esel cleanup 3 program. The American Lung Association 4 strongly supported that; however, EPA's own 5 analysis shows you won't see those benefits 6 fully ' til 2030. That's why we need to do 7 more things today, like diesel retrofit and 8 implementing cleanup strategies today that 9 will protect public health. Certainly 10 those plans will make tremendous progress 11 to protecting public health, but we need to 12 get on to that. 13 MR. SILVERMAN: You 14 understand, we have no direct authority to 15 compel retrofitting. 16 MR. BACHMANN: Hang on a 17 second. 18 Mr. Schaeffer. 19 MR. SCHAEFFER: Thank you. 20 I'd like to thank Paul for that excellent 21 segue into my few comments here. 22 Good morning. My name is 23 Alan Schaeffer, S C H A E F F E R. I'm 24 Executive Director of the Diesel Technology 25 133 Forum. We are a not for profit educational 1 organization dedicated to promoting the 2 progress or potential of clean diesel 3 technology. Our members include diesel 4 engine manufacturers, equipment 5 manufacturers, fuel refineries and 6 companies that make emissions control 7 systems. 8 We work a lot to enhance 9 public dialogue on these kinds of issues. 10 I'm happy to say we're working here locally 11 with the Philadelphia Diesel Difference on 12 efforts to retrofit technology and as well 13 as supporting things like state diesel 14 emissions inspection programs to reduce 15 gross emitters out there on the roads. 16 As one of the many industry 17 source sectors which contribute to 18 emissions of fine particles around the 19 country, we're here today to highlight the 20 progress made by this industry in reducing 21 fine particle and other emissions and 22 commitments to lower emissions in the 23 future. 24 Diesel engines play an 25 134 important role in our society. They power 1 over 90 percent of the commercial trucks, 2 two thirds of all farm and construction 3 equipment, over 90 percent of emergency 4 backup electrical generators, like those 5 used at hospitals, power plants and other 6 places, and an increasing number of 7 passenger cars and light duty trucks. 8 Thanks to the continuous 9 improvement of diesel technology over the 10 last 20 years, I'm happy to say today that 11 diesel emissions play a comparatively small 12 and continually declining role in the 13 overall inventory of fine particles. And 14 in every sector just about, these declining 15 trends in diesel emissions are outpacing 16 the overall decline of particles from other 17 sources. 18 According to the most 19 recently available national emissions 20 trends inventory looking at the period of 21 1990 to 2002, the diesel industry reduced 22 particulate emissions in the air by 13 to 23 64 percent over that 12 year period. For 24 example, the on road diesel sector, a 25 135 decline of 61.4 percent from 1990 to 2002, 1 non road decline of 15.3 percent during 2 that period, construction down by 13.16 in 3 fine particles and farm equipment down by 4 24.28 percent. 5 In comparison, if you look 6 at all sources total, the decline during 7 the same period was only 10 percent. So in 8 every case, the diesel sector is reducing 9 its emissions at a more rapid rate. 10 In California, we found out 11 there based on a recent study by Sierra 12 Research, about 10 percent of the overall 13 fine particle inventory is from diesel 14 engines of all kinds, and that's expected 15 to decline through 2020. Almost today, 16 brake and tire wire, brake and tire wear in 17 California have about the same contribution 18 to fine particles as diesel emissions. And 19 in the next few years, brake and tire wear 20 will exceed the level of fine PM coming 21 from those, from diesel engines. 22 The diesel industry has a 23 record of continuous improvement for new 24 technology. This is an extraordinary year 25 136 for the diesel industry. With the coming 1 of cleaner, ultra low sulfur diesel fuel 2 October 15th, engine manufacturers will 3 deploy the most advanced emissions control 4 technology in the history of the industry, 5 resulting in new emissions for highway 6 trucks having 90 percent lower levels of 7 fine particles and lower nitrogen oxide 8 emissions as well. And by 2010 when some 9 additional reductions are put in place, 10 we'll have the total reduction of over 98 11 percent of all diesel emissions from 1987 12 levels. 13 The new technology that's 14 coming is really a highly integrated system 15 of components, and cleaner low sulfur 16 diesel fuel is an essential part of that. 17 And it forms the basis from which all other 18 emissions benefits can be achieved, and we 19 urge you to hold title in keeping the 20 ultra low sulfur diesel standards on line. 21 They are a critical part of future clean 22 air planning requirements in helping states 23 meet the current PM standards as well as 24 any change in the future. 25 137 The new clean diesel 1 technology also allows us to address some 2 of the existing equipment on the road, as 3 Paul and others have alluded to. I'm happy 4 to say that some of these advanced 5 particulate filters and cleaner fuel can be 6 used in many highway trucks, school buses, 7 refuse vehicles, as well as an increasing 8 number of construction and farm equipment. 9 One of the key attributes of 10 diesel engines is their longevity and 11 durability. These are capital goods that 12 do an important job. And we do support 13 EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign. We 14 are actively working in Congress right now 15 to try and get more appropriations for 16 retrofitting diesel engines. The President 17 has proposed $ 49 and a half million this 18 year. It could be authorized at 200 19 million. So we're working to make up that 20 shortfall. 21 We think EPA has a role to 22 substantially increase the opportunities to 23 retrofit through streamlining the guidance 24 for the Congestion Mitigation and Air 25 138 Quality Management funds and the ability to 1 provide the proper kind of SIP and 2 conformity credits that states and NPOs so 3 badly need to be able to implement these 4 programs for diesel retrofit. 5 So in conclusion, we will 6 not address and speak to the proposed PM 7 standards, the levels that you've put 8 forward today. We're here to talk about 9 how the diesel industry has helped improve 10 air quality. To this point, our commitment 11 is for addressing existing engines and the 12 importance of the ultra low sulfur diesel 13 fuel and meeting our obligations going 14 forward. 15 Thank you very much. 16 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 17 Any questions for these folks? 18 Thank you both very much. 19 Our next panel is Kyle 20 Kinner and Jim Plumb, both of the 21 Physicians for Social Responsibility. 22 DR. PLUMB: Good morning. 23 My name is Jim Plumb, P L U M B, and I'm an 24 Associate Professor in the Department of 25 139 Family and Community Medicine at Thomas 1 Jefferson University here in Philadelphia, 2 and I direct the hospital's Office to 3 Advanced Population Health. I'm currently 4 president of the Philadelphia Chapter of 5 the Physicians for Social Responsibility. 6 As a practicing physician, 7 I'm deeply concerned about the health of 8 the public and the impact that the 9 environment has on my patients in 10 Philadelphia. And I'm chronically and 11 sadly perplexed by my government's support 12 of policies that affect the health and 13 well being of so many citizens, citizens 14 who have little to no idea about the 15 environmental impact of laws and 16 regulations that have been promulgated by 17 the Environmental Protection Agency. 18 I have many patients, both 19 adults and children right now, who feel 20 that they are in charge of their health. 21 They have immunized their children, they 22 have stopped smoking, they use their 23 inhalers correctly, they follow their 24 diets, take their medications, yet they 25 140 remain at risk for symptom exacerbation, 1 more frequent hospitalizations and 2 premature death. And they have absolutely 3 no choice, no choice, in the quality of the 4 air they breathe. 5 I'm working on two major 6 projects in Philadelphia, obesity 7 prevention in children and adult stroke 8 prevention targeting African American men. 9 We're teaching the value of screening and 10 exercise. People are listening and they 11 are trying to do the right things, but 12 walking in the city, the best, most 13 affordable and most sustainable form of 14 exercise, may be, in fact, harmful. Folks 15 may be taking their blood pressure 16 medications as directed, but particulate 17 matter is interfering with optimal control. 18 Their medication use rises, 19 the cost of prescriptions rise and more 20 side effects of the medications occur. 21 This is unacceptable. These folks must go 22 outside to play, to work and to worship. 23 And this is occurring in areas where our 24 most vulnerable citizens live, where 25 141 obesity rates and stroke deaths are 1 alarmingly high, where most folks are 2 uninsured and where more folks do not have 3 access to primary care. 4 This is the truth, but it is 5 not just and it should not be the American 6 way of doing business. It's our 7 responsibility to protect the lives of our 8 citizens and it's my responsibility to 9 speak up for my patients and my neighbors. 10 I've taken the Hippocratic oath to do no 11 harm, yet harm is being done. 12 The particulate matter we 13 are speaking about today is small, but the 14 effects are big and the harm is great. And 15 this is not just potential harm. The 16 evidence is strong that the harm is real; 17 it's occurring right now and growing. 18 I teach medical and public 19 health students. They challenge me to read 20 the scientific literature so I am prepared 21 to give them the best information 22 available. And the evidence of the 23 negative effects of particulate matter on 24 the health of their future patients and 25 142 clients is mounting. 1 Fine particulate matter in 2 the form of air pollution causes tens of 3 thousands of premature deaths annually. I 4 tell my students to look at the studies in 5 peer reviewed publications, learn the 6 physiological and biochemical consequences 7 of particulate matter on the lining of the 8 lungs, the muscles and the blood vessels of 9 the heart and on the autonomic nervous 10 system of the heart. 11 I also tell them that under 12 the Clean Air Act, the EPA must set air 13 quality standards that protect public 14 health, review these standards every five 15 years and update them as needed. I show 16 them that there exists a consensus among 17 medical, nursing, scientific and public 18 health communities that the current daily 19 and average standards for fine particulates 20 are not protective of the public's health, 21 that a new standard for coarse particles is 22 also needed. 23 For the administration and 24 the EPA not to adopt new standards is an 25 143 injustice. 1 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 2 MR. KINNER: Greetings. I'm 3 Kyle Kinner. I'm the Policy Programs 4 Director for Physicians for Social 5 Responsibility in our national office in 6 Washington, D. C. I want to say that I'm 7 here today to represent not only PSR in its 8 national capacity, but also its doctors and 9 medical students, public health student 10 chapters and its approximately 26,000 11 physicians, nurses, scientists, other 12 health professionals and concerned citizens 13 that comprise our membership. 14 We are deeply concerned as a 15 community of health professionals about the 16 proposed rule and the need to make a 17 stronger, more health protective standard 18 the rule of law for the next five years. 19 You will have heard a number of the 20 dimensions of the concerns from the public 21 health and the medical community over the 22 next several hours, I know. I want to take 23 an opportunity today in my time to talk 24 about kids, about pediatric health impacts. 25 144 I want to take a moment to 1 read a quote. You, I'm sure, have already 2 seen this letter, but I just want to get it 3 into the record, from the Children's Health 4 Protection Advisory Committee, Children's 5 Health Advisors. They say, and this is 6 dated March 3rd, 2006, " While the proposal 7 to lower the daily 2.5 standard is a step 8 in the right direction, the proposed 9 standards do not provide adequate 10 protection for infants and children. In 11 addition, we urge, we urge you to extend 12 coverage of the coarse particulate matter 13 standard to rural areas and to continue 14 national monitoring of coarse particulate 15 matter levels in both urban and rural 16 areas. And finally, we urge you to 17 reconsider exempting the agricultural and 18 mining industries from regulation of the 19 coarse particulate matter standards." 20 I recommend the full body of 21 the letter for your review, but I think the 22 point is clear that kids are an important 23 population, one that the EPA is mandated to 24 protect. It is a vulnerable population and 25 145 it's one that we don't believe is 1 adequately protected under the current rule 2 proposed. 3 Let me just say that to 4 ensure that all Americans breathe healthy 5 air, the Clean Area Act's NAAQS provisions 6 have been interpreted to require EPA to 7 mitigate the health effects of ambient 8 particle pollution on vulnerable 9 populations, especially kids. Children are 10 acutely vulnerable to the hazardous effects 11 of air pollution. They tend to spend more 12 time out of doors, they are more physically 13 active, they breathe more rapidly, their 14 airways are narrower, and they inhale 15 relatively more pollutants in proportion to 16 their body weight. 17 Investigators have 18 determined that the developing lung is 19 highly vulnerable to environmental insult. 20 As much as 80 percent of developing alveoli 21 are formed postnatally with greater 22 permeability of the epithelial layer in 23 young children and pediatric lung growth 24 continuing into adolescence. 25 146 The results of recent 1 studies that evaluate the subtle health 2 effects of ambient particle pollution in 3 pediatric and fetal populations are 4 particularly troubling. Asthma incidence 5 has risen precipitously among children, as 6 we all know, and although it is clear that 7 asthma is a multifactorial disease, there 8 is extensive evidence that particle 9 pollution is associated with exacerbations 10 of asthma and increased hospitalization for 11 asthma among children. Children living on 12 streets with heavy truck traffic were 60 to 13 90 percent more likely to report acute and 14 chronic symptoms that include wheezing, 15 phlegm and diagnoses such as bronchitis and 16 pneumonia. 17 A recent study also shows 18 that the proximity of the child's school to 19 major roads is linked to asthma and the 20 severity of the child's asthmatic symptoms 21 increases with proximity to truck traffic. 22 Children raised in areas with higher fine 23 particle levels have reduced lung capacity, 24 prematurely aged lungs, an increased risk 25 147 of bronchitis and asthma compared to peers 1 living in less urbanized areas. 2 Both NOx and particulate 3 matter have been linked to a significant 4 decrease in lung function growth among 5 children living in Southern California. 6 Impaired lung function has been associated 7 with disease complication and death from 8 disease in later adulthood. 9 Obviously, fine particle 10 pollution is of great concern. The EPA has 11 conceded this in the preamble to its rule, 12 but in order to take the logical next step 13 and actually protect vulnerable 14 populations, we think you have to be as 15 protective as the American Lung Association 16 has proposed. We associate ourselves as an 17 organization with ALA and with the other 18 health and medical groups that have 19 essentially urged you as a regulating body 20 to finalize an annual average PM2.5 21 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, 22 a 24 hour average PM2.5 standard of 25 23 micrograms per cubic meter at the 99th 24 percent, a 24 average PM10 2.5 coarse 25 148 particle standard at the 99th percentile, 1 and the 25 to 30 range applied equally to 2 all areas of the country and to all types 3 of particles. The EPA risk assessment 4 focusing on just nine U. S. cities 5 indicates that 4700 premature deaths would 6 occur each year even after these cities 7 meet current PM2.5 standards. 8 Reducing both the annual 9 average and 24 hour standards for PM2.5 as 10 suggested above would substantially reduce 11 excess deaths from 2.5 in these nine 12 cities. 13 The national reduction in 14 deaths and illness would be significant. 15 In the case of coarse particles, even at 16 the bottom of the EPA's proposed range, 17 there is no reduction of health risk 18 indicating that the standard should be set 19 below the range proposed in the Staff 20 Paper. 21 We urge the Environmental 22 Protection Agency  you are ultimately and 23 fundamentally a public health regulator. 24 We urge the Environmental Protection Agency 25 149 to propose revisions to the particulate 1 NAAQS that will be fully protective of 2 public health as required by the Clean Air 3 Act. There is strong scientific consensus 4 for moving forward with greatly 5 strengthened standards. 6 MR. BACHMANN: I need you to 7 stop here at this point in fairness to 8 everyone else. I appreciate it. 9 Any questions? 10 Thanks to both of you. 11 The next panelists are 12 Michael Seilback and Jeanette MacNeille. 13 MR. SEILBACK: Good morning. 14 My name is Michael Seilback, 15 S E I L B A C K, Director of Public Policy 16 for the American Lung Association of New 17 York State. 18 Fine particle pollution is 19 the nation's deadliest air pollutant. 20 These particles can lodge deep within the 21 lungs and even enter the bloodstream 22 causing serious respiratory and 23 cardiovascular problems such as asthma 24 attacks, lung cancer, heart attacks and 25 150 strokes. 1 Fine particle pollution is 2 so dangerous that it contributes to tens of 3 thousands of premature deaths every year, 4 including an estimated 5,000 New Yorkers 5 whose lives are cut short annually. More 6 than 2000 peer reviewed studies have been 7 published since 1996 confirming their 8 relationship between fine particles and 9 illness, hospitalization and premature 10 death. It seems that the more we learn 11 about the effects of particulate matter, 12 the worse it is. We have overwhelming 13 evidence of the devastating effects of fine 14 particles even at levels below EPA's 15 current standards which indicates that the 16 current standards are too weak to protect 17 public health. 18 According to the Clean Air 19 Act, air quality standards must be set at 20 levels that protect public health with an 21 adequate margin of safety. The standards 22 must be based solely on the health effects 23 of particle pollution. Currently in New 24 York, the counties of the Bronx, Kings, 25 151 Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, 1 Rockland, Suffolk and West Chester are all 2 in nonattainment. And according to the 3 American Lung Association's 2005 State of 4 the Air report, the counties of Erie and 5 Monroe received grades of D's, while the 6 counties of Albany, Chautauqua, Niagara, 7 Onodanga, St. Lawrence and Westchester all 8 received grades of C's. 9 EPA's fine particle 10 standards need to be strengthened to ensure 11 that everyone living in communities with 12 high particulate matter could breathe easy 13 knowing that they are breathing clean air. 14 We believe that the proposed 15 changes to the fine particle health 16 standard largely maintains the status quo 17 for fine particles, and is thus, inadequate 18 to protect public health. The EPA's own 19 analysis demonstrates that the proposed 20 fine particle standards will leave millions 21 of Americans unprotected. The agency's 22 decision to reject the recommendations of 23 its own independent science advisors, the 24 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to 25 152 strengthen both the annual and daily 1 standards is very troubling. As the 2 committee concluded, both the annual and 3 daily standards need to be substantially 4 strengthened to protect public health. 5 The consensus in the medical 6 and scientific community is that the 7 standards should be set at the most 8 protective levels within EPA's recommended 9 ranges; specifically, the annual standard 10 no higher than 12 micrograms per cubic 11 meter, and a daily standard no higher than 12 25 micrograms per cubic meter when it 13 finalizes the standards. 14 EPA should adopt the most 15 protective form of these standards. The 16 proposed rule will permit unlimited levels 17 of elevated pollution on far too many days 18 per year. The daily standards should be 19 set at the 99th percentile, which would 20 allow for no more than four days in any 21 year to be above the standard. Monitors 22 that record high annual exposure should not 23 be allowed to average their ratings with 24 monitors at cleaner sites. 25 153 In addition, we urge you to 1 issue standards and monitoring requirements 2 for coarse particles that protect all 3 Americans. The science shows that coarse 4 particles, like fine particles, penetrate 5 deep into the lung and pose serious health 6 risks. The administration's proposal to 7 eliminate pollution monitoring in small and 8 mid sized communities, and also to 9 categorically exempt agricultural and 10 mining from control requirements is 11 unprecedented and unjustified. The rural 12 exemption in the current proposal leaves 13 millions of Americans unprotected. 14 We need more information on 15 health effects of air pollution in rural 16 areas, not less. The Clean Air Act 17 requires protections for all Americans and 18 does not permit backsliding. EPA's 19 proposal to immediately revoke the current 20 24 hour PM10 standard for small and 21 mid sized communities that currently 22 violate the standard is illegal. To 23 provide sufficient protection, the health 24 science shows that the PM10 2.5 25 154 standard must be set below EPA's proposed 1 level of 70 micrograms per cubic meter. 2 The effect of fine particle 3 pollution is clear. The American Lung 4 Association of New York State urges the EPA 5 to adopt more stringent PM standards and to 6 ensure that the millions of residents of 7 New York and across our country could 8 breathe cleaner air. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 11 Ms. MacNeille. 12 MS. MacNEILLE: My name is 13 Jeanette MacNeille, and I'm not 14 representing anybody. I'm just here as a 15 citizen. My name is spelled 16 J E A N E T T E, M A C, capital 17 N E I L L E. 18 My understanding is that 19 activities like burning coal and smelters 20 and steel mills and vehicles, diesel fumes 21 in particular, cause particulate matter. 22 And I understand that there is a cost to 23 cleaning those up. On the other hand, I'm 24 an asthmatic and I live in Delaware County, 25 155 which is just west of the city. We have 1 about 554,000 people in Delaware County, 2 and of those, of children, there are 3 children, about 11,376 children with asthma 4 and about 35,116 adults with asthma, 5 according to the American Lung Association. 6 While there's a cost to 7 clean up the sources of this pollution, 8 there's also a cost to not clean it up. 9 For example, for me, it costs me $ 498 a 10 month. My medicines, my daily normal 11 standard medicines when nothing is wrong, 12 when everything is normal, costs $ 498 a 13 month. When I calculate the cost of the 14 approximately monthly doctor visits and 15 about two emergency room visits a year, and 16 I haven't even thrown in things like 17 antibiotics when things get so bad that you 18 get pneumonia, but normally, in a normal 19 good year, my medical costs come to about 20 $ 17,876 a year. 21 So while I acknowledge that 22 there is a cost to cleaning up the sources 23 of the pollution, I submit that there is a 24 cost to not cleaning up the problem, too, 25 156 and that what we are doing is not 1 minimizing cost. What we are doing is 2 asking certain people to subsidize the 3 business costs of other people, and I'm one 4 of the people who's subsidizing those 5 costs, and I don't think it's fair and I 6 don't think it's right and I don't think 7 the status quo is okay. 8 These laws should be 9 strengthened so that air is cleaner. In 10 addition to the fact  I mean, consider in 11 addition, for example, people like me who 12 have moderately  medium severe asthma, I 13 spend two to three hours a day in pulmonary 14 rehab every day of my life. This means 15 that I can't work a full workday. I want 16 to, but I can't. So I lose money from 17 that, too. It's lost productivity, it's 18 lost time. I would much rather not do it. 19 I don't have a choice about it; I have to 20 if I'm going to be able to walk across this 21 room to come and talk to you. 22 It's not a minor problem, 23 and it's not an inexpensive problem either. 24 If you take that 17,876 bucks a year that 25 157 it costs me and multiply it by the 35,000 1 approximately adult asthmatics in my county 2 alone, that adds up to significant change. 3 But in addition to the fact 4 that  what we are doing right now is 5 cost shifting. I am being asked to pay for 6 costs that actually rightfully belong to 7 the people who are making a profit off the 8 industries that cause this kind of stuff. 9 In addition to that, there 10 is a kind of cost that is not measured in 11 dollars. And if any of you have never seen 12 a child suffering a severe asthmatic 13 attack, I suggest you go to any emergency 14 room any day in this city and watch. And I 15 just think that once you've had the chance 16 to watch a kid or an adult, but mostly the 17 kids, really suffer and struggle to bring 18 each breath into their body and to sit 19 there for hours on nebulizers, and this 20 kind of thing, once you have seen that kind 21 of suffering, I don't think you'll come 22 back and say, you know what, we can leave 23 things as they are. I don't think we can 24 leave things as they are. 25 158 I appreciate your time. 1 MR. BACHMANN: Thank for 2 coming. Thanks to both of you. 3 Our next panelists are Rita 4 Laurie and Frank McKee. 5 MS. McKEE: Hi. Thank you 6 for this opportunity. My name is Rita 7 Lourie, L O U R I E. I'm a faculty member 8 at Temple University Department of Nursing. 9 I'm Director of Community and Academic 10 Outreach for Temple Health Connection, 11 which is a service arm of Temple University 12 Department of Nursing. I'm currently the 13 co chair of STEPS for a Healthier 14 Philadelphia Environmental Health 15 Committee, and co chair of the 16 Environmental Health Task Force for the 17 Public Health Nursing Section of the 18 American Public Health Association. 19 Today I'm representing the 20 American Nurses Association. I've been a 21 member of this association since 1979 and 22 am proud to represent the 150,000 members 23 at this hearing. In November 2005, the 24 Nursing Section of APHA, American Public 25 159 Health Association, with representation 1 from ANA, adopted 12 environmental health 2 principles and created recommendations for 3 practice, education, research and advocacy. 4 I'll be using these principles to guide my 5 testimony. 6 Our ethical standard for 7 guiding human activities is to prevent harm 8 to the environment and to human health. 9 The first principle states that safe and 10 sustainable environments are essential 11 conditions for the public's health. 12 Research has shown that the finer the 13 particular  the particle, the deeper the 14 health consequences. The smaller particles 15 can lodge deeper into the respiratory tract 16 and cause serious respiratory and 17 cardiovascular problems. According to the 18 American Lung Association, fine particulate 19 matter contributes to tens of thousands of 20 premature deaths every year. 21 This administration's 22 proposal, which largely maintains the 23 status quo for fine particles, is 24 inadequate to protect the public's health. 25 160 EPA's own analysis, your own analysis, 1 shows that the proposed fine particle 2 standards will leave millions of Americans 3 unprotected. After all, environmental 4 justice is the right of all populations. 5 Public health nurses 6 represent the most vulnerable of all 7 populations, and many of these populations 8 cannot speak for themselves. I speak for 9 those people. 10 In our work in North 11 Philadelphia, student nurses work with 12 faculty members to present Open Airway 13 classes for students with asthma in four 14 elementary schools. The students are eager 15 participants, becoming asthma champions, 16 proud of their knowledge and 17 accomplishments. But this is tertiary 18 prevention, prevention of occurrence after 19 the establishment of the disease. Wouldn't 20 it be better to protect them from one of 21 the sources of respiratory irritation, that 22 of air and particulate matter? 23 Under another program we 24 would have, Asthma Safe Kids, we are now 25 161 able to show that by teaching the parents 1 of children with asthma, there are less 2 emergency room visits and less school 3 absences. But this, again, is action after 4 the fact. 5 Communities have the right 6 to relevant and timely information for 7 decisions on environmental health. How 8 many ordinary citizens are aware of this 9 administration's decision to reject the 10 recommendations of its own independent 11 science advisors to strengthen both the 12 annual and daily standards? Are the needs 13 of the citizens being met by these types of 14 decisions? 15 The American Nurses 16 Association wants to go on record as 17 demanding the air pollution standards be 18 set at the most protective levels. We are 19 urging the administration to heed the 20 scientific research on the dangers of our 21 particulate pollution, and to adopt an 22 annual standard no higher than 12 23 micrograms per cubic meter and a daily 24 standard no higher than 25 micrograms per 25 162 cubic meter. 1 The bottom line is that the 2 proposed air quality standards are too weak 3 to protect the public's health. The World 4 Health Organization defined environment 5 health as referring to the theory and 6 practice of assessing, correcting, 7 controlling and preventing these factors in 8 the environment that can potentially affect 9 adversely the health of the present and 10 future for generations. This is an 11 opportunity to revise the air quality 12 standards in favor of health for everyone 13 who breathes the air. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 16 Mr. McKee. 17 MR McKEE: Good morning. 18 First off, thank you for allowing me to be 19 here. My name is Francis McKee, Francis 20 with an I, M C, capital K E E. 21 I'm here today representing 22 no particular organization, but I do feel 23 that when I heard these hearings were here, 24 I felt compelled to come out because in 25 163 York County, Pennsylvania, we're going to 1 do this in a little bit, there are 40,000 2 fellow of my  my other York Countians 3 who, like me, suffer from a COPD. I'm 4 asthmatic. I'm on three medications. I'm 5 a father of four. I'm an avid athlete. 6 I've done about 50 triathlons. I swam 7 Alcatraz last year. I've ridden 2000 miles 8 a year, so I'm kind of a workout nut. I'm 9 a small business owner, but I've been 10 involved for about 15 years in what I call 11 reasoned environmental reform. 12 I have several objectives 13 today. First I'd like to request that you 14 reverse the current position of proposing 15 standards for levels of particulate that 16 will continue to harm our health. I'd like 17 to draw attention to the plight of the 18 40,000 York Countians who live in an area 19 that's essentially under seige from 20 pollutants. And I'd like to suggest that 21 air quality be based on multiple 22 components, not singular, as they currently 23 are. We're doing a lot of discussion about 24 particulates, but there's other components 25 164 that influence that, too. 1 And finally, I'd like to 2 know what the next step of this whole 3 process would be. 4 York County, Pennsylvania. 5 We're located, I guess you would consider 6 it an urban area down in south central 7 Pennsylvania. At first glance  it's a 8 wonderful place to live, wonderful 9 community. It appears to be very agrarian, 10 but it's got a strong business and a waning 11 industrial infrastructure with a strong 12 pollute for profit mentality. I will not 13 attribute this quote to any individual, but 14 it was a high ranking Ph. D. in one of our 15 major polluters who said, " We only do what 16 we have to do and then only when we get 17 caught." A shameful quotation. 18 In York County, we're 19 consistently among the five worst in the 20 state for all criteria pollutants except 21 SOX. I did a sampling in February 2006, 22 and of the 28 days in February, only three 23 were considered healthful when using the 24 average daily particle standard that's been 25 165 endorsed by the group here. 1 Even on good days, I and 2 others find vigorous exercise extremely 3 difficult from a respiratory perspective. 4 York County is 902 square 5 miles. We have about  we're in the top 6 70 percent of distressed over air quality. 7 97 percent of our criteria pollutants from 8 stationary sources come from a very 9 concentrated area. That's what I'd like to 10 talk about. 11 We have a  2.2 percent of 12 our county is really a smoke stack, a hot 13 spot. What I've done here is prepared a 14 graphic that shows five of the top 15 polluters in our county, and that occupy a 16 swath of land, like I say, about two square 17 miles. These five include Lehigh Cement 18 working together to build our communities, 19 the York County Solid Waste Authority, 20 which is our incinerator, and LWB 21 Refractories. 22 I'd just like to take a 23 brief look at LWB Refractories. They have 24 enormous emissions that come out there. 25 166 PH Glatfelter, a notorious 1 polluter in York. They have hundreds of 2 thousands of pounds of pollutants that come 3 out in addition to TRI, ammonia, 4 hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid. And 5 Bruner Island, another major polluter in 6 our county that put out literally millions 7 of pounds of pollutants that we're looking 8 singularly through the straw of PMs, 9 there's a whole lot more than that. 10 The summation is we have 11 hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants 12 that are coming out from a very 13 concentrated area. Interesting enough, our 14 monitoring station in York is advantageous 15 from a reporting position because we have 16 predominant southwest winds which the 17 emissions from these facilities are 18 generally bypassed from that monitoring 19 station. 20 Finally, I'd like to ask 21 that you consider multiple criteria  the 22 multiple components when doing your 23 evaluation here. The Pennsylvania 24 Constitution says that the people have a 25 167 right to clean air, pure water and to the 1 preservation of natural, scenic, historic 2 and aestetic value to the environment. 3 I'd like to say that I'd ask 4 you to pay attention to our community. We 5 need your help in York. Take a look at us 6 a little closer than just from a 40,000 7 foot view. Apply policy based on 8 scientific fact that's tempered, not solely 9 dictated by the special business interests, 10 and really advocate for the weak. 11 You people are in an 12 extremely influential and powerful position 13 to adopt the most stringent standard for 14 particles, and in doing so, protect our 15 health. Your mission is to protect human 16 health and to safeguard the natural 17 environment. 18 Thank you so much for 19 allowing me to be here today. 20 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 21 Before you get up, are there 22 any questions? Hats off for that triathlon 23 career, by the way. And you have COPD? 24 MR. McKEE: Yes, I do. I'm 25 168 asthmatic, I'm on three medications, Advair 1 discus, my rescue inhaler and Singulair. 2 MR. BACHMANN: I'm starting 3 it myself, so I know the  4 MR. McKEE: I wish you well 5 with that. It's not fun. 6 MR. BACHMANN: Next up is 7 Craig Potter and Curt Blaze ( ph.). 8 MR. POTTER: Good morning. 9 My name is Craig Potter. Also at the table 10 is Curt Blaze. I'm a partner in the 11 Washington, D. C. law firm of O'Connor & 12 Hannan. My past positions include the 13 Assistant Administrator for Air and 14 Radiation at EPA in 1987, when we signed  15 when I signed off on the final regulations 16 adopting the PM10 standards. 17 Curt is here sitting in for 18 John Richards, who is a consultant, and 19 we're here on behalf of the Coarse Particle 20 Coalition. 21 In the debate over coarse PM 22 standards, almost everyone seems to agree 23 that the health evidence is relatively weak 24 and that additional research is needed. On 25 169 that basis, a standard has been established 1 based on limited evidence pending 2 additional research, and EPA's proposal is 3 essentially  appears to adopt that a 4 standard with exclusion for certain types 5 of emissions that have not been shown to be 6 harmful. All of this is discussed in 7 detail in the PM Criteria Documents, in 8 CASAC exchanges and in other places. 9 In all of my years of 10 experience with the ambient standard 11 program, it's fair to say I think that the 12 health basis for the proposed coarse PM 13 standards are perhaps the most 14 controversial I've ever seen. The level of 15 confidence in the supporting data, as 16 expressed by both EPA staff and CASAC, is 17 far less than that supporting the PM10 18 standards in 1987. EPA's proposal asks for 19 comment on deferral of coarse PM standards 20 pending additional research. We certainly 21 believe that that is one reasonable 22 approach. We note that even this, however, 23 would leave EPA or the states with options 24 for regulation of coarse PM during the 25 170 period of deferral. 1 Coarse PM would continue to 2 be subject to regulation as an air 3 pollutant under other provisions of the act 4 as well as under state law. If EPA 5 proceeds with the proposed standard, it's 6 imperative for the agency to provide 7 exclusions for emissions that have not been 8 shown to be harmful. 9 When Congress passed the 10 Clean Air Act, they made it clear that 11 ambient standards must be based on 12 significant risk of harm. Industries are 13 not required to prove the absence of harm 14 because the resulting economic dislocations 15 may be substantial, but unnecessary. 16 Let me give you some 17 examples from the industries we represent. 18 EPA's proposed standard of 70 micrograms 19 per cubic meter is justified in part as 20 reasonably equivalent to the current PM10 21 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. 22 We don't believe that that's the case for 23 industries where emissions consist 24 predominantly of coarse particulate matter. 25 171 For example, data on quarry 1 emissions indicate that they are about 70 2 to 85 percent coarse particulate matter. 3 Data on agricultural emissions indicate 4 that they about 98 to 99 percent coarse PM. 5 For these industries, reasonably equivalent 6 would be in the range of 105 to 149 7 micrograms per cubic meter. 8 In contrast, the proposed 9 standard appears roughly twice as stringent 10 as the current standard for these and other 11 standards where emissions are dominated by 12 coarse PM, and where they would be 13 regulated. In these industries, the 14 proposed standard would not only be 15 extremely stringent, but also would 16 regulate emissions that have not been shown 17 to be harmful. The proposed standard is 18 based on limited epi studies of exposure to 19 the dust in the streets of Detroit and 20 other major cities. 21 In contrast, many emissions 22 from our industries consist predominantly 23 of natural crustal materials. EPA's 24 current Criteria Document contains the 25 172 strongest statements yet that normal 1 exposure to crustal material is not likely 2 to be harmful. This is recognized in the 3 EPA Staff Paper and the various reports 4 prepared by CASAC. 5 There has been some 6 discussion of addressing this problem by 7 restricting the coarse PM standard to urban 8 areas. We do not believe that a 9 geographical restriction alone would be 10 appropriate or workable because it would 11 regulate urban emissions that have not been 12 shown to be harmful. We do understand 13 EPA's proposal to require  we do not 14 understand EPA's proposal to require such 15 an approach. 16 As we read the proposal, 17 such sources would be excluded from the 18 standard through the requirements for 19 monitor placement. For this reason, we 20 regard the monitor placement requirements 21 as key requirements and elements of the 22 proposal. We are still studying them, but 23 they appear reasonable. 24 We have been engaged for the 25 173 past several years with CASAC and EPA staff 1 in an effort to devise a reasonable 2 approach that fully protects public health 3 while avoiding costly regulation that 4 impede economic growth that is not 5 justified by the scientific record. 6 We believe that our concerns 7 are the basis for the exclusion that EPA 8 has proposed for mining, agriculture and 9 similar emissions. For the reasons I have 10 stated, we believe the exclusion is both 11 scientifically justified and legally 12 required. We fully support the exclusion. 13 We intend to submit additional supporting 14 data and analyses in our written 15 statements. 16 Apart from the proposed 17 exclusion, we remain very concerned at the 18 level of the standard that's been proposed. 19 MR. BACHMANN: We are at the 20 end of this one, so I appreciate your 21 stopping. 22 Mr. Blaze? 23 MR. BLAZE: Dr. Richards was 24 not able to be here today. He's out in the 25 174 field monitoring. We will be submitting 1 some comments from him in writing. I have 2 nothing further to say at this time and 3 would like to yield the balance of my time 4 back to Craig. 5 MR. BACHMANN: That's not 6 possible. We talked about that, other 7 groups asked for that ability and we can't 8 give that. 9 I do have a question, 10 Mr. Potter. I wanted to ask about the 11 equivalent standard you calculated. I 12 wondered whether, and some of the materials 13 we've seen, people have taken into account 14 the difference between the form of the 15 current PM10 standard, which is one 16 expected exceedance, which as you know, you 17 proposed and promulgated actually in 1987, 18 but the form that we have for the new 19 standard we're proposing is 98 percentile, 20 and they end up with a very different 21 number. So my question, in your 22 calculations to us on equivalence, was that 23 difference taken into account? 24 MR. POTTER: Well, I'm not 25 175 sure whether  are you saying it was 99 1 percentile in ' 87? 2 MR. BACHMANN: No. It was 3 one expected exceedance, which means that 4 you get four exceedances in three years. 5 Here we're talking about, in effect, seven 6 exceedances per year. It's not really the 7 same as that, but it's the 98th percentile 8 in 365 days if it were every day would be 9 seven places down in the distribution. 10 MR. POTTER: Our analysis 11 was based on the 98th percentile position. 12 We think it's not clear what the 13 relationship is as to how that argument 14 relates to the level of cutoff, and I guess 15 we would suggest that if that's the basis 16 for it, that there be some kind of 17 perambulatory discussion or something about 18 that. 19 MR. BACHMANN: Okay. 20 MR. BLAZE: And also, if you 21 have any analyses that you've done that 22 would sort of pinpoint that, we'd like to 23 see those. 24 MR. BACHMANN: Yes, 25 176 absolutely. 1 MS. KATZ: Okay. I think 2 we'll have our next panel. And the next 3 panel will be Sharon Starr and Mary Ellen 4 Miller. We'll have Ms. Starr go first. 5 MS. STARR: Thank you. 6 Hello. I am representing the PA state, 7 Pennsylvania State Nurses Association who 8 represent 200,000 state nurses in 9 Pennsylvania. My name is Sharon Starr and 10 I'm a public health nurse from LaSalle 11 Neighborhood Nursing Center in 12 Philadelphia. I'm also adjunct faculty at 13 LaSalle University in the School of 14 Nursing. 15 The nurses and other staff 16 members at LaSalle Neighborhood Nursing 17 Center respond to the public health needs 18 of Philadelphia residents and other 19 counties. Many LaSalle nursing services 20 are offered during home visits. I want to 21 speak about one of our home visits. 22 One nurse visited a family 23 with a child with severe asthma, as many of 24 our families have children and adults with 25 177 asthma. The child had difficulty 1 controlling asthma symptoms at home and 2 experienced frequent hospitalizations at 3 great physical, emotional and financial 4 cost. The parent, child and nurse reviewed 5 the child's symptoms, medications and 6 triggers, as we usually do in an event to 7 try and help control this child's symptoms. 8 Through careful listening to 9 the family, the nurse discovered that 10 exacerbation of symptoms occurred when the 11 neighborhood vendor maintained his business 12 of outdoor barbecue. Through community 13 collaboration, the smoke was finally abated 14 and the child began to thrive. Soot is one 15 trigger that affects many children, 16 including this one. Asthma is prevalent in 17 Pennsylvania with approximately 12 percent 18 of adults in Philadelphia aware of their 19 disease. 20 A person with asthma 21 experiences sensitivity to triggers and 22 restriction of their airways. Coping with 23 asthma means that the person must eliminate 24 their triggers as well as medicate. This 25 178 is difficult when the air around us is the 1 trigger causing airway constriction. 2 Repeated asthma episodes lead to lung 3 damage and can shorten human life. 4 The Clean Air Act regulates 5 coarse and fine particulate matter. 6 Particulates range in size. The smallest 7 particulates of 10 micrometers and less 8 impact human health, especially on the 9 lungs and heart because they can bypass the 10 body's defenses to keep them out. Fine 11 particle pollution contributes to tens of 12 thousands of premature deaths every year. 13 Studies show that 14 particulates at two and a half micrometers 15 and less contribute differently to health. 16 They're usually in a fine aerosol and can 17 be picked up much more easily and travel 18 further. Particles are inhaled deep in the 19 lungs, causing respiratory distress such as 20 severe asthma symptoms, as this child did. 21 They can invade the bloodstream causing 22 cardiovascular problems, including heart 23 attacks and strokes. Over time, the 24 particles could cause lung cancer. 25 179 Particulate matter is the 1 combination of airborne pollutants that 2 occur in solid or liquid form as a result 3 of human and natural activities. The 4 activities of concern are fuel combustion, 5 road traffic, such as diesel engines, 6 agricultural activities, industry and power 7 generation and mining. Power plants and 8 diesel engines are the largest source of 9 particle pollution and very evident here in 10 Pennsylvania. 11 In other parts of 12 Pennsylvania, mining and agriculture play a 13 significant role in particle pollution. 14 Particulate pollution is both an urban and 15 a rural problem. Research continues to 16 reveal the health and safety hazards of 17 this criteria pollutant. The regulation of 18 the pollutant has resulted in some 19 improvements, but research continues to 20 indicate that improvement is necessary to 21 protect the public's health. 22 For example, as the 23 scientific information clarified the needs 24 to improve regulations, the EPA revised its 25 180 standards for particle pollution both in 1 1987 and 1997. Current research shows that 2 newer standards are needed. The current 3 recommendation for particulate matter 2.5 4 should be reduced from 15 to 12 micrograms 5 per cubic meter annually, and to no higher 6 than 2.5  I'm sorry, no higher than 25 7 micrograms per cubic meter daily, instead 8 of the 65 micrograms per 24 hours we 9 currently use. 10 Monitoring requirements 11 should continue in all communities since 12 all communities have risk for being 13 affected by particulates. Excluding any 14 community from monitoring is unjustified as 15 would valuing one set of Pennsylvanians 16 over another based on geography. Besides, 17 the particles travel elsewhere through wind 18 and rain exposing all to their hazards, 19 also exposes our water surfaces. 20 The impact of leaving the 21 standards as they are can affect 22 Pennsylvania economic and social culture. 23 The adult or child affected on poor air 24 quality days cannot be efficient at work or 25 181 school, that is, if they are even able to 1 leave their house. The community's health 2 intertwines with its economical and social 3 systems. The U. S. and Pennsylvania effort 4 with the concerted effort of citizens and 5 scientists  6 MS. KATZ: Thank you very 7 much, Ms. Starr. 8 MS. STARR: Thank you. 9 MS. KATZ: Ms. Miller. 10 MS. MILLER: I, too, come 11 here today representing the Pennsylvania 12 State Nurses Association, and as a 13 colleague of Sharon Starr working at 14 LaSalle University Neighborhood Nursing 15 Center who primarily targets mothers and 16 children in the northwestern section of the 17 City of Philadelphia. I wanted to 18 concentrate on how air quality affects 19 children in my brief talk today. 20 Children playing outdoors is 21 very encouraging, especially in today's 22 society of all the media and other 23 diversions that keep children indoors, but 24 unfortunately, children with asthma and 25 182 other respiratory illnesses playing outside 1 on a day with poor air quality can pose a 2 serious health risk, even a trip to the 3 emergency room. Much of the prevention 4 activity resides on a person themselves 5 modifying how they interact with their own 6 environment. This includes knowing their 7 particular triggers, avoiding places with 8 cigarette smoke and being aware of outdoor 9 air quality. 10 According to the National 11 Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, in the 12 United States, asthma prevalence has 13 increased by 75 percent between 1980 and 14 1994, and 74 percentage among children age 15 five to 14. In 2000 alone, asthma 16 accounted for 12.7 visits to a health care 17 provider, 1.9 million visits to an 18 emergency department, almost 500,000 19 hospitalizations, more than 4,000 deaths 20 and millions of dollars in health care 21 spending. 22 Across the United States, 23 vital statistic data each year reveals 24 asthma deaths, and this is truly a 25 183 preventable public health issue. 1 There has been a 2 disproportioned increase among children who 3 are black because they experience 4 hospitalization at a rate triple that of 5 whites. And Howard Frumkin, Director of 6 the CDC's National Center for Environmental 7 Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances 8 and Disease Registry, noted that the great 9 disparity lies in the health outcomes of 10 asthma with blacks three to five times more 11 likely to die with an ED visit or be 12 hospitalized due to the disease. 13 Children in urban areas are 14 at high risk due to particulate pollution, 15 but these are not the only children in the 16 United States at risk. As Sharon already 17 mentioned, across Pennsylvania, it's also 18 the rural areas that we are concerned about 19 with the standards. 20 So what we're trying to say 21 is specifically the Bush administration 22 should adopt an annual standard no higher 23 than 12 micrograms per cubic meter, and a 24 daily standard no higher than 25 micrograms 25 184 per cubic meter when it finalizes the 1 standards in September. 2 And most timely was this 3 issue  this month's issue of the Nation's 4 Health, which Sharon and I are both members 5 of the American Public Health Association. 6 And it just came across our desk yesterday, 7 and they have a front page article about 8 environmental health, poor air quality and 9 how it endangers the health of children. 10 In one of the closing statements, it talks 11 about how public health professionals can 12 help illustrate this link between 13 communities, air quality and children's 14 health because public health workers get 15 it. We get the link. 16 MS. KATZ: Thank you very 17 much. 18 Any questions for the panel? 19 Thank you. 20 The next panel is going to 21 be David Littell and Leah Weiss. 22 MR. LITTELL: Good 23 afternoon. I'm David Littell, 24 L I T T E L L, the Commissioner of the 25 185 Maine Department of Environmental 1 Protection. I'm testifying on behalf of 2 Maine and the other NESCAUM states. 3 NESCAUM, as I believe the panel knows, is 4 an association of the six New England 5 States and New Jersey and New York. 6 We are addressing EPA's 7 proposal to revise the primary NAAQS, 8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 9 fine particulate matter, or PM2.5. 10 Ambient fine particles pose 11 a substantial air pollution risk to our 12 society. They are ubiquitous, they are 13 toxic and detrimental to public health. 14 Scientists have clearly established a 15 causal connection between fine particulates 16 and the aggravation of respiratory 17 conditions, such as asthma, cardiac 18 conditions, heart disease and premature 19 mortality. 20 It has not been determined 21 whether a threshold exists below which 22 health effects are undetectable. Maine and 23 the rest of the NESCAUM states agree with 24 the findings of the EPA staff and the Clean 25 186 Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC, 1 that a more stringent PM2.5 standard is 2 required. The scientific evidence 3 accumulated over the last decade shows that 4 significant health effects occur from 5 exposure to ambient PM2.5 concentrations at 6 levels at or below the current federal 7 standards. We are concerned that EPA has 8 proposed PM2.5 primary standards that 9 differ from and are less stringent than the 10 EPA staff and the CASAC recommendations 11 justify. 12 EPA proposes to leave the 13 annual standard unchanged at 15 micrograms 14 per cubic meter, the tightened 24 hour 15 standard to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. 16 Based on the preponderance of the evidence, 17 including analysis of the health effect 18 studies and the regional demographic and 19 monitoring data, the NESCAUM states believe 20 that an annual standard of 12 micrograms 21 per cubic meter and a 24 hour standard of 22 30 micrograms per cubic meter in 98th 23 percentile form are necessary to protect 24 public health across the Northeast and 25 187 across the United States. 1 This combination would lower 2 PM2.5 concentration to levels that 3 regulatory agencies, including EPA's staff, 4 conclude are required to public protect 5 health based on the best available science. 6 NESCAUM's proposal has 7 important consequences for northeastern 8 states. Based on recently monitored 9 values, 84 percent of the NESCAUM region's 10 population would directly benefit from 11 improved air quality through nonattainment 12 designations because local, regional and 13 national programs to reduce emissions will 14 subsequently be implemented. 15 Upwards of 50 percent of 16 northeasterners are susceptible to PM2.5, 17 including children, the elderly and those 18 with preexisting heart and lung disease. 19 Over 70 percent of the total population, 20 about 30 million people, live in areas that 21 experience the region's highest air 22 pollution levels. While NESCAUM states 23 recognize the implications of promoting 24 standards that would place the majority of 25 188 the region in nonattainment, we believe 1 that it is the appropriate public health 2 action because corrective actions will 3 follow. 4 Elevated levels of 5 particulate matter from local sources and 6 transported from upwind can be found across 7 the board in areas of the Northeast, 8 particularly in densely populated urban 9 areas. 10 The NESCAUM states are 11 taking action to reduce local PM emissions 12 beyond the requirement of the Clean Air 13 Act, but unless EPA revises the standards 14 to adequately protective levels, adverse 15 health effects from exposure to 16 concentrations near or below current 17 standards will remain a serious public 18 health concern and our ability to lower 19 these exposures will be significantly 20 limited. 21 EPA's proposal for the 22 primary PM2.5 NAQQS only takes us part way 23 to a truly protective standard. For every 24 one person that EPA's less stringent 25 189 proposal would protect in the Northeast, a 1 more stringent 12 and 30 proposal would 2 protect almost three additional people in 3 the Northeast. This would amount to over 4 20 million more people in the Northeast 5 receiving public health protection than 6 under EPA's proposal. 7 Across the U. S., a 8 combination of 12 and 30 micrograms per 9 cubic meter annual and 24 hour standards 10 respectively would lead to 100 percent more 11 protection, or double the number of people 12 protected from exposure to fine particulate 13 matter. 14 Clearly, EPA should follow 15 and not ignore the advice of the leading 16 scientists and embrace the opportunity to 17 protect public health as envisioned by the 18 Clean Air Act. The NESCAUM states will be 19 submitting more detailed comments, and we 20 thank you for this opportunity to 21 testify. 22 MS. KATZ: Thank you. 23 Ms. Weiss. 24 MS. WEISS: Thank you. My 25 190 name is Leah Weiss, L E A H, W E I S S. 1 I'm here on behalf of the NESCAUM states to 2 talk about EPA's proposal, and my comments 3 focus on visibility aspects of a revised 4 secondary standard, which is an important 5 public welfare benefit that a PM2.5 6 secondary NAAQS should address. 7 PM2.5 at current levels in 8 the air, which are well below the existing 9 primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS, severely 10 degrade visibility in urban areas. While 11 scenic vistas in our country's national 12 parks, wilderness areas and other cherished 13 landscapes are well worth ongoing efforts 14 to improve visibility, city dwellers are 15 also deserving of better views in urban 16 areas where they spend much of their time. 17 With this in mind, we agree 18 that EPA should revise the current PM2.5 19 secondary NAAQS from its existing level of 20 65 micrograms per meter cubed, 24 hour 21 average, 98th percentile averaged over 22 three years. 23 Monitors in the NESCAUM 24 region never exceed the current PM2.5 25 191 secondary NAAQS, yet a camera from the 1 Northeast regional haze camera network 2 routinely documents extremely hazy days 3 obscuring city skylines and adjacent views. 4 This shows that virtually all of the PM2.5 5 effects on visibility in the Northeast are 6 occurring below the present secondary 7 standard, justifying EPA's proposal to 8 revise the existing standard. 9 Unfortunately, EPA's 10 proposed secondary standard is not 11 adequate. We disagree that the proposed 12 secondary standard should be identical to 13 the proposed primary standard. EPA's Staff 14 Paper found that the available information 15 on visibility may well provide a basis for 16 a distinctly defined standard. NESCAUM 17 supports this view. 18 Survey findings cited by EPA 19 clearly demonstrate that the public is 20 sensitive to poor visibility at PM2.5 21 levels well below the proposed PM2.5 22 proposed NAAQS. The public survey method 23 cited by EPA in its proposal amply and 24 consistently demonstrate publicly 25 192 acceptable visual ranges from 40 to 60 1 kilometers. These visual ranges correspond 2 to PM2.5 levels on a subdaily basis well 3 below the 35 micrograms per meter cubed 4 24 hour average proposed by EPA. 5 We agree that visibility 6 relates most directly to subdaily levels of 7 PM2.5 that can vary dramatically over a few 8 hours. As noted in EPA's Staff Paper, this 9 calls for a shorter term standard of less 10 than a 24 hour averaging period focused on 11 daylight hours. 12 NESCAUM recommends that EPA 13 promulgate a PM2.5 secondary NAAQS that is 14 subdaily four hour average over the 15 daylight hours from 12 to 4 p. m. in the 16 range to 20 to 25 micrograms per cubic 17 meter, 95th or 96th percentile form 18 averaged over three years. This subdaily 19 standard is consistent with EPA's 20 recommendation that CASAC also supported 21 with one dissent. 22 Our recommendations 23 correspond to a visual range from 30 to 35 24 kilometers. While this is less than what 25 193 the public considers acceptable, it is a 1 good first step at improving views in our 2 urban areas as well as in regions affected 3 by transported urban pollution. EPA can 4 strengthen the standard and the future as 5 additional studies warrant. 6 An improved secondary 7 standard will also complement EPA's 8 Regional Haze Rule and better address 9 winter haze in Northeast cities and other 10 urban areas. During the winter, haze 11 events are often more local in nature, thus 12 the Regional Haze Rule will not be adequate 13 for visibility protection in urban areas as 14 it targets Class I areas primarily in rural 15 areas. 16 We believe that the Clean 17 Air Act requires secondary standards be set 18 to eliminate at least some of the risk of 19 adverse welfare effects. Equating the 20 secondary with the primary standard as 21 sufficient to protect welfare renders the 22 Act's statutory language on secondary 23 standards superfluous and meaningless. 24 With regard to PM coarse, we 25 194 strongly disagree with EPA's proposed 1 exemptions. If finalized, there would be 2 no regulatory PM coarse or PM10 standards 3 in non urban areas. The proposal to exempt 4 rural windblown dust and agricultural and 5 mining PM sources is inappropriate, not 6 supported by the science and should be 7 removed. 8 By redefining the standards 9 as EPA proposes, public health protection 10 would be denied to significant portions of 11 the U. S. population. NESCAUM will be 12 submitting more detailed comments on all 13 the issues that are addressed in the 14 proposals, and we thank you for the 15 opportunity to testify. 16 MS. KATZ: Thank you. 17 MS. WEISS: Thank you. 18 MR. BACHMANN: Any 19 questions? 20 MR. SILVERMAN: For Mr. 21 Littell, were those 98th percentile values 22 you will recommending? 23 MR. LITTELL: Yes. Yes, 24 they were, Mr. Silverman. 25 195 MR. SILVERMAN: And were the 1 risk numbers quoted, was that from our risk 2 assessment or was that from some other 3 source? 4 MR. LITTELL: They were 5 NESCAUM's. 6 MR. BACHMANN: And I believe 7 some of those may have been submitted by 8 Phil Johnson earlier. 9 Ms. Weiss, I have some 10 questions on visibility. Your comments 11 started out about secondary standards, you 12 moved to primary standards on coarse, just 13 to make sure, and not about secondary 14 standards on coarse. 15 MS. WEISS: My last comment 16 was with regard to the coarse primary. 17 MR. BACHMANN: That's what I 18 thought. Okay. I just wanted to be clear 19 on that. 20 The second, you're basing 21 your recommendations on evaluations of 22 studies that had been done, not many of 23 them have been done in the East obviously, 24 eastern United States. Does NESCAUM have 25 196 any information from its own work or from 1 the individual states about public opinions 2 on visibility in urban areas as opposed to 3 the  4 MS. WEISS: I'll have to get 5 back to you on it. 6 MR. LORANG: I'd like to 7 encourage Ms. Weiss to address monitoring 8 issues for the four hour secondary standard 9 proposal that you're making. Since we 10 didn't propose anything specific, we'd 11 appreciate as specific comment as possible 12 on federal risk methods, et cetera. 13 MS. WEISS: Great. Will do. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. BACHMANN: Okay. Thanks 16 to both of you. The next two panelists are 17 Stacey Katseanes, I hope that's close, and 18 Rebeckah Adcock. 19 MS. KATSEANES: Good 20 morning. Actually, afternoon at this 21 point. My name is Stacey Katseanes, 22 K A T S E A N E S, and I'm a Director of 23 Legislative Affairs for the National 24 Cattlemen's Beef Association. Just by 25 197 association, I might be an expert on coarse 1 PM having grown up in Idaho in a drought, 2 and there's constantly wind. So I will say 3 I'm familiar with dust on kind of a 4 practical level. 5 I appreciate the opportunity 6 to comment on EPA's proposal to regulate 7 coarse particulate matter under the 8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 9 NCBA represents tens of 10 thousands of America's farmers, ranchers 11 and cattlemen who provide much of the 12 nation's food and fiber. Our members are 13 proud of their tradition as doers and 14 conservators of America's land, and as good 15 neighbors to their communities. They 16 support dust control measures which they 17 use every day of every year in supplying 18 America with the food it needs. They do 19 not seek to roll back dust control 20 measures, but instead, seek to maintain and 21 improve them. 22 The amount of dust remaining 23 after using best management practices has 24 never been demonstrated to harm public 25 198 health at ambient levels. That is why for 1 the last more than 30 years, the EPA has 2 excluded these dusts when determining 3 compliance. 4 I thank the EPA for 5 continuing this historic 6 scientifically based policy by proposing to 7 exclude coarse PM from agriculture  from 8 regulation under the coarse NAAQS. I do 9 not believe, however, that current science 10 shows a need to regulate urban type dust 11 either; and NCBA is opposed to EPA's 12 proposal to do so. There are many 13 agricultural operations near urban areas 14 and are concerned that their dust may get 15 caught up in the regulation. 16 If you require cattle 17 operations to meet your proposed standard 18 of 70 micrograms per cubic meter, simply 19 put, you will force many of them out of 20 business, and for what purpose, as health 21 studies do not show that coarse PM causes 22 adverse health effects. 23 The fact is that the four 24 studies on which EPA relied for its 25 199 proposed coarse standard are fatally 1 flawed. The EPA acknowledges these fatal 2 flaws in the alternative interpretation 3 section of the proposed rule, but for some 4 reason, chooses to ignore them and propose 5 regulation anyway. The proposed coarse PM 6 standard is not at all supported by these 7 studies. 8 We also wonder why EPA has 9 failed to consider a far larger number of 10 studies with much larger and more powerful 11 databases and longer duration that 12 specifically consider coarse PM data, but 13 did not find statistically significant 14 associations. Specifically, studies by 15 Schwartz in ' 96, Thurston in ' 94, Sheppard 16 in 2003, Fairley in 2003 and Lipfert in 17 2000. Why were these studies not 18 considered? 19 Any fair and sound 20 scientific weighing of the evidence on 21 coarse PM shows that regulation of coarse 22 PM is not warranted to protect public 23 health. I urge the EPA to do the right 24 thing and decide not to regulate dust until 25 200 science shows regulation is necessary. 1 I'd also like to submit 2 further comments for the record, and thank 3 you again for allowing us to be here 4 today. 5 MS. ADCOCK: Rebeckah 6 Adcock. It's R E B E C K A H, and Adcock 7 is A D C O C K. 8 Thank you, EPA, for allowing 9 American Farm Bureau's presence at these 10 hearings. Again, my name is Rebeckah 11 Adcock, and I represent American Farm 12 Bureau and its hundreds of thousands of 13 farm and ranch families throughout the 14 country and territories in the United 15 States. 16 We have farmers, producers, 17 livestock and poultry raisers all 18 throughout the country, family farmers and 19 all scales of operations who raise just 20 about everything that you put on your table 21 for all your meals. I'm probably going to 22 be a bit repetitive with my colleague here 23 from NCBA. She did an excellent job of 24 laying out many of our concerns and the 25 201 position of Farm Bureau, as well as many of 1 the other agricultural organizations that 2 you might not hear from at this particular 3 hearing session. 4 We do agree with EPA with 5 the elements of their proposal stating that 6 they do not believe that agricultural 7 emissions of coarse particulate matter 8 cause health effects. The basis of 9 regulation within the Clean Air Act is 10 health effects, health effects and health 11 effects only, and the legal restrictions 12 that the courts have found are that you 13 regulate for health effects to be 14 protective of those, but you don't go 15 further. You are not allowed to be 16 precautionary. 17 As has been noted by folks 18 on both sides of the aisle that the science 19 here is a bit imperfect, incomplete and in 20 some cases, quite lacking. In our opinion, 21 the science, as it exists and as EPA has 22 referenced, both the things they've 23 referenced and the science out there that 24 they haven't referenced in the proposal, we 25 202 do not believe that coarse particulate 1 matter from any source and any emission is 2 causing a health effect to be regulated at 3 this time. 4 We don't mean to look a gift 5 horse in the mouth; however, under the 6 conditions that we do expect to incur when 7 the rule becomes final, being that it 8 probably will be litigated, we are 9 concerned about the legal vulnerability of 10 the coarse particulate exclusion for 11 agriculture and mining. And we would ask 12 that if EPA does continue along its line of 13 insisting upon the exclusion rather than 14 the science supporting full non regulation 15 at this time of the coarse particulate 16 matter, that you would at least strengthen 17 that exclusion. Our preference would be 18 not to regulate at this time until or 19 unless science shows that we're, in fact, 20 causing a problem. 21 We have additional concerns 22 with some of the other package proposals 23 that are coming out, specifically relating 24 to some of the monitoring. American Farm 25 203 Bureau does support monitoring, even if 1 we're not going to be directly regulated at 2 this time. We would like to see additional 3 monitoring. We need to know more about 4 what we do, how we do it and how it affects 5 our communities. And for the good, the 6 bad, whatever that information shows, we 7 need to have it, and we would be happy to 8 work with EPA regardless of what happens in 9 the final rule to do that. We don't, 10 however, believe that regulation is needed 11 to do that. 12 We echo the concerns of NCBA 13 and the other agricultural organizations as 14 it relates to how would some of our most 15 vulnerable producers, those folks who are 16 on an interface with urban and suburban 17 areas who may be confused as to whether or 18 not they're agricultural or 19 non agricultural operations, and the 20 proposal is a little bit lacking in 21 understanding. Probably EPA is a little 22 bit confused about what to do with those 23 people as well. 24 And I will tell you that 25 204 those are definitely some of our most 1 highly effective, highly conscientious, but 2 also most vulnerable producers. And those 3 are the folks that we seem to be very 4 sensitive about and spend a lot of time on 5 all environmental fronts trying to help do 6 the right thing, but also keep in business. 7 American Farm Bureau will be 8 submitting very thorough comments on 9 probably almost all of the particulate 10 matter proposals that are due very soon, 11 and we will get those comments to you as 12 soon as possible. And thank you for the 13 opportunity to hear from us, and also 14 hopefully our producers in other areas. 15 MS. HASSETT SIPPLE: Ms. 16 Katseanes, you mentioned some studies that 17 you felt EPA had not taken into 18 consideration. I would encourage you to 19 submit those studies to the docket during 20 the comment period to make sure that all of 21 the studies you're concerned about are 22 considered. 23 MS. KATSEANES: Yes, ma'am. 24 MR. BACHMANN: You listed 25 205 them in your statement. 1 MR. SILVERMAN: And I think 2 it was Mr. Cox who mentioned occupational 3 study, toxicological studies linked to 4 effects. I take it your position on those 5 are those are not community level 6 exposures, or how would you address those 7 studies? 8 MS. KATSEANES: I don't know 9 that I would. At this point, I have to 10 look more into that because I don't know 11 the studies that you're talking about 12 actually. 13 MR. SILVERMAN: And we 14 reference some of those in the preamble as 15 well. 16 MS. KATSEANES: Okay. We 17 can get back with you on that. 18 MR. BACHMANN: I wanted to 19 ask a question, oddly enough a legal 20 question since you mentioned that you were 21 worried about the vulnerability of the 22 exclusion. There's really two exclusions 23 if you want to look at it. One is for just 24 the nature of the indicator which says, you 25 206 know, we're looking at a particular kind of 1 particle that happens to occur in urban 2 areas, but because of the 100,000 people, 3 but because those people do things that 4 emit these particles. And in the case of 5 certain big industrial sources, like the 6 one in Steubenville or the one in Provo, 7 Utah, those are big sources that happen to 8 have coarse particle as well. The other 9 exclusion is one where it just flat out 10 names the two. And do you feel that latter 11 is the bigger concern? And I'm sorry, we 12 have the wrong person, I believe. 13 Ms. Katseanes really is the one who raised 14 that. And so I guess the question is, 15 what's your take on in terms of 16 strengthening it or the vulnerability? 17 MS. ADCOCK: I was a little 18 more specific on that. In consultation 19 with our general counsel, I believe that we 20 feel fairly vulnerable on both, 21 particularly just the blanket exclusion, 22 the latter exclusion, but I also feel that 23 there has been some question and discussion 24 on the indicators as well. And it's 25 207 probably not a position that we have 1 fleshed out as fully as we're prepared to 2 publicly declare at this point. And we 3 will do our best to try to provide those 4 and comment as that becomes a little more 5 well developed throughout our process. But 6 I think it would be fair to say we'll be 7 concerned about both. 8 MR. BACHMANN: Thanks to 9 both of you. 10 The next panel, Jim Black 11 and Freyda Black. 12 MS. BLACK: My name is 13 Freyda Black, F R E Y D A. Thank you for 14 allowing us to speak. I'm here speaking to 15 you as a mother, and as a mother, I feel we 16 are not doing enough to protect our 17 children from exposure to airborne toxins. 18 Our children are suffering needlessly from 19 asthma and other chronic breathing 20 disorders because our present standards do 21 not adequately protect our most vulnerable 22 citizens from exposure. 23 Why are air quality 24 standards not more stringent? Because it 25 208 will cost too much, or that is what some 1 interests say. Well, as a mother, I ask 2 you, what is the cost to our children, the 3 future of this country if their development 4 is adversely affected by exposure to 5 unacceptably high levels of pollution? We 6 can, and we must, tighten the regulations 7 controlling particulate pollution. 8 As a mother, I feel we must 9 base our regulations not on pollution's 10 effect on adults, but we must instead base 11 them on what levels are safe for developing 12 children. As you are aware, children are 13 much more susceptible to the negative 14 impacts of pollution because of their 15 higher rate of respiration and their higher 16 activity levels. 17 As a mother, I'm fortunate 18 in that my son does not suffer from asthma, 19 but many of his friends are not so lucky. 20 Asthma in our children today is at epidemic 21 proportions. It is the leading cause of 22 absenteeism at school. What is the cost to 23 society of this? 24 More than this, think of the 25 209 benefit to society if none of us, nor our 1 children, nor our elderly, are exposed to 2 unsafe levels of airborne particulates. 3 How many developmental difficulties can be 4 avoided? How many premature deaths will be 5 prevented? Think of the increased 6 productivity of America if you, the 7 Environmental Protection Agency, can adopt 8 standards that protect everyone's right to 9 breathe clean air. 10 As a mother, I implore you 11 to consider the question not whether we can 12 afford to implement the highest standards, 13 but instead, to consider whether we can 14 afford not to. 15 I just wanted to add a 16 comment relative to the two ladies who 17 spoke earlier. I live in Philadelphia now, 18 but I was a homeowner in upstate New York 19 in a rural community, and I did work on a 20 dairy farm. I did feeding and milking. 21 And I have many farmers whom I am proud to 22 call my friends. And although a statement 23 was made that there's no empirical or other 24 evidence that levels of particulates due to 25 210 farming operations cause negative health 1 impacts, I know from personal experience 2 many farmers who will tell you, who told 3 me, that they suffer from asthma and that 4 asthma was caused from exposure to hay or 5 dust when plowing, or many other things, 6 and there is evidence that farmers suffer 7 at a rate of asthma two times that of the 8 general population. 9 So although I know that you 10 consider the costs to business, there are 11 costs to  there are human costs among the 12 farming community, and I don't think we 13 need to exempt them or exempt protection of 14 them as well. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. BLACK: My name is Jim 17 Black, and I'm here today speaking as a 18 private citizen. And I must concur with my 19 wife in regards to particulate pollution's 20 effect on our children. What I wish to add 21 to this discussion is how this proposed 22 change in regulations will affect business. 23 As an employer, the poor 24 quality of our air has a direct negative 25 211 impact on my bottom line, and I would 1 venture to guess that it has the same 2 negative impact on the rest of the business 3 community. How is this possible when the 4 main reason given in support of less 5 stringent standards is an economic one? 6 The equations we use in the 7 calculations of cost are flawed. There are 8 many costs that are not factored in even 9 though they become a direct cost of doing 10 business. There is the cost of the loss of 11 worker productivity from days missed from 12 work due to asthma and other chronic lung 13 problems exacerbated by our poor air 14 quality. This also raises our cost to 15 insure our employees, which is our second 16 largest cost next to the cost of actual 17 wages paid. 18 I do not have direct 19 empirical evidence to back my case, but the 20 circumstantial evidence is compelling. My 21 evidence that I submit is this: The number 22 of employees calling out sick always 23 increases when the air quality index 24 indicates our air quality is the worst. I 25 212 would bet that if all employers were to 1 track their data, this trend would be borne 2 out. This means the cheap energy and cheap 3 transportation are ultimately very 4 expensive to our economy. It is not in the 5 best interest of the U. S. economy not to 6 do all we can to protect the quality of the 7 air that we breathe. 8 I ask you, the United States 9 Environmental Protection Agency, to fulfill 10 your mandate to protect the quality of the 11 air we breathe, not just for the health of 12 every citizen, but also for the health of 13 the entire U. S. economy. 14 Thank you. And I also felt 15 compelled after the last presentation to 16 make an additional statement on behalf of 17 my father who was  he's no longer living, 18 but he was a professor at Cornell's Ag 19 School, and the coarse particulate matter 20 that we're talking about is our topsoil. 21 Farmers cannot afford to be letting that 22 just blow away in the wind. So anything we 23 can do that will help keep that soil in 24 place will ultimately be good for 25 213 agriculture. Thank you. 1 MR. BACHMANN: Thanks. 2 MR. SILVERMAN: Thanks very 3 much for coming. I want to clarify to you, 4 by law, we cannot consider economic impacts 5 in setting these standards at all, one way 6 or the other. 7 MS. BLACK: That's very nice 8 to know. 9 MR. SILVERMAN: Purely 10 health based. That is per the U. S. 11 Supreme Court, among other sources, by the 12 way. 13 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 14 Our last speaker before 15 lunch is A. Todd Johnston. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. 17 My name is Todd Johnston with the National 18 Mining Association. 19 The National Mining 20 Association appreciates the opportunity to 21 provide testimony on EPA's proposal to 22 revise the National Ambient Air Quality 23 Standards for particulate matter. The NMA 24 is a national trade association of mining 25 214 and mineral processing companies whose 1 membership encompasses producers of most of 2 the United States metals, coal, uranium and 3 industrial and agricultural minerals. Our 4 comments today focus on EPA's proposed 5 coarse particulate NAAQS. 6 NMA supports EPA's proposal 7 not to regulate coarse PM of the NAAQS and 8 alternative EPA's proposal to exclude dust 9 from mining operations from NAAQS 10 regulation. To appreciate NMA's position, 11 I'd like to clarify several broad issues 12 concerning this debate. 13 First, EPA's proposed 14 decision to regulate coarse PM as a health 15 risk is based on highly questionable 16 evidence. EPA has not provided the 17 scientific support to demonstrate the 18 coarse PM standard is necessary to protect 19 public health or welfare even in urban 20 areas with other contaminants present. In 21 fact, EPA itself notes when fine PM and 22 other air pollutants are considered, even 23 the marginal statistical associations and a 24 few who don't believe in studies disappear. 25 215 The concept and hypothesis 1 advanced by EPA as justification to the 2 coarse PM NAAQS are just that and no more. 3 They cannot serve as justification for 4 adopting a health based standard at a 5 specific concentration level such as that 6 proposed, especially when that standard is 7 nearly double the stringency of the prior 8 PM10 standard in atmospheres dominated by 9 coarse particles. 10 If EPA nevertheless moves 11 forward with coarse PM NAAQS regulation, it 12 clearly should exclude emissions from 13 mining sources. The fugitive dust from 14 mining  fugitive dust from mining 15 operations are by scientific definition 16 coarse particulate matter. These are 17 particles derived from the mechanical 18 division of earthen and other materials. 19 By contrast, fine particulate matter is 20 derived from the primary and secondary 21 results of combustion and other chemical 22 processes. 23 Over the last 30 years, the 24 consensus opinion of many eminent and 25 216 experienced medical and health experts has 1 been that coarse PM from mining operations 2 does not demonstrate adverse health effects 3 at ambient levels, and it may submit a 4 substantial body of medical and public 5 health expert opinion in opposition of 6 EPA's recommendation should be accorded 7 substantial weight. 8 Against the background of 9 scientific consensus that coarse PM poses 10 no health hazard at ambient levels, public 11 policy is wisely refrained from regulating 12 as such. 13 Decisions to exempt mining 14 and agriculture are fully consistent with 15 the overwhelming weight of scientific 16 evidence, as well as a determination of the 17 Congress, the history of EPA's 18 decision making over several 19 administrations, and rulings of the Court 20 since the inception of the Clean Air Act. 21 Because there has been 22 agreement that such dusts do not have 23 substantial health or welfare effects, 24 historically guidance, policies and 25 217 exemptions are not included in making 1 determinations of being in compliance. 2 Over the past 30 years, the 3 EPA has excluded such dusts in making  4 obtaining determinations of compliance with 5 the PM NAAQS, has determined not to list 6 surface coal mines as major sources, 7 created a fugitive dust extension to be 8 excluded from determinations under the 9 program, discounted under its fugitive dust 10 policy and excluded under various natural 11 events policies from being considered in 12 determining compliance with the PM NAAQS. 13 The proposed exclusion of 14 coarse PM from mining continues EPA's 15 historic, scientifically based policy and 16 practice in excluding such emissions. 17 These determinations and policies have been 18 upheld by the Court and been endorsed by 19 Congress on several occasions. 20 Finally, coarse PM emissions 21 from mining operations are already subject 22 to pervasive regulation. This includes 23 Best Available Control Technologies and 24 Best Management Practices embodied under 25 218 federal, state and local control 1 regulations, new Source Performance 2 Standards and permit conditions, all of 3 which are federally enforceable by the 4 citizen's suit provisions under the Clean 5 Air Act. These requirements will remain in 6 place regardless of whether the EPA adopts 7 the coarse PM NAAQS. 8 To be clear, NMA is not 9 endorsing the roll back of fugitive dust 10 regulation. For these reasons, NMA submits 11 that there is no basis for the proposed PM 12 NAAQS. If, however, EPA chooses to 13 implement a coarse standard, it must 14 exclude coarse PM from agricultural and 15 mining in recognition of the preponderance 16 of scientific evidence, previous 17 determinations of EPA, Congress and the 18 Courts concerning these sources since the 19 inception of the Clean Air Act. 20 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. 21 Any questions? 22 We appreciate it. 23 I'm going to suspend the 24 hearing until 2: 00 for a lunch break. When 25 219 we start up again, I'll read again, for 1 those of you who want to take an extra long 2 lunch, the sort of introductory statements 3 for the afternoon folks who may be here. 4 Thanks. 5 ( Whereupon, hearing stood in 6 luncheon recess at 12: 35 p. m.) 7 8 9    10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19