimony will help. Thank you. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much 24 to both of you for taking the time. Thank you. 25 198 I think we have one more person, Norah 1 Schwartz. 2 DR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. Hi. I'm Norah 3 Schwartz, Senior Research Scientist at El Colegio de 4 la Frontera Norte. A little hard to pronounce, but 5 it's " colegio." I am testifying as an individual. 6 I want to start off by saying that I'm 7 going to urge you to listen to the sound science that 8 is being presented here as well as the extremely 9 concerned public. 10 I am not asthmatic myself, however I do 11 work in the San Joaquin Valley. I want to say that 12 the air in the San Joaquin Valley is unbreathable. 13 It is simply unbreathable and no one should be 14 submitted to breathe it. They should not be forced 15 to breathe that air. 16 Professionally I am a medical 17 anthropologist. I conduct open ended interviews is 18 Spanish speaking families in rural communities in 19 both Mexico and the United States, families whose 20 children have asthma. 21 Like many of the people here I see asthma 22 every day. One of the first questions I ask these 23 families is, " What causes asthma? What is making 24 your children sick?" 25 199 I spent years in Mexico asking this 1 question and the answer I come up with down there, 2 because of lack of education or whatever, is these 3 families don't know what causes asthma. 4 When I started doing my work in the San 5 Joaquin Valley I expected the same answer. That's 6 not what I found. Everyone there knows that the air 7 is causing the children to be sick. 8 I interview physicians, pharmacists, and 9 families. The answer is in consensus: It's the 10 quality of the air here. This is rural America. 11 It's a travesty that people have to deal with this on 12 a daily basis. 13 You've already heard that families are 14 leaving the Valley because of the quality of the air. 15 We has not have families leaving their homes because 16 their children cannot breathe. 17 The poor families that I work with do not 18 necessarily have this option. They are stuck there. 19 And they want to live there. We live in a bowl, 20 they say. The air just stagnates. We live in a bowl 21 and we cannot breathe. 22 While these families appreciate the 23 benefits that they receive, many of them are seeing 24 their children's health decrease. One of the 25 200 questions I ask is, " Does asthma run in your family?" 1 In Mexico what I see is that there's a genetic 2 component here. If the mother, the father, or the 3 brother, the sister has asthma, oftentimes the child 4 has asthma. 5 What I'm finding in the San Joaquin Valley 6 is that this is the first generation of children to 7 have asthma. What is causing them to have asthma 8 other than the air? It has to be the air. We all 9 know that. 10 As I myself drive into the Valley to 11 conduct my research I have decided that I cannot 12 spend more than two or three days in that place. I 13 do not have asthma. I cannot breathe. My eyes start 14 tearing and I start having allergies. I cannot 15 determine whether I see the air first or I smell it 16 first. 17 Children are unable to play. They're 18 unable to go to school because of asthma. 19 I urge you two things. I urge you first of 20 all to go and see the air and to small it yourselves 21 and see if you disagree with me. I urge you to adopt 22 the strongest possible standards so that all of our 23 children can breathe whether they live in a rural 24 area, whether they live in an urban area, whether 25 201 they're rich, whether they're poor, whether they're 1 immigrants, whether they're born here, they deserve 2 the right to breathe. 3 The last thing I want to say is that I work 4 closely with the American Lung Association and I 5 strongly support you to adopt their recommendations. 6 Thank you. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 8 We're going to take a break now and we will 9 resume the Public Hearing at about 2: 00 p. m. Thank 10 you. 11 ( Luncheon recess taken at 1: 05 p. m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25