1
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1
Transcript
of
Hearing
to
Take
Comment
on
2
Two
Proposed
Rules
­
­
­
3
1.
Revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
4
and
2.
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
5
­
­
­

DATE:
Wednesday,
March
8,
2006
(
Morning
Session)
6
HELD
AT:
7
Holiday
Inn
8
4th
and
Arch
Streets
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
9
HELD
BEFORE:
10
JOHN
BACHMANN,
CHAIR
Associate
Director
of
Science/
Policy
and
11
Programs
JUDY
KATZ
12
Director
of
the
Air
Protection
Division
13
14
STEVEN
SILVERMAN,
ESQUIRE
15
Office
of
General
Counsel
16
PHIL
LORANG
17
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
18
Standards'
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Group
19
BETH
HASSETT­
SIPPLE
20
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
21
Standards'
Ambient
Standards
Group
22
REPORTED
BY:
23
Teresa
M.
Catullo,
RPR,
CSR
24
­
­
­
25
2
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
1
commenced
at
9:
00
a.
m.)
2
MR.
BACHMANN:
Good
morning,
3
everybody,
and
thanks
for
attending
the
4
EPA's
hearing
on
two
proposed
rules
for
5
particulate
matter.
I
know
a
lot
of
you
6
traveled
a
long
way
to
get
here
and
we
7
appreciate
your
efforts.
8
My
name
is
John
Bachmann.
9
I'm
the
Associate
Director
for
10
Science/
Policy
and
New
Programs
at
EPA's
11
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
12
Standards,
which
is
part
of
the
Office
of
13
Air
and
Radiation.
I'm
going
to
chair
14
today's
hearing
along
with
Judy
Katz
from
15
Region
3.
16
We
are
here
today
to
listen
17
to
your
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
18
revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
19
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
20
and
proposed
revisions
to
the
Ambient
Air
21
Monitoring
Regulations.
I'm
going
to
use
22
PM
for
short
for
particulate
matter.
23
As
a
reminder,
this
is
a
24
hearing,
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
25
3
comment
on
EPA's
proposed
rules.
The
panel
1
members
may
answer
questions
that
seek
to
2
clarify
what
we
propose,
but
the
purpose
of
3
this
hearing
is
to
listen
to
your
comments
4
and
not
to
discuss
or
debate
the
proposals.
5
Before
we
move
to
the
6
comment
period,
I
want
to
briefly
describe
7
the
proposed
rules
that
are
the
subject
of
8
today's
hearing.
Both
proposals
were
9
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
10
January
17,
2006.
And
I
hope
you'll
bear
11
with
me.
I'm
going
to
read
this
statement
12
because
we're
having
the
same
statement
13
read
in
each
of
the
three
cities
this
takes
14
place
in,
and
we're
going
to
tell
you
15
exactly
the
same
thing.
And
I'm
known
for
16
extrapolating,
so
just
­­
all
right.
17
Particulate
matter,
also
18
knows
as
particle
pollution,
includes
a
19
mixture
of
solids
and
liquid
droplets.
20
Particles
come
in
a
wide
range
of
sizes.
21
Some
particles
are
emitted
directly
and
22
others
are
formed
in
the
atmosphere
and
23
pollutant
emissions
such
as
sulfur
oxides,
24
nitrogen
oxides,
ammonia,
and
volatile
25
4
organic
compounds
react
together
1
chemically.
Exposure
to
particles
has
been
2
associated
with
premature
death
as
well
as
3
significant
adverse
cardiovascular
and
4
respiratory
effects.
5
The
proposed
revisions
to
6
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
7
for
Particulate
Matter
address
two
8
categories
of
particles:
fine
particles,
9
or
PM2.5,
which
are
2.5
micrometers
in
10
diameter
or
smaller,
and
inhalable
coarse
11
particles,
or
PM10­
2.5,
which
are
12
smaller
than
10
micrometers
in
diameter,
13
but
larger
than
PM2.5.
We
have
had
14
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
15
PM2.5
since
1997,
and
for
particles
10
16
micrometers
and
smaller,
which
includes
17
PM2.5,
or
PM10,
since
1987.
We
have
18
proposed
specific
revisions
to
the
current
19
PM
standards
and
requested
comments
on
a
20
range
of
alternative
standards
for
both
21
fine
and
inhalable
coarse
particles.
22
The
proposed
revisions
23
address
changes
to
both
the
primary
24
standards
to
protect
public
health
and
the
25
5
secondary
standards
to
protect
public
1
welfare,
including
visibility
impairment.
2
With
respect
to
primary
3
standards
to
protect
public
health,
the
4
proposal
included:
5
1.
Lowering
the
level
of
6
the
24­
hour
fine
particle
standards
from
7
the
current
level
of
65
micrograms
per
8
cubic
meter
to
35
micrograms
per
cubic
9
meter.
We
have
requested
comments
on
10
retaining
the
current
level
of
the
11
standard,
which
is
65;
on
levels
between
25
12
and
65;
and
on
alternative
approaches
for
13
selecting
the
level
of
the
standard.
14
2.
Retaining
the
level
of
15
the
annual
fine
particle
standard
at
15
16
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
We
have
17
considered
and
are
seeking
public
comment
18
on
a
range
of
levels
from
15
down
to
12
19
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
20
3.
Establishing
a
new
21
indicator
for
inhalable
coarse
particles,
22
PM10­
2.5.
The
proposed
new
PM10
23
minus
2.5
standard
has
been
qualified
to
24
include
any
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
25
6
where
the
majority
of
coarse
particles
is
1
resuspended
dust
from
high­
density
traffic
2
on
paved
roads
and
PM
generated
by
3
industrial
sources
and
construction
4
sources,
and
to
exclude
any
ambient
mix
of
5
PM10­
2.5
where
the
majority
of
coarse
6
particles
is
rural
windblown
dust
and
soils
7
and
PM
generated
by
agricultural
and
mining
8
sources.
9
We
have
proposed
setting
a
10
24­
hour
standard
for
inhalable
coarse
11
particles
at
70
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
12
Under
the
proposed
regulations,
quote,
13
"
agricultural
sources,
mining
sources,
and
14
other
similar
sources
of
crustal
materials
15
shall
not
be
subject
to
control
in
meeting
16
this
standard,"
end
quote.
We
have
17
requested
comment
on
selecting
a
level
down
18
to
50
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
or
below
19
and/
or
selecting
an
unqualified
PM10
minus
20
2.5
indicator.
We
have
also
asked
for
21
comment
on
whether
we
should
retain
the
22
current
PM10
standard
in
place
of
the
23
proposed
PM10­
2.5
standard
or
whether
24
we
should
not
establish
a
coarse
particle
25
7
standard
at
this
time
pending
the
1
development
of
a
coarse
particle
monitoring
2
network
and
further
research
on
the
health
3
effects
of
coarse
particles.
4
With
respect
to
secondary
5
standards,
the
ones
that
protect
public
6
welfare,
we
have
proposed
that
the
7
secondary
standards
would
be
identical
to
8
the
primary,
health­
based
standards.
We
9
have
requested
comment
on
setting
a
10
sub­
daily,
that's
four
to
eight­
hour
11
averaging
time,
PM2.5
standard
to
address
12
visibility
impairment,
within
the
range
of
13
20
to
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
14
Inhalable
coarse
particles,
15
or
PM10­
2.5,
is
a
subset
of
the
type
16
of
PM
controlled
by
existing
standards
for
17
PM10
raising
the
question
of
what
would
18
happen
to
the
current
PM10
standards
if
we
19
finalized
standards
for
PM10­
2.5.
We
20
have
proposed
that
current
scientific
21
evidence
does
not
support
setting
an
annual
22
standard
for
inhalable
coarse
particles,
23
and
therefore,
proposed
to
revoke
the
24
current
annual
PM10
standards
in
all
areas.
25
8
If
we
finalize
the
24­
hour
primary
standard
1
for
PM10­
2.5,
we
propose
to
revoke
2
the
current
24­
hour
PM10
standard
except
in
3
areas
that
have
at
least
one
monitor
that
4
is
located
in
an
urbanized
area
with
a
5
minimum
population
of
100,000
people
and
6
that
has
measured
a
violation
of
the
7
24­
hour
PM10
standard
based
on
the
most
8
recent
three
years
of
data.
9
In
the
second
rule,
we
have
10
proposed
revisions
to
the
ambient
air
11
monitoring
requirements
for
criteria
12
pollutants.
Those
are
the
ones
for
which
13
we
have
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
14
Standards.
The
proposed
changes
would
15
support
proposed
revisions
to
the
NAAQS,
16
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards,
17
for
particulate
matter,
including
new
18
minimum
monitoring
network
requirements
for
19
inhalable
coarse
particles
and
criteria
for
20
approval
of
applicable
sampling
methods.
21
These
proposed
changes
would
establish
a
22
new
nationwide
network
of
monitoring
23
stations
that
take
an
integrated,
24
multi­
pollutant
approach
to
ambient
air
25
9
monitoring
in
support
of
multiple
1
objectives.
The
proposed
amendments
would
2
modify
the
current
requirements
for
ambient
3
air
monitors
by
focusing
requirements
on
4
populated
areas
with
air
quality
problems.
5
The
purpose
of
these
proposed
changes
is
to
6
enhance
ambient
air
quality
monitoring
to
7
better
serve
current
and
future
air
quality
8
management
and
research
needs.
9
Additional
information
on
10
the
two
proposed
rules
can
be
found
in
the
11
fact
sheets
available
in
the
registration
12
area.
13
Now
let
me
turn
to
the
14
comment
portion
of
today's
hearing.
This
15
hearing
is
one
of
three
public
hearings
we
16
are
holding
across
the
country
today
in
San
17
Francisco,
California,
Chicago,
Illinois
18
and
here
in
Philadelphia.
We
will
be
19
preparing
a
written
transcript
of
each
20
hearing.
The
transcripts
will
be
available
21
as
part
of
the
official
record
for
each
22
rule.
We
are
also
accepting
written
23
comments
for
the
two
proposed
rules
until
24
April
17th,
2006.
We
have
a
handout
25
10
available
in
the
registration
area
with
1
detailed
information
for
submitting
written
2
comments.
3
At
this
time,
I'd
like
to
4
outline
how
today's
hearing
will
work.
5
I'll
call
the
scheduled
speakers
to
the
6
microphone
in
pairs.
Please
state
your
7
name
and
your
affiliation.
It
will
help
8
our
court
reporter
if
you
also
spell
your
9
name.
10
In
order
to
be
fair
to
11
everyone,
we're
asking
that
you
limit
your
12
testimony
to
five
minutes
each,
and
to
13
remain
at
the
microphone
until
both
14
speakers
in
the
pair
are
finished.
After
15
you
finish
your
testimony,
a
panel
member
16
may
ask
clarifying
questions.
As
I
17
mentioned,
we
are
transcribing
today's
18
hearing
and
each
speaker's
oral
testimony
19
will
become
part
of
the
official
record.
20
Please
be
sure
to
give
a
copy
of
any
21
written
comments
to
our
staff
at
the
22
registration
table.
We
will
put
the
full
23
text
of
your
written
comments
into
the
24
docket
for
you.
25
11
We
have
a
timekeeping
system
1
right
here
consisting
of
green,
yellow
and
2
red
lights.
When
you
begin
speaking,
the
3
green
light
will
come
on.
You
will
have
4
five
minutes
to
speak
from
that
point.
The
5
yellow
light
will
signal
that
you
have
two
6
minutes
left
to
speak
and
we'll
ask
you
to
7
stop
speaking
when
the
red
light
comes
on.
8
Although
we
have
a
fairly
9
full
schedule
of
speakers
already,
we
10
intend
to
stay
into
the
evening
until
11
everyone
has
an
opportunity
to
comment.
If
12
you
would
like
to
testify
but
haven't
yet
13
registered
to
do
so,
please
sign
up
at
the
14
registration
table
outside.
15
For
those
who
have
already
16
registered
to
speak,
we
have
tried
to
17
accommodate
your
requests
for
specific
time
18
slots.
We
ask
for
your
patience
as
we
19
proceed
through
the
list.
We
may
need
to
20
make
some
minor
adjustments
as
the
day
21
progresses.
22
Now
I'd
like
to
introduce
23
the
EPA
representatives
on
the
panel.
24
Immediately
to
my
right,
Judy
Katz,
who's
25
12
the
Director
of
the
Air
Protection
Division
1
of
Region
3;
Steve
Silverman
with
the
2
Office
of
General
Counsel.
Is
he
the
only
3
lawyer
here?
No,
I'm
sure
there
are
more.
4
Phil
Lorang
with
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
5
Planning
and
Standards'
Ambient
Monitoring
6
Group,
and
Beth
Hassett­
Sipple
with
the
7
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
8
Standards'
Ambient
Standards
Group.
9
So
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
10
again
for
participating
today,
and
so
let's
11
get
started.
12
The
first
two
panelists
are
13
Joe
Minott
and
Frank
O'Donnell.
So
please
14
come
up
to
the
table.
15
Joe,
you
are
first.
16
MR.
MINOTT:
I
actually
17
can't
see
the
timing
thing.
18
My
name
is
Joe
Minott
and
19
I'm
an
attorney,
an
environmentalist,
a
20
soccer
coach
and
a
community
activist.
I
21
also
am
the
Executive
Director
of
Clean
Air
22
Council,
which
represents
over
7,000
23
members
in
Pennsylvania
and
Delaware.
Even
24
though
I
have
never
smoked
cigarettes,
I
25
13
suffer
from
lung
disease.
I
have
1
sarcoidosis.
2
My
most
important
role,
3
however,
is
as
a
father.
My
son,
4
Christopher,
is
an
active
16­
year­
old.
He
5
loves
to
play
soccer
and
to
pole
vault.
He
6
is
also
an
asthmatic.
I
do
not
know
how
7
many
of
you
in
this
room
have
had
to
deal
8
with
a
child
that
has
needed
to
be
returned
9
to
the
hospital
because
he
cannot
breathe,
10
or
even
a
child
that
needs
to
skip
a
soccer
11
game
because
the
air
pollution
is
making
12
him
wheeze.
13
If
you
have
an
asthmatic
14
member
of
your
family,
you
will
understand
15
the
passion
of
my
testimony.
The
Clean
Air
16
Act
mandates
that
the
EPA
sets
National
17
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
that
will
18
protect
Christopher's
health
with
a
margin
19
of
safety,
with
an
adequate
margin
of
20
safety.
21
EPA's
new
proposal
fails
in
22
that
obligation.
EPA's
own
Clean
Air
23
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
concluded
24
that
existing
science
warrants
more
25
14
protective
standards
than
those
now
being
1
proposed
by
EPA.
2
The
EPA's
Children's
Health
3
Protection
Advisory
Committee
also
4
concluded
that
EPA's
proposed
National
5
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
6
particulates
are
not
adequate
to
protect
7
public
health.
Indeed,
the
Children's
8
Advisory
Committee
states
in
a
letter
to
9
EPA
Administrator
Johnson
that
it,
and
I
10
quote,
"
is
especially
concerned
that
it
11
appears
that
the
health
of
children
was
12
neither
adequately
nor
explicitly
13
considered
in
determining
the
proposed
14
standard."
15
This
is
simply
not
16
acceptable.
What
EPA
appears
to
be
17
proposing
is
a
standard
that
promotes
18
public
health
so
long
as
it
does
not
19
require
pollution
sources
to
do
very
much
20
in
the
way
of
reductions.
That
is
a
21
political
decision,
not
a
health
standard.
22
Clean
Air
Council
makes
the
23
following
recommendations
based
on
its
24
belief
that
such
recommendations
are
25
15
required
both
by
sound
science
and
the
1
Clean
Air
Act:
2
EPA
must
tighten
its
3
proposed
standards.
The
science
is
clear.
4
Numerous
scientific
studies
have
5
demonstrated
that
particulate
pollution
of
6
the
levels
being
proposed
by
the
EPA
can
7
cause
serious
health
problems.
At
a
8
minimum,
EPA
should
follow
its
own
expert's
9
advice
and
set
an
annual
fine
particulate
10
standard
not
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
11
cubic
meter,
and
a
daily
standard
of
no
12
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
13
using
the
99
percentile
as
a
measure
of
14
compliance.
15
EPA
must
follow
an
open
16
process
in
establishing
the
National
17
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
18
particulate.
I
would
assume
that
if
EPA
19
chooses
to
ignore
the
recommendations
of
20
its
own
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
it
21
would
place
in
the
public
record
the
22
scientific
basis
that
would
justify
its
23
rejection
of
the
recommendations
of
its
24
Advisory
Committee
and
that
the
public
25
16
record
would
reflect
how
EPA
came
to
its
1
decision
that
the
health
standard
should
be
2
less
protective
than
that
suggested
by
the
3
Advisory
Committee.
In
fact,
the
record
is
4
quiet
on
this
issue.
There
is
nothing
in
5
the
record
that
would
justify
ignoring
the
6
recommendations
of
the
Advisory
Committee.
7
Furthermore,
the
Council
8
beliefs
that
EPA
must
submit
any
studies
9
upon
which
it
relies
to
establish
the
10
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
11
review
by
its
Advisory
Committee;
12
otherwise,
its
decision­
making,
I
believe,
13
violates
the
law.
14
I
have
been
an
environmental
15
attorney
for
many
years
and
I
am
very
16
familiar
with
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
17
Air
Act.
I
cannot
remember
any
other
18
instance
where
the
EPA
has
proposed
denying
19
U.
S.
citizens
the
protections
of
the
20
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
21
simply
because
of
the
number
of
people
in
22
their
community.
This
action
runs
counter
23
to
the
very
nature
of
a
national
standard,
24
health
standard.
Limiting
protection
from
25
17
the
harmful
effects
of
coarse
particulates
1
solely
to
residents
or
urban
areas
is
not
2
supported
by
the
science
or
EPA's
record.
3
Every
American
deserves
the
same
level
of
4
protection.
5
EPA
should
not
provide
6
exemptions
for
the
agriculture
and
mining
7
industries.
There
is
nothing
in
the
record
8
that
would
justify
EPA's
proposed
9
categorical
exemption
of
agricultural
and
10
mining
sources
of
coarse
particulate
matter
11
from
the
proposed
standard.
Is
EPA
arguing
12
that
the
science
clearly
establishes
that
13
there's
no
basis
for
regulating
emissions
14
from
such
sources?
The
Council
does
not
15
believe
that
the
record
justifies
exempting
16
either
agricultural
or
mining
industries.
17
EPA
should
keep
the
present
18
PM10
standard
until
the
new
coarse
19
particulate
standard
is
truly
being
20
implemented.
21
While
the
Council
supports
22
EPA's
decision
to
adopt
a
new
coarse
23
particulate
health
standard,
the
Council
24
urges
EPA
to
maintain
the
existing
PM10
25
18
standard
until
the
new
coarse
standard
is
1
being
implemented.
2
What
I
hope
­­
well,
I'll
3
stop
right
there.
4
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
5
very
much.
6
MR.
MINOTT:
What
I
hope,
7
dot,
dot,
dot.
8
MR.
BACHMANN:
Submit
that
9
and
we'll
see
it.
Thank
you.
And
thank
10
you
for
stopping
exactly
­­
that's
a
great
11
example
for
everyone.
12
MR.
O'DONNELL:
Good
13
morning,
everyone.
My
name
is
Frank
14
O'Donnell.
It's
O,
apostrophe,
capital
15
D­
O­
N­
N­
E­
L­
L.
I
am
president
of
Clean
Air
16
Watch,
a
national
non­
profit
organization
17
which
seeks
to
promote
clean
air
chiefly
18
through
public
education.
19
Please
let
me
start
by
20
thanking
the
agency's
career
staff.
I
want
21
you
to
know
sincerely,
we
appreciate
your
22
dedication
and
public
service
and
we
do
23
know
that
without
your
efforts,
we
would
24
have
made
little
or
no
progress
in
recent
25
19
years
against
air
pollution,
and
I
want
to
1
make
it
clear
that
these
remarks
are
not
2
meant
as
criticism
of
EPA
career
staff.
3
I
do
want
you
to
convey
this
4
message,
however,
to
your
political
bosses.
5
With
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
associate
6
Clean
Air
Watch's
testimony
with
that
of
7
the
American
Lung
Association
and
the
Clean
8
Air
Council
regarding
specific
numerical
9
recommendations.
10
I
would
like
to
use
our
few
11
minutes
to
discuss
some
basic
themes.
A
12
large
part
of
our
mission
at
Clean
Air
13
Watch
is
to
let
the
public
know
the
truth
14
about
air
pollution
and
how
our
government
15
deals
with
the
problem.
The
sad
truth
here
16
is
that
the
Bush
administration
is
17
misleading
the
public
about
the
dangers
of
18
particle
soot.
There
is
still
time
for
EPA
19
to
do
the
right
thing,
but
time
is
running
20
short.
This
is
probably
the
most
important
21
decision
the
EPA
will
make
this
year.
22
As
you
know,
particle
soot
23
is
the
most
lethal
form
of
air
pollution.
24
EPA's
own
studies
have
shown
that
literally
25
20
thousands
of
Americans
are
dying
1
prematurely
from
breathing
these
tiny
2
particles,
even
at
levels
of
pollution
that
3
are
considered
legal
today,
and
the
new
4
science
being
announced
today
by
Johns
5
Hopkins
researchers
only
underscores
the
6
grave
health
threat.
And
I
think
some
7
other
people
will
elaborate
on
that.
8
This
threat
is
why
EPA's
9
outside
science
advisors
urged
the
agency
10
to
set
tougher
new
standards
to
govern
both
11
national
and
daily
exposure
to
this
deadly
12
pollutant,
but
for
the
first
time
in
13
history,
EPA
disregarded
its
own
science
14
advisors
on
the
National
Air
Quality
15
Standard
and
proposed
something
weaker.
16
And
when
confronted
with
17
this
fact
and
asked
why
he
had
ignored
his
18
own
experts,
EPA
Administrator
Stephen
19
Johnson
had
no
coherent
explanation.
In
20
fact,
he
sounded
like
a
naughty
kid
who
was
21
caught
fibbing
about
something.
22
It's
as
plain
as
day
that
23
this
proposal,
which
was
supposed
to
be
24
based
on
science,
was
contaminated
by
25
21
politics
and
White
House
interference.
1
These
standards,
as
you
2
know,
are
supposed
to
represent
the
federal
3
government's
assessment
based
on
the
best
4
available
science
of
what
level
of
air
5
pollution
is
safe
to
breathe
with
an
6
adequate
margin
of
safety
to
account
for
7
uncertainties
and
for
groups
like
those
of
8
low
income
communities
who
may
be
9
especially
harmed
by
breathing
dirty
air.
10
By
that
measure,
EPA's
11
proposal
flunks
the
truth
in
advertising
12
test.
Make
no
mistake
about
it,
the
public
13
should
have
the
right
to
know
if
the
air
14
they're
breathing
can
harm
them.
I
think
15
it's
time
for
EPA
to
come
clean
and
to
tell
16
the
public
the
truth.
17
And
if
the
EPA
administrator
18
is
unwilling,
or
perhaps
unable
for
19
political
reasons,
to
do
his
job
properly,
20
perhaps
he
should
consider
taking
the
21
honorable
path
of
stepping
down,
as
former
22
EPA
Administrator
Christine
Whitman,
former
23
New
Jersey
Governor
Christine
Whitman,
did
24
when
she
anticipated
political
pressure
to
25
22
do
the
wrong
thing
on
a
related
matter.
1
Now,
we
know
this
is
not
the
2
only
instance
recently
in
which
the
Bush
3
administration
contaminated
science
with
4
politics
or
tried
to
mislead
the
public
5
about
an
environmental
hazard.
We
have
all
6
read
the
story
about
NASA's
most
prominent
7
global
warming
expert
who
was
muzzled
by
a
8
Bush
administration
censor,
and
we
later
9
learned
that
the
red­
pen
guy
was
so
far
10
from
being
a
scientific
expert
that
he
had
11
to
lie
about
graduating
from
college.
12
In
the
case
of
deadly
13
particle
soot,
there
were
other
14
administration
censors,
and
we
don't
even
15
know
who
some
of
these
red­
pen
guys
were,
16
but
do
know
some
of
the
things
they
did.
17
For
example,
someone
in
the
White
House
18
edited
out
a
paragraph
from
EPA's
preamble
19
which
warned
that
people
living
in
poorer
20
communities
face
an
extra
risk
from
21
breathing
dirty
air.
Someone
in
the
White
22
House
crossed
out
a
sentence
asserting
that
23
air
quality
rules,
quote,
"
may
have
a
24
substantial
impact
on
the
life
expectancy
25
23
of
the
U.
S.
population."
1
At
another
point,
the
White
2
House
even
told
you
what
alternative
3
standards
you
could
take
comment
on.
This
4
White
House
is
literally
playing
politics
5
with
people's
health.
6
Let
me
conclude
just
by
7
noting
that
some
business
groups
are
now
8
gearing
up,
hiring
spin
doctors
to
argue
9
against
better
particle
pollution
10
standards.
Let's
contrast
that
with
real
11
medical
doctors
who
want
you
to
set
12
standards
that
would
truly
protect
people's
13
health.
14
I
implore
you,
listen
to
the
15
real
doctors,
not
the
spin
doctors.
Thank
16
you
very
much
for
your
time.
17
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
18
Any
questions
from
here?
I
wanted
to
19
ask
­­
okay,
go
ahead
first.
20
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Mr.
21
O'Donnell,
you
alluded
to
a
new
Johns
22
Hopkins
study.
What's
your
general
role
on
23
post­
criteria
document
the
study
should
24
play
in
this
review?
25
24
MR.
O'DONNELL:
Well,
I
1
think
that
the
reality
is
that
there's
2
plenty
of
evidence
already
in
the
record
3
that
was
considered
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
4
Science
Advisory
Committee
to
set
better
5
standards
than
have
been
proposed.
Some
of
6
these
additional
new
things,
I
think,
are
7
things
that
might
be
appropriate
when
8
trying
to
factor
in
uncertainties
in
9
regarding
the
margin
of
safety.
10
So
if
something
is
coming
in
11
that
shows
that
the
stuff
is
killing
12
people,
sending
people
to
the
hospital
as
13
this
new
study
is
showing,
the
elderly
14
Americans
are
being
sent
to
the
hospital
at
15
levels
of
annual
exposure
that
are
lower
16
than
your
proposal,
it
would
seem
only
17
common
sense
that
in
factoring
in
the
18
margin
of
safety
for
this
thing,
that
the
19
EPA
administrator
with
not
turn
a
blind
eye
20
to
it.
21
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Do
you
agree
22
with
Mr.
Minott,
though,
that
would
have
to
23
be
reviewed
by
CASAC
before
we
could
24
consider
it
as
part
of
this
review?
25
25
MR.
O'DONNELL:
I'm
not
sure
1
that
you
would
have
to
look
at
it
as
part
2
of
the
review.
I
think
it's
more
a
3
question
of
thinking
about
the
margin
of
4
safety
and
the
justification
for
that.
5
MR.
SILVERMAN:
And
one
6
quick
question
to
Mr.
Minott.
When
you
7
submit
written
comments
to
us,
I
would
hope
8
you
can
be
specific
in
some
of
your
9
recommendations.
For
example,
you
said
10
retain
the
PM10
standard,
and
yet
there
11
seemed
to
be
consensus
from
career
staff,
12
who
we
appreciate
your
comments,
by
the
13
way,
also
from
CASAC
that
there's
no
14
evidence
of
long­
term
health
risk
15
associated
with
coarse
particulate
16
exposure.
So
if
you
retain
PM10
standard,
17
you
would
necessarily
be
saying
the
18
opposite.
We'd
like
to
see
what
specifics
19
you
have
to
back
that
up.
20
MR.
MINOTT:
Okay.
Thank
21
you.
22
MR.
BACHMANN:
My
question
23
really
is
about
the
specificity
of
your
24
recommendation
on
PM10.
I
think
that
25
26
addressing
his
comment
will
deal
with
that.
1
Thanks
to
both
of
you.
2
The
next
two
panel
members
3
are
James
Hubbard
and
Joyce
Epps.
And
Mr.
4
Hubbard,
you
are
first.
5
MR.
HUBBARD:
Thank
you,
6
Mr.
Chairman,
members
of
the
committee.
My
7
name
is
Jim
Hubbard.
I'm
here
today
as
a
8
concerned
citizen
as
well
as
a
Maryland
9
State
Delegate.
I
speak
to
you
today
from
10
a
perspective
of
a
legislator
who
has
11
worked
to
provide
adequate
protection
for
12
the
public
health
of
my
constituents
in
13
Prince
George's
County,
Maryland
since
14
1992.
I
currently
chair
our
State's
public
15
health
and
long­
term
care
subcommittee.
16
Since
1995,
I
have
served
on
17
the
Metropolitan
Washington
Air
Quality
18
Committee
of
the
Washington
Metropolitan
19
Council
of
Governments;
I
am
a
current
20
member
of
the
Maryland
Children's
21
Environmental
Health
and
Protection
22
Advisory
Council,
a
council
I
helped
create
23
via
legislation
I
sponsored
in
the
year
24
2000.
I
also
serve
on
the
Chesapeake
Bay
25
27
Commission.
I'm
a
former
chair
of
the
1
National
Conference
of
State
Legislatures'
2
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
3
Committee.
4
My
comments
today
have
also
5
been
endorsed
by
58
state
legislators
from
6
40
states.
A
list
of
the
names
and
states
7
is
attached
to
my
testimony.
8
In
1970,
Congress
required
9
national
air
quality
standards
to
replace
10
standards
set
at
the
state
and
local
11
levels.
The
law
did
not
prevent
states
or
12
local
governments
from
setting
stricter
13
standards,
but
it
was
understood
that
the
14
national
standard
would
be
adequate
to
15
protect
the
health
of
sensitive
groups
of
16
people
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.
17
The
margin
of
safety
concept
18
was
included
because
the
science
of
air
19
pollution
at
the
time
was
evolving.
20
Congress
believed
that
the
margin
of
safety
21
was
impaired
to
protect
against
scientific
22
uncertainty.
23
Since
1970,
the
overwhelming
24
majority
of
scientific
information
25
28
developed
indicates
that
more
stringent
air
1
quality
standards
are
justified.
Thus,
the
2
EPA
must
continue
to
meet
its
3
responsibility
and
mandate
a
stricter
4
standard
as
justified
by
the
science
rather
5
than
justified
by
politics.
6
The
Nixon
administration
and
7
a
bipartisan,
near
unanimous
Congress
8
endorsed
scientifically­
based
standards
and
9
rejected
politically­
based
standards.
10
Congress
has
made
the
11
decision
that
standards
should
not
be
12
compromised
if
they
are
too
difficult
to
13
meet.
To
help
polluting
industries
meet
14
the
standards,
Congress
allows
more
time
to
15
meet
the
standards,
but
has
never
seen
fit
16
to
second­
guess
the
science
which
justifies
17
these
standards.
18
Critics
of
EPA's
past
19
standard­
setting
procedures
demanded
the
20
creation
of
a
Clean
Air
Science
Advisory
21
Committee,
or
CASAC.
CASAC
was
not
created
22
to
assuage
public
health
advocates.
23
Rather,
it
was
created
out
of
concerns
of
24
those
who
must
control
their
pollution.
25
29
CASAC
concluded
both
the
annual
and
daily
1
standards
of
fine
particulate
matter
need
2
to
be
substantially
strengthened
to
protect
3
the
public
health.
4
The
administration's
5
proposal,
which
largely
maintains
a
status
6
quo
for
fine
particulate
pollution,
is
7
inadequate
to
protect
public
health.
The
8
administration's
decision
to
reject
the
9
recommendations
of
its
own
independent
10
science
advisors
to
strengthen
both
the
11
annual
and
daily
standards
is
very
12
troubling.
13
It
is
a
remarkable
reversal
14
for
EPA
to
ignore
the
scientific
body
15
created
to
respond
to
demands
of
industry
16
for
peer­
reviewed
science.
This
17
administration
should
issue
strong
final
18
standards
for
fine
particulate
pollution
19
that
protect
public
health
and
comply
with
20
the
law.
In
concurrence
with
the
21
recommendations
of
the
public
health
22
community,
this
administration
should
adopt
23
an
annual
standard
no
higher
than
12
24
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
daily
25
30
standard
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
1
cubic
meter
when
it
finalizes
the
standards
2
in
September.
3
In
addition,
the
4
administration
should
issue
standards
and
5
monitoring
requirements
for
coarse
6
particulate
pollution
that
protects
all
7
Americans.
The
administration's
proposal
8
to
eliminate
pollution
monitoring
in
small
9
and
mid­
sized
communities
and
to
10
categorically
exempt
agriculture
and
mining
11
from
control
requirements
is
unprecedented
12
and
unjustified.
13
As
a
state
legislator,
my
14
constituents
frequently
express
their
15
concern
that
our
air
needs
to
be
cleaner.
16
This
is
especially
true
for
the
parents
of
17
children
with
asthma
and
other
respiratory
18
problems.
State
legislators
across
the
19
country
work
to
do
what
they
can
to
ensure
20
that
the
air
is
clean
and
healthy.
We
hope
21
and
expect
the
EPA
to
adopt
their
quality
22
standards
that
provide
an
adequate
margin
23
of
safety
for
our
constituents.
24
Thank
you
very
much.
25
31
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you,
1
Mr.
Hubbard.
2
Ms.
Epps.
3
MS.
EPPS:
Good
morning.
My
4
name
is
Joyce
E.
Epps.
For
the
record,
5
that's
E­
P­
P­
S.
I
am
the
Director
of
the
6
Bureau
of
Air
Quality
in
the
Pennsylvania
7
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.
8
On
behalf
of
Governor
9
Rendell
and
Secretary
Kathleen
McGinty,
I
10
would
like
to
thank
EPA
for
holding
a
11
public
hearing
in
Philadelphia
on
the
12
proposed
rule
for
the
particulate
matter
13
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
14
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
15
January
17th,
2006.
16
I
would
also
like
to
welcome
17
stakeholders
including
regulators,
18
environmental
groups
and
industry
to
19
today's
hearing.
20
The
federally
mandated
and
21
chartered
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
22
Committee,
herein
after
referred
to
as
23
CASAC,
has
recommended
that
EPA
revise
the
24
primary
health­
based
24­
hour
annual
25
32
standards
to
provide
increased
public
1
protection.
However,
EPA's
January
2006
2
proposal
does
not
comport
with
CASAC
nor
3
EPA
staff
recommendations
for
tighter
4
standards
to
address
the
undisputed
adverse
5
health
effects
of
particle
pollution.
6
We
strongly
urge
EPA
to
7
revise
its
proposed
rule
to
be
consistent
8
with
the
CASAC
recommendations
for
the
9
PM2.5
standards.
10
The
proposed
rule
also
seeks
11
comments
on
a
new
24­
hour
primary
standard
12
for
inhalable
coarse
particles,
which
range
13
in
size
from
2.5
to
10
microns.
However,
14
the
proposal
contains
a
blanket
exemption
15
that
would
not
subject
agricultural
16
sources,
mining
sources
and
similar
sources
17
of
crustal
material
to
any
requirements
to
18
meet
the
standard.
This
is
unprecedented.
19
It
undermines
the
recommendation
of
a
20
majority
of
the
CASAC
members
and
must
be
21
abandoned.
22
The
24­
hour
health­
based
23
standard
must
address
emissions
from
all
24
sources
that
contribute
to
particle
25
33
pollution.
If
EPA
provides
an
exception
1
for
certain
sources
of
coarse
particles,
a
2
greater
regulatory
burden
would
have
to
be
3
imposed
upon
the
owners
and
operators
of
4
other
sources.
We
strongly
believe
that
5
the
final
rule
must
not
hamper
the
ability
6
of
states
to
develop
comprehensive
planning
7
and
control
strategies
to
protect
public
8
health
and
the
environment.
9
The
January
2006
proposal
10
also
revokes
the
current
24­
hour
PM10
11
standard
except
in
areas
with
monitoring
12
violations
and
a
population
of
100,000
or
13
more.
We
urge
EPA
to
retain
a
24­
hour
PM
14
standard
in
all
areas
dominated
by
major
15
sources
of
particle
pollution,
irrespective
16
of
population.
Public
health
protection
17
must
not
be
based
on
population
density.
18
In
addition,
the
proposed
19
rule
provides
for
the
revocation
of
the
20
annual
PM10
standard
upon
the
effective
21
date
of
the
rule.
The
department
believes
22
that
at
a
minimum,
the
annual
PM10
standard
23
should
remain
in
place
until
EPA's
24
designations
for
the
health­
based
coarse
25
34
particle
standard
become
effective.
1
We're
also
extremely
2
concerned
about
EPA's
proposed
monitoring
3
plan,
which
could
result
in
the
removal
of
4
all
PM10
monitors
across
Pennsylvania.
The
5
PM10
monitoring
network
would
be
replaced
6
with
only
two
coarse
particle
monitors
in
7
the
Pittsburgh
area,
and
three
monitors
in
8
the
Metropolitan
Philadelphia
area.
9
This
approach
is
untenable
10
in
light
of
the
limited
availability
of
11
coarse
particle
monitoring
data.
The
CASAC
12
recommendations
for
conducting
monitoring
13
in
urbanized
and
non­
urbanized
areas
for
14
total
particulate
levels,
size
distribution
15
and
composition
is
supported
by
the
16
Department.
If
EPA's
proposed
monitoring
17
plan
is
finalized
and
implemented,
23
18
existing
monitoring
sites
in
Pennsylvania
19
would
likely
be
eliminated;
therefore,
it
20
is
imperative
that
coarse
particle
21
monitoring
networks
be
established
in
urban
22
and
rural
areas
to
provide
critical
23
information
needed
for
the
reevaluation
of
24
the
coarse
particle
standard
and
the
25
35
development
of
appropriate
designation
1
recommendations
and
control
strategies.
2
In
closely,
we
firmly
3
believe
that
the
January
2006
proposed
rule
4
will
not
adequately
protect
public
health
5
and
the
environment.
We
strongly
urge
EPA
6
to
reconsider
the
CASAC
recommendations
and
7
strengthen
the
proposal
to
fully
address
8
the
adverse
health
effects
of
particle
9
pollution.
10
Thank
you
for
the
11
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
on
the
12
proposed
rule.
Detailed
written
comments
13
will
be
submitted
to
the
docket.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
15
very
much.
16
Questions
from
anyone?
17
Mr.
Hubbard,
you
actually
18
are
representing,
and
I'm
less
familiar
19
with
the
organization,
legislatures
from
20
states
around
the
country;
is
that
right?
21
MR.
HUBBARD:
That's
22
correct.
23
MR.
BACHMANN:
And
just
when
24
you
submit
things
for
the
record,
it
would
25
36
be
nice
to
see
that
group
­­
1
MR.
HUBBARD:
I
submitted
a
2
copy
of
it
with
my
testimony.
3
MR.
BACHMANN:
All
right.
4
Thank
you
both
very
much.
5
The
next
two,
Wick
Havens
6
and
Charles
Pietarinen.
7
MR.
HAVENS:
Good
morning.
8
My
name
is
Wick
Havens
and
I
am
chief
of
9
the
Division
of
Air
Resource
Management
in
10
Pennsylvania
DEP's
Bureau
of
Air
Quality.
11
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
STAPPA
and
12
ALAPCO,
the
national
associations
13
representing
state
and
local
air
pollution
14
control
agencies
throughout
the
country.
15
We
have
three
major
concerns
16
with
the
EPA's
proposal;
the
levels
of
the
17
PM2.5
standards,
source
and
population
18
exemptions
associated
with
the
coarse
19
particulate
standard
and
the
lack
of
20
funding
for
monitoring.
21
First,
we
find
it
very
22
troubling
that
EPA's
revisions
to
the
23
annual
and
daily
PM2.5
standards
are
24
outside
the
ranges
recommended
by
CASAC,
a
25
37
congressionally
chartered
group
of
outside
1
scientific
experts.
2
While
CASAC
recommended
3
tightening
the
annual
PM2.5
standard
in
4
conjunction
with
lowering
the
daily
5
standard,
EPA
totally
ignored
this
6
recommendation.
7
With
respect
to
the
annual
8
standard,
the
agency
proposed
no
changes
at
9
all,
even
though
CASAC
told
EPA
it,
quote,
10
"
did
not
endorse
the
option
of
keeping
the
11
annual
standard
at
its
present
level,"
12
closed
quote.
Even
EPA's
own
Staff
Paper
13
indicated
that
more
deaths
from
fine
PM
are
14
avoided
by
lowering
the
annual
average
15
standard
than
by
lowering
the
daily
16
standard.
17
With
respect
to
the
daily
18
standard,
while
CASAC
recommended
a
range
19
of
limits,
it
made
the
upper
end
of
the
20
range
conditional
on
tightening
the
annual
21
standard.
Regrettably,
EPA
has
chosen
the
22
upper
limit
of
CASAC's
recommended
daily
23
standard
without
the
important
condition
of
24
tightening
the
annual
standard.
Unless
EPA
25
38
strengthens
its
proposal
consistent
with
1
the
recommendations
of
CASAC,
our
2
associations
are
extremely
concerned.
We
3
will
continue
to
see
significant
increased
4
premature
mortality
and
adverse
health
5
effects
throughout
the
country.
6
Our
second
concern
with
7
EPA's
proposal
relates
to
the
coarse
PM
8
standard.
While
we
support
the
adoption
of
9
such
a
standard,
we
believe
the
EPA's
10
proposal
is
seriously
flawed
in
two
major
11
respects.
We
are
deeply
troubled
that
the
12
proposal
exempts
from
control
major
sources
13
contributing
significantly
to
coarse
PM
14
emissions,
including
agricultural,
mining
15
and
other
sources
of
crustal
materials.
16
Excluding
these
sources
implies
their
17
emissions
are
not
harmful,
yet
EPA
does
not
18
present
any
such
evidence.
19
On
the
contrary,
it
is
20
likely
that
coarse
particles
from
21
agricultural
and
mining
activities
pose
22
risks
similar
to
urban
coarse
PM.
These
23
exemptions
also
pose
insurmountable
24
implementation
problems
for
state
and
local
25
39
agencies.
1
For
example,
our
mining
and
2
agricultural
activities
that
occur
in
or
3
near
urban
areas
to
be
exempted
from
4
controls
even
if
they
are
the
dominant
5
source
of
coarse
PM
emissions
in
the
area.
6
We
are
also
extremely
concerned
that
EPA's
7
proposed
coarse
PM
standard
has
the
8
practical
effect
of
ignoring
the
health
and
9
welfare
of
millions
of
people
throughout
10
the
country
living
in
areas
with
11
populations
less
than
100,000.
Exempting
12
these
areas
from
monitoring
their
air
13
quality
is
an
unprecedented
action
and
14
completely
ignores
the
recommendation
of
15
CASAC.
16
Moreover,
we
do
not
believe
17
the
Clean
Air
Act
makes
provision
for
18
selected
protection
of
public
health.
19
Accordingly,
we
urge
the
EPA
to
rescind
20
these
exemptions
from
coarse
PM.
21
Finally,
while
it
is
22
critical
that
EPA
establish
standards
that
23
are
fully
protective
of
public
health
and
24
welfare,
it
is
also
vitally
important
that
25
40
we
have
adequate
monitoring
networks
that
1
allow
the
public
to
know
their
air
is
safe
2
to
breathe.
Unfortunately,
EPA's
proposal
3
and
FY2007
budget
request
ignore
the
4
important
funding
issues
associated
with
5
deploying
and
operating
monitoring
networks
6
for
both
PM
and
PM
coarse.
7
With
respect
to
PM2.5,
EPA
8
has
made
no
provision
to
increase
federal
9
funding
to
address
the
expanding
monitoring
10
requirements
for
the
new
standard.
In
11
fact,
the
President's
proposed
budget
12
slashes
fine
particulate
monitoring
by
$
17
13
million,
which
will
severely
weaken
14
existing
monitoring
programs
and
likely
15
result
in
significant
staff
cuts
throughout
16
the
country.
Agencies
will
have
serious
17
difficulties
rehiring
personnel
who
have
18
been
laid
off
as
a
result
of
these
budget
19
cuts
and
who
would
have
been
expected
to
20
operate
these
monitoring
networks.
We
urge
21
that
the
proposed
2007
budget
cuts
be
22
restored,
and
that
EPA
provide
funding
in
23
2008
to
expand
the
PM
monitoring
program.
24
We
are
also
troubled
that
25
41
EPA
has
ignored
any
commitment
to
funding
1
the
proposed
coarse
PM
network
scheduled
2
for
deployment
in
2008.
EPA
has
estimated
3
that
the
capital
costs
of
this
monitoring
4
network
could
easily
exceed
14
million
with
5
annual
operating
expenses
of
approximately
6
$
13
million.
State
and
local
agencies
7
simply
with
not
be
able
to
assume
these
8
significant
costs.
We
urge
EPA
to
provide
9
new
funding
in
2008
for
the
coarse
PM
10
monitoring
network.
11
In
conclusion,
we
strongly
12
recommended
that
EPA.
13
1)
Follow
CASAC's
14
recommendations
in
setting
the
PM2.5
air
15
quality
standards;
16
2)
Establish
a
coarse
17
particle
standard
without
exemptions;
18
3)
require
PM
monitors
in
19
rural
areas,
and;
20
4)
Commit
to
providing
21
additional,
not
reprogrammed,
funds
for
22
PM2.5
and
coarse
PM
monitoring.
23
Thank
you
for
the
24
opportunity
to
testify.
I'd
be
happy
to
25
42
answer
any
questions.
1
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
2
MR.
PIETARINEN:
Good
3
morning.
My
name
is
Charles
Pietarinen,
4
P­
I­
E­
T­
A­
R­
I­
N­
E­
N.
I
am
the
Chief
of
the
5
Bureau
of
Air
Monitoring,
and
as
such,
I'm
6
going
to
focus
on
the
monitoring
regulatory
7
changes
that
are
being
proposed.
8
I'm
with
the
New
Jersey
9
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.
10
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
National
Ambient
11
Air
Monitoring
Steering
Committee.
As
12
such,
I
was
heavily
involved
in
the
13
development
of
the
original
National
Air
14
Monitoring
Strategy.
That
strategy
was
the
15
basis
for
the
changes
to
the
air
monitoring
16
regulations
that
are
subject
of
today's
17
hearings.
18
The
strategy
was
intended
to
19
reexamine
national
priorities,
and
to
find
20
ways
to
allow
state
and
local
issues
to
be
21
addressed
as
part
of
the
planning
and
22
budgetary
process.
It
became
apparent
23
early
on
that
regulatory
changes
would
be
24
needed
in
order
to
implement
the
strategy,
25
43
as
the
scope
of
the
changes
envisioned
went
1
far
beyond
that
what
was
allowed
under
the
2
current
rules.
3
The
proposed
regulations
4
basically
remain
true
to
the
spirit
of
the
5
strategy
and
greatly
reduce
the
amount
of
6
required
traditional
criteria
pollutant
7
monitoring
that
is
mandated.
The
National
8
Air
Monitoring
Strategy
itself
has
become
9
little
more
than
a
footnote
to
these
10
regulations.
The
mechanisms
for
the
11
shifting
of
resources
to
accommodate
higher
12
priority
state
and
local
issues
has
largely
13
been
overshadowed
by
new
federal
14
requirements
for
multi­
pollutant
monitoring
15
sites
that
replace
the
older
provisions
for
16
criteria
pollutant
monitoring.
17
In
addition,
the
federal
18
budget
for
fiscal
year
'
07
includes
drastic
19
cuts
in
overall
funding
for
air
monitoring,
20
including
an
astounding
40
percent
21
reduction
in
monitoring
funds
for
fine
22
particle
monitoring.
This
at
the
same
time
23
that
EPA
is
proposing
a
new
PM
standard
24
that
will
actually
increase
monitoring
25
44
needs.
1
The
strategy,
the
regulatory
2
changes
and
the
funding
process
do
not
3
exist
in
vacuums.
They
are
extremely
4
bound,
and
if
the
funding
issue
is
not
5
addressed
and
the
huge
unprecedented
cuts
6
are
implemented,
the
regulations
will
7
actually
allow
monitoring
programs
to
be
8
eviscerated,
the
exact
opposite
of
what
the
9
National
Monitoring
Strategy
intended.
10
It
should
be
made
clear
in
11
the
preamble
to
the
regulations
that
the
12
National
Air
Monitoring
Strategy
is
the
13
impetus
for
the
changes
being
proposed,
and
14
thus,
they
are
not
intended
to
be
the
basis
15
for
large
overall
reductions
in
the
16
national
monitoring
efforts.
EPA,
along
17
with
its
state
and
local
partners,
needs
to
18
work
on
improving
the
process
for
keeping
19
that
strategy
relevant,
on
ensuring
that
20
regulatory
changes
are
made
when
21
appropriate,
and
that
reasonable
levels
of
22
funding
are
maintained.
23
Further,
EPA
and
the
states
24
need
to
evaluate
the
process
for
allocating
25
45
funds
to
ensure
that
state
and
local
needs,
1
as
well
as
federal
priorities,
are
2
accommodated.
Too
often,
it
is
this
latter
3
process
of
allocating
funds
that
drives
4
actual
implementation
of
monitoring
5
efforts,
probably
much
more
so
than
any
6
strategy
document.
That
process
needs
to
7
change
because
in
its
current
form,
it
will
8
simply
never
allow
state
and
local
needs
to
9
be
adequately
addressed
and
funded.
10
I'd
like
to
shift
to
the
new
11
regulations
regarding
coarse
particle
12
monitoring.
While
I
cannot
comment
on
the
13
proposed
level
of
the
new
coarse
particle
14
standards,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
15
the
monitoring
provisions
for
coarse
16
particles
are
themselves
problematic.
17
There
is
no
way
for
agencies
to
determine
18
what
constitutes
an
appropriate
site
for
19
making
coarse
particle
measurements
for
20
comparison
to
the
proposed
standards.
21
The
provisions
that
22
monitoring
sites
be
shown
to
be
dominated
23
by
particles
from
paved
roadways,
24
industries
and
construction
activities,
and
25
46
not
dominated
by
agricultural,
mining
or
1
other
sources
of
crustal
material
is
simply
2
not
practical.
There
is
no
method
proposed
3
for
making
these
determinations,
making
it
4
a
vague
and
possibly
arbitrary
requirement.
5
It
would
seem
much
more
6
practical
not
to
specifically
exempt
7
sources
within
the
regulation,
but
continue
8
to
have
the
standards
apply
uniformly
when
9
addressing
exemptions
through
a
sound
10
policy
on
natural
and
exceptional
events.
11
Finally,
as
concerns
12
monitoring
methods,
I
would
like
to
commend
13
EPA
for
its
efforts
to
enhance
the
use
of
14
continuous
monitoring
methods
for
15
particulate
matter.
The
new
equivalency
16
provisions
of
Part
53
are
a
huge
step
in
17
the
right
direction.
Coupled
with
the
18
provisions
for
Approved
Regional
Methods,
19
they
provide
legitimate
means
for
20
monitoring
agencies
and
instrument
21
manufacturers
to
demonstrate
viable
22
alternatives
to
the
Federal
Reference
23
Method.
24
I
do
feel,
however,
that
it
25
47
is
extremely
important
that
the
Part
53
1
provisions
be
strict
enough
to
ensure
that
2
only
credible
methods
are
approved.
It
is
3
essential
to
the
long­
term
viability
of
4
continuous
particle
monitoring
methods
that
5
this
regulation
ensure
that
only
sound,
6
accurate,
precise
measurements
receive
7
approval.
I
also
believe
that
EPA's
use
of
8
the
Data
Quality
Objective
process
is
a
9
positive
model
for
developing
future
10
performance­
based
method
specifications.
11
I
see
that
I'm
out
of
time,
12
so
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
13
comment.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
15
Any
questions?
16
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Just
for
17
Mr.
Havens,
I
hope
in
your
comments,
you
18
will
address
specifically
the
qualified
19
indicator
for
coarse
particulate,
because
20
as
you
know,
the
genesis
of
the
form
of
21
that
indicator
came
directly
from
CASAC
22
recommendations
that
there
was
no
evidence
23
of
community
level
effects
from
exposure
24
either
to
geologic
coarse
ag
or
mining
25
48
particulate.
1
MR.
HAVENS:
And
STAPPA
and
2
ALAPCO
will
be
submitting
formal
comments
3
later
on.
4
MR.
SILVERMAN:
And
5
specifically,
address
the
existence
of
6
studies
going
to
that
issue,
I
hope.
7
MR.
BACHMANN:
That
was
also
8
my
­­
anything
you
can
send
us
on
that
9
statement,
it's
likely
that
coarse
10
particles
from
agricultural
and
mining
pose
11
risks
in
similar
cases,
that's
obviously
­­
12
if
we've
missed
something,
we'd
like
to
see
13
it.
14
Any
other
questions?
15
All
right.
Thanks
to
both
16
of
you.
17
Next
is
Kevin
Stewart
and
18
Rachel
Zwillinger.
19
MR.
STEWART:
Good
morning.
20
I
am
Kevin
Stewart.
On
behalf
of
the
21
American
Lung
Association
of
the
22
Mid­
Atlantic,
I
am
representing
not
only
on
23
the
order
of
one
and
one
half
million
24
people
in
our
three
state
service
area
who
25
49
suffer
from
chronic
lung
disease,
but
also
1
the
millions
more
who
desire
to
breathe
2
clean
air,
and
so
protect
their
good
3
health.
We
were
founded
just
blocks
from
4
here
in
1892,
and
we
have
been
fighting
for
5
relief
from
ambient
air
pollution
since
the
6
middle
of
the
last
century.
7
Particle
pollution
is
our
8
nation's
most
dangerous
air
pollutant,
9
causing
heart
attacks,
strokes
and
lung
10
cancer.
Each
year,
it
causes
millions
of
11
lost
workdays,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
12
asthma
attacks
and
tens
of
thousands
of
13
premature
deaths.
Simply,
air
pollution
14
worsens
and
causes
disease
and
even
death
15
for
real
people.
16
In
Delaware,
Pennsylvania
17
and
West
Virginia,
the
populations
at
18
increased
risk
from
particle
pollution
19
include
these
infants,
youngsters
and
the
20
elderly,
persons
with
chronic
lung
and
21
heart
disease
and
diabetes,
on
the
order
of
22
about
half
of
this
region's
population.
23
Every
one
of
these
millions
is
a
real
24
person,
not
a
nameless
statistic.
Every
25
50
one
of
these
people
is
a
family
member,
a
1
neighbor,
a
coworker,
a
friend,
yet
2
somehow,
despite
the
annual
toll,
EPA's
3
proposed
particle
pollution
standards
fall
4
far
short
of
what
is
necessary
to
protect
5
public
health.
The
law
requires
that
these
6
standards
be
based
on
the
best
available
7
science,
that
they
uniformly
protect
the
8
public
health,
including
that
of
sensitive
9
groups,
and
that
they
provide
an
adequate
10
margin
of
safety.
11
EPA's
proposal
fails
to
do
12
this
on
all
three
counts.
For
the
first
13
time
in
history,
the
EPA
has
ignored
14
recommendations
from
its
own
staff
15
scientists
and
from
CASAC.
For
the
first
16
time
in
history,
the
EPA
has
recommended
17
that
some
populations
in
this
country
are
18
less
worthy
of
protection
from
air
19
pollution
than
others.
For
the
first
time
20
in
history,
wholesale
exemptions
have
been
21
proposed
for
major
industrial
sectors,
22
contrary
to
the
scientific
evidence
that
23
already
demonstrates
adverse
health
effects
24
consequent
to
exposure
from
those
sectors'
25
51
emissions.
1
According
to
the
EPA's
own
2
calculations,
hundreds
of
people
annually
3
in
Philadelphia
and
Pittsburgh,
and
4
thousands
in
just
nine
cities
nationwide
5
would
be
saved
if
EPA
would
adopt
the
more
6
stringent
standards
indicated.
And
7
therefore,
at
minimum,
we
urge
EPA
to
do
8
the
following,
and
summarizing
our
written
9
submission
in
this
day's
shorthand,
for
10
fine
particles
12,
25,
99.
For
coarse,
a
11
strong
24­
hour
standard
applied
equally
to
12
all
and
exempting
no
sector
and
no
spatial
13
averaging.
14
Our
recommendation
to
EPA
is
15
simple.
Follow
the
science
and
clean
up
16
the
air.
Don't
pay
attention
to
those
17
naysayers
who
would
rather
put
their
heads
18
in
the
sand
and
refuse
to
accept
discussion
19
of
the
kinds
of
standards
consistent
with
20
the
public
health
reality.
21
You
will
hear
today
from
our
22
nation's,
and
even
the
world's,
foremost
23
experts
on
the
science
pertaining
to
the
24
health
effects
of
particle
pollution.
They
25
52
will
prove
to
you
that
benefits
from
1
improving
the
standards
accrue
at
levels
2
well
below
those
proposed.
You
will
hear
3
from
public
officials
who
are
concerned
4
that
EPA's
failure
to
come
to
grips
with
5
what
really
needs
to
be
done
nationwide
6
will
continue
to
hold
back
their
states
7
from
attaining
the
kind
of
air
quality
they
8
know
their
citizens
deserve.
9
You
will
hear
from
health
10
care
providers
who
are
confronted
with
the
11
daily
reality
of
how
air
pollution's
12
effects
show
up
in
their
offices,
in
their
13
emergency
rooms,
in
their
hospitals
and
14
operating
rooms.
You
will
hear
from
real
15
people
who
will
tell
you
what
it
is
like
to
16
live
with
air
pollution,
what
it
does
to
17
their
health,
what
it
does
to
their
quality
18
of
life,
how
even
on
normal
nominally
good
19
days,
the
levels
of
air
pollution
deemed
20
acceptable
still
adversely
affects
them.
21
And
you
will
hear
from
defenders
of
public
22
health,
advocates
like
myself
who
are
here
23
today
not
only
to
advise
EPA
what
to
do,
24
but
also
to
communicate
our
collective
25
53
sense
of
outrage.
1
Indeed,
there
is
a
growing
2
consensus
that
the
EPA
proposal
is
a
3
betrayal
of
the
ideals
enshrined
in
the
4
Clean
Air
Act
and
of
the
agency's
duty
to
5
set
standards
according
to
the
best
6
available
science.
7
Instead,
let
EPA
live
up
to
8
its
founding
principles.
Recognize
the
9
unimpeded
truth
of
what
the
science
shows,
10
and
then
issue
standards
that
actually
11
protect
public
health
and
that
don't
lie
to
12
people
about
the
quality
of
the
air
they
13
breathe,
then
have
the
guts
to
stand
up
and
14
defend
them.
I
assure
you,
you
won't
be
15
alone.
16
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you,
17
Mr.
Stewart.
18
Ms.
Zwillinger.
19
MS.
ZWILLINGER:
Good
20
morning.
My
name
is
Rachel
Zwillinger.
21
That's
Z­
W­
I­
L­
L­
I­
N­
G­
E­
R.
And
I'm
here
22
today
speaking
on
behalf
of
Environmental
23
Defense,
a
non­
partisan,
non­
profit
24
organization
with
400,000
members
across
25
54
the
country
that
is
committed
to
preserving
1
our
climate,
oceans,
biodiversity
and
human
2
health.
3
I'd
like
to
start
today
by
4
emphasizing
a
point
that's
too
often
5
overlooked.
The
NAAQS
are
effective.
6
Since
the
inception
of
these
air
quality
7
standards
in
1970,
the
concentration
of
8
lead
in
the
air
we
breathe
has
decreased
by
9
98.5
percent.
Concentrations
of
carbon
10
monoxide
and
sulphur
dioxide
have
decreased
11
by
approximately
50
percent.
And
the
12
concentration
of
particulate
pollution
in
13
the
air
we
breathe
has
declined
by
75
14
percent.
At
the
same
time,
our
economy
has
15
flourished.
16
Since
1970,
our
GDP
has
17
grown
by
174
percent.
The
past
35
years
18
have
clearly
demonstrated
that
the
NAAQS
19
framework
can
make
our
air
safe
to
breathe
20
without
inhibiting
the
growth
of
our
21
economy.
Now,
however,
the
effectiveness
22
of
these
air
quality
standards
is
at
risk.
23
The
proposal
we
are
here
to
24
discuss
today
diverges
from
the
history
of
25
55
the
NAAQS,
and
if
accepted,
has
the
1
potential
to
set
dangerous
new
precedents
2
for
the
future
of
these
air
quality
3
standards.
The
realization
of
this
4
proposal
would
spell
an
uncertain
future
5
for
the
NAAQS
and
for
the
quality
of
the
6
air
we
breathe.
7
First,
the
proposal
seeks
to
8
exclude
certain
populations
from
the
9
protection
of
the
NAAQS.
Americans
living
10
in
rural
areas
or
populations
of
less
than
11
100,000
will
not
be
protected
from
coarse
12
particles.
If
adopted,
this
proposal
would
13
be
the
first
time
in
the
history
of
the
14
NAAQS
that
protection
is
withheld
from
15
certain
groups.
This
would
set
a
dangerous
16
precedent
for
future
discrimination.
17
Second,
this
proposal
seeks
18
to
grant
exclusions
based
on
industrial
19
category.
Specifically,
agriculture
and
20
mining
industries
would
be
exempt
from
21
coarse
particle
standard.
This
exclusion,
22
which
is
the
first
of
its
kind,
threatens
23
to
change
the
basic
function
of
the
NAAQS.
24
Unlike
emission
standards,
which
regulate
25
56
pollutants
by
source,
the
NAAQS
establish
1
the
concentration
of
a
pollutant
in
the
2
ambient
air
that
is
safe
to
breathe.
With
3
exemptions
for
certain
industrial
sources,
4
the
NAAQS
can
no
longer
serve
this
5
function.
If
these
exemptions
are
granted,
6
one
can't
help
but
to
wonder
what
the
7
future
holds.
What
industrial
sources
will
8
receive
the
next
sweeping
exemption.
9
Finally,
this
is
the
first
10
time
an
EPA
administrator
has
proposed
11
standards
less
protective
than
CASAC
12
recommendations.
The
Clean
Air
Act
13
established
CASAC
as
a
procedural
safeguard
14
to
ensure
that
the
standard
setting
process
15
was
guided
by
sound
science.
By
ignoring
16
CASAC's
recommendation,
EPA
has
put
the
17
scientific
integrity
of
the
NAAQS
in
18
jeopardy.
19
Clearly,
there
is
much
at
20
stake
with
this
proposal.
Will
the
NAAQS
21
remain
an
effective
mechanism
for
ensuring
22
the
health
of
our
communities,
or
will
23
exclusions,
exemptions
and
scientific
24
inaccuracies
lead
to
their
decline?
25
57
Sometimes,
however,
I
1
believe
that
focusing
on
these
long­
term
2
implications
obscures
what
is
truly
at
3
stake.
People
will
live
or
die
by
the
4
decision
that
emerges
from
this
rule­
making
5
process.
6
In
its
risk
analysis,
EPA
7
estimated
the
number
of
people
that
would
8
die
from
long­
term
exposure
to
fine
9
particulate
matter
when
various
suites
of
10
standards
are
just
met.
While
the
numbers
11
provided
are
best
estimates,
this
analysis
12
suggests
that
at
the
levels
proposed,
13
roughly
299
Philadelphia
residents
would
14
die
prematurely
from
exposure
to
15
particulate
pollution
on
an
annual
basis.
16
Those
would
be
299
individuals
whose
deaths
17
were
preventable.
18
By
setting
the
annual
19
standard
at
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
20
and
the
daily
standard
at
25
micrograms
per
21
cubic
meter,
99
percentile,
EPA
estimates
22
that
not
a
single
Philadelphia
resident
23
would
succumb
to
an
early
death
from
24
particulate
pollution.
25
58
To
ensure
that
the
NAAQS
are
1
as
effective
in
the
future
as
they
have
2
been
in
the
past,
and
for
the
preservation
3
of
human
lives,
Environmental
Defense
4
endorses:
An
annual
PM2.5
standard
of
12
5
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
a
daily
PM2.5
6
standard
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
7
99
percentile,
and
a
daily
PM10­
2.5
8
standard
of
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
9
99
percentile,
applied
evenly
across
the
10
entire
nation
without
exemptions
for
11
agriculture,
mining
or
other
sources.
12
Thank
you
for
the
13
opportunity
to
speak
here
today,
and
I
hope
14
you'll
take
these
comments
into
15
consideration.
16
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
17
Questions?
18
I
wanted
to
ask,
since
both
19
of
you
and
other
speakers
have
stressed
the
20
idea
that
what
we
have
done,
have
proposed
21
is
at
variance
with
what
CASAC
recommended
22
to
us,
if
we
accepted
the
recommendation
of
23
those
you
made,
wouldn't
we
also
be
at
24
variance
with
what
CASAC
recommended,
and
25
59
how
would
we
handle
that?
1
MS.
ZWILLINGER:
It
is
true,
2
but
as
a
general
principle,
we
believe
that
3
it
would
be
effective
for
you
to
lower
the
4
recommendations
within
the
range
of
what
5
CASAC
has
recommended.
As
an
advocacy
6
community,
we
believe
that
our
role
is
to
7
advocate
for
the
lowest
end,
for
what
we
8
believe
would
truly
protect
public
health.
9
While
we
believe
there
are
other
competing
10
factors
and
that
this
isn't
necessarily
11
realistic,
as
a
safeguard,
ignoring
CASAC
12
and
not
abiding
by
their
recommendations
13
simply
goes
against
the
process.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
Okay.
Thanks
15
to
both
of
you.
16
Next
is
Deborah
Shprentz
and
17
Ann
Dixon.
18
MS.
DIXON:
I'm
a
Shiatzu
19
practitioner.
Shiatzu
is
acupuncture
20
without
needles,
kind
of
like
massage,
and
21
I
live
and
work
in
the
city.
About
60
22
percent
of
the
clients
that
I
see
have
lung
23
problems.
Lowering
the
yearly
and
annual
24
particle
standards
will
really
help
these
25
60
people.
1
I
have
a
friend
who
has
2
asthma
that
is
made
worst
by
bus
fumes.
3
She
rides
a
bus
rather
than
driving,
which
4
really
means
that
she's
doing
a
huge
favor
5
for
everyone,
and
she
shouldn't
be
repaid
6
by
being
forced
to
wheeze
whenever
she's
7
behind
buses.
8
I've
been
to
a
lot
of
bus
9
stations
in
the
Northeast
and
Midwest,
and
10
at
every
bus
station,
there's
this
big
sign
11
where
the
buses
pull
in
saying,
no
idling
12
for
more
than,
I
think
it's
10
minutes.
13
And
at
every
bus
station,
they
idle
for
14
half
an
hour.
At
really
huge
bus
stations,
15
like
the
Port
Authority,
there's
idling
16
buses
around
the
clock,
and
people
have
to
17
live
and
work
there.
And
changing
the
18
standards
would
really
help
these
people
a
19
lot.
20
I'm
assuming
that
EPA
21
officials
are
being
lobbied
by
industry
and
22
to
lighten
or
at
least
not
reduce
the
23
standards,
and
if
you
stand
up
to
the
Bush
24
administration,
you
will
be
admired
in
the
25
61
future.
That
can
be
your
legacy
to
stand
1
up
to
them,
so
I
hope
you
do
it.
2
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you
3
very
much.
We
didn't
even
have
to
worry
4
that
the
clock
wasn't
on
because
that
5
clearly
was
within
the
time.
6
Are
we
set
with
the
slide?
7
MR.
SILVERMAN:
I'd
like
to
8
say
one
thing.
Ms.
Dixon,
EPA
has
adopted
9
controls
on
heavy
duty
highway
engines
10
which
includes
trucks
and
buses.
Those
11
start
to
take
effect
this
year.
For
those
12
engines,
you'll
be
able
to
have
a
white
13
damask
tablecloth
outside
that
tailpipe;
it
14
will
stay
white.
And
we've
done
that
15
already.
16
MS.
DIXON:
Great.
Thank
17
you.
18
MR.
BACHMANN:
Okay.
19
Can
you
go
without
the
20
slide?
21
MS.
SHPRENTZ:
I
have
it
on
22
Power
Point
also.
Is
there
a
problem
with
23
the
projector?
24
MR.
BACHMANN:
Apparently,
25
62
there
is.
And
maybe
the
bulb's
burned
out
1
or
something.
Just
in
the
interest
of
2
time,
could
we
get
up
the
next
witness
and
3
put
Debbie
next
in
line?
The
next
4
witness
­­
in
fact,
the
next
two
witnesses,
5
we'll
go
that
route,
Joy
Bergey
and
James
6
Cox.
7
Ms.
Bergey,
whenever
you're
8
ready.
9
MS.
BERGEY:
Thank
you
for
10
having
me.
My
name
is
Joy
Bergey
and
I'm
11
Executive
Director
of
the
Center
for
the
12
Celebration
of
Creation.
The
center
was
13
founded
in
1990
as
part
of
the
Chestnut
14
Hill
United
Methodist
Church
here
in
15
Philadelphia.
16
Our
work
includes
advocating
17
on
behalf
of
the
faith
community
on
matters
18
of
ecological
justice,
pressing
for
better
19
policy
and
legislation
at
the
federal,
20
state
and
local
levels.
The
Center
for
the
21
Celebration
is
terribly
distressed
at
the
22
current
proposal
that
refuses
to
strengthen
23
the
standards
for
fine
particles.
Science
24
has
shown
in
study
after
study
the
damaging
25
63
health
effects
of
particles
well
below
the
1
current
standards.
It's
beyond
question
2
that
understanding
now
what
we
do
that
we
3
could
accept
inadequate
standards
that
we
4
know
cause
suffering
and
premature
death
5
throughout
the
land,
especially
here
in
the
6
Philadelphia
region.
7
We
are
further
opposed
to
8
EPA's
proposal
to
redefine
coarse
particle
9
standards
that
would
exempt
agricultural
10
and
mining
from
these
standards.
Do
we
11
care
less
about
those
on
farms
or
those
in
12
the
mines?
Do
the
lives
of
those
13
hard­
working
Americans
matter
less
than
14
those
of
us
in
more
affluent
areas?
Are
we
15
no
longer
all
created
equal
and
entitled
to
16
equal
protections
for
our
health
and
17
well­
being?
This
is
the
message
that
the
18
Center
for
the
Celebration
of
Creation
19
reads
into
the
proposed
standards,
and
we
20
find
it
unacceptable.
21
The
Biblical
prophet,
Micah,
22
says
that
God
requires
nothing
of
us
but
to
23
do
justice,
love
kindness
and
walk
humbly.
24
The
proposed
standards
will
25
64
disproportionately
hurt
worst
the
young,
1
the
old,
the
sick,
the
poor.
God's
call
2
for
justice
requires
us
to
strengthen
the
3
standards.
Nothing
less
will
do.
4
Policy
on
particle
pollution
5
should
be
driven
by
science.
The
science
6
is
clear
that
the
current
standards
for
7
particle
pollution
are
too
weak
to
protect
8
our
health.
The
Clean
Air
Act
does
not
9
permit
backsliding.
Soot
causes
asthma
10
attacks,
heart
attacks,
stroke
and
lung
11
cancer,
and
cuts
short
the
lives
of
tens
of
12
thousands
of
Americans
every
year.
13
Pennsylvania
has
some
of
the
14
worst
particle
pollution
in
the
nation.
15
Speaking
personally,
I
know
what
it
is
like
16
to
watch
a
loved
one
die
from
pulmonary
17
disease.
My
husband
died
of
cancer
seven
18
years
ago.
The
cancer
metastasized
to
his
19
lung,
and
his
final
weeks
were
spent
20
wheezing
for
air
with
supplemental
oxygen
21
and
medications
of
no
help.
He
died
in
22
agony
with
a
medical
community
unable
to
23
aid
his
failing
lungs.
24
Now,
I
don't
know
with
25
65
certainty
that
particle
pollution
shortened
1
his
life,
but
I
do
know
the
anguish
of
2
watching
a
loved
one
who
can't
breathe
for
3
whom
it's
too
late
for
help.
But
it's
not
4
too
late
for
us
to
protect
the
lives
of
5
hundreds
of
thousands
of
Americans
from
6
pulmonary
and
other
diseases
caused
by
soot
7
unless
we
decide
that
they're
not
important
8
enough.
9
This
is
a
country
that
put
a
10
man
on
the
moon,
that
invented
the
11
Internet,
that
can
do
anything
it
sets
its
12
mind
to.
We
can
dramatically
reduce
soot
13
and
its
attendant
sufferings.
To
accept
14
the
status
quo
with
a
cynical
shrug
that
15
it's
good
enough
deeply
fails
the
high
16
moral
standards
that
we
believe
undergird
17
this
country.
18
The
Book
of
Genesis
tells
us
19
that
after
each
magnificent
day
of
20
creation,
God
said,
it
is
good,
the
people,
21
the
trees,
the
rivers,
the
sky,
the
air
we
22
breathe;
but
it
is
not
good
if
we
allow
our
23
air
to
be
laden
with
soot
when
we
can
24
readily
prevent
it.
We
don't
have
another
25
66
atmosphere,
we
don't
have
a
spare
planet.
1
Let
us
honor
the
Creator,
the
sacred
gift
2
of
creation
and
human
life.
Let
us
3
strengthen
across
the
board
our
standards
4
for
particle
pollution.
Thank
you.
5
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
6
Mr.
Cox.
7
MR.
COX:
Thank
you,
ladies
8
and
gentlemen.
My
name
is
Jim
Cox
and
I
am
9
legislative
counsel
for
Earthjustice,
a
10
non­
profit
organization
that
advocates
on
11
behalf
of
those
who
seek
to
achieve
and
12
maintain
a
clean
and
healthy
environment.
13
And
by
way
of
background,
before
I
became
14
an
attorney,
I
worked
in
the
oil
field
for
15
10
years
as
a
petroleum
engineer.
So
I
16
feel
like
I
come
at
this
issue
from
the
17
unique
perspective
of
someone
who
has
18
worked
both
in
the
regulated
community
and
19
now
seeks
to
advocate
on
behalf
of
those
20
who
would
argue
for
stronger
regulation
of
21
industry's
air
emissions.
22
EPA's
proposed
standards
for
23
particulate
matter
defy
the
Clean
Air
Act's
24
mandate
to
protect
public
health
with
an
25
67
adequate
margin
of
safety.
The
proposed
1
standards
are
less
protective
than
2
recommended
by
the
Clean
Air
Science
3
Advisory
Committee,
and
if
promulgated,
4
would
allow
thousands
of
needless
deaths,
5
asthma
attacks
and
hospital
visits.
6
Moreover,
in
failing
to
7
propose
more
protective
secondary
air
8
quality
standards,
EPA
would
be
violating
9
legal
requirements
to
protect
important
10
public
welfare
values
like
visibility
and
11
ecosystem
health.
12
Earthjustice
will
be
13
submitting
more
extensive
written
comments,
14
but
for
the
present,
I
would
like
to
focus
15
on
EPA's
attempt
to
establish
a
coarse
16
particulate
standard
only
in
urban
areas
17
and
not
rural
ones,
and
to
concurrently
18
exempt
the
mining
and
agri
business
19
industries
from
having
to
comply
with
the
20
standard.
21
The
very
name
of
the
22
standard
under
consideration,
the
National
23
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
for
particle
24
pollution
shows
that
EPA's
attempt
to
25
68
define
a
local
standard
that
applies
only
1
in
urban
areas
is
unlawful.
EPA
is
2
required
to
set
air
quality
standards
at
3
those
levels
that
are
protective
of
public
4
health
for
all
Americans,
not
just
those
5
living
in
certain
cities.
6
The
science
flatly
refutes
7
EPA's
fundamental
presumption
that
urban
8
coarse
particles
are
somehow
more
hazardous
9
than
rural
ones.
10
For
example,
some
of
the
11
epidemiological
studies
relied
upon
by
EPA
12
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
a
coarse
13
particle
standard
were
conducted
in
14
Steubenville,
Ohio,
Provo,
Utah
and
15
Portage,
Wisconsin.
In
each
instance,
the
16
observed
health
effects
were
associated
17
with
levels
of
coarse
particle
pollution
in
18
the
air.
Yet
under
the
proposed
rules,
19
each
of
those
locations
would
have
been
20
classified
as
a
rural
area
at
the
time
the
21
studies
were
conducted,
and
the
residents
22
of
each
would,
therefore,
presumably
not
23
have
had
the
protections
that
it
ensued
24
from
promulgation
of
a
coarse
particle
25
69
clean
air
standard.
1
Other
science
provides
2
additional
evidence
of
the
arbitrary
and
3
political
nature
of
the
current
proposal.
4
Laboratory
studies
on
human
and
animal
lung
5
tissues
show
inflammatory
and
immunological
6
responses
to
coarse
particles
containing
7
constituents
that
are
common
to
rural
8
areas.
9
One
such
study
sampled
air
10
from
both
a
rural
and
urban
industrial
11
region
of
Germany
and
found
a
clear
12
association
between
each
location's
coarse
13
particle
fraction
and
lung
inflammation
in
14
laboratory
animals.
The
authors
of
the
15
study
attributed
the
observed
response
to
16
the
presence
of
endotoxins
in
the
17
particles.
18
The
term
"
endotoxin"
is
used
19
to
describe
a
class
of
bacteria
that
20
includes
the
common
agriculture
toxins
21
salmonella
and
E.
coli.
Americans,
too,
22
are
breathing
bacteria
that
contains
fecal
23
matter,
fungi,
salmonella,
E.
coli,
and
24
yet,
EPA
would
exempt
the
agriculture
25
70
industry.
1
Occupational
studies
also
2
provide
clear
scientific
evidence
refuting
3
EPA's
supposition
that
only
urban
4
particulates,
and
not
rural
ones,
are
5
harmful
to
human
health.
The
deadly
6
disease,
silicosis,
more
widely
known
as
7
black
lung,
has
caused
death
and
disability
8
to
countless
miners
of
coal
and
other
9
minerals
for
as
long
as
the
profession
has
10
been
around.
Silicosis
is
caused
by
11
inhalation
of
coarse
particles
of
crustal
12
origin
that
EPA
would
have
us
believe
are
13
benign.
Coarse
particles
containing
metals
14
are
also
a
known
risk
among
mine
workers,
15
construction
workers,
and
those
who
live
16
and
work
around
smelters
and
fossil
burning
17
power
plants.
18
Coal
fly
ash
consists
of
19
respirable
(
sic)
coarse
particles
20
containing
iron
which
poses
a
hazard
to
21
lung
tissues.
The
Provo
example
highlights
22
the
fallacy
of
any
attempt
to
delineate
23
distinction
between
urban
and
rural
coarse
24
particles.
25
71
And
since
my
time
is
getting
1
low,
I'll
summarize
by
saying
that
Provo,
2
although
it
was
determined
to
have
health
3
effects
associated
with
coarse
particle
4
pollution
in
the
1980s,
didn't
become
an
5
urban
area
with
100,000
people
until
the
6
1990s.
So
at
some
point
in
the
1990s,
a
7
magic
one
person
moved
to
Provo,
and
under
8
this
rule,
would
have
made
that
no
longer
a
9
rural,
but
an
urban
area.
And
that
just
10
shows
how
arbitrary
that
proposal
is.
11
Another
study
attributed
the
12
copper
particles
in
Provo's
air
to
copper
13
smelters
in
the
western
suburbs
of
Salt
14
Lake
City.
Well,
those
particles
traveled
15
50
miles
to
get
to
Provo.
Obviously,
there
16
are
rural
areas
between
Salt
Lake
City
and
17
Provo.
18
So
thank
you
very
much.
19
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
20
Questions?
21
In
the
case
of
Portage
and
22
Provo,
Provo,
are
you
suggesting
that
we
­­
23
that
you
have
evidence
about
coarse
24
particles
in
particular;
obviously,
weren't
25
72
those
studies
about
PM10?
1
MR.
COX:
Yes,
but
I
believe
2
EPA
itself
­­
3
MR.
BACHMANN:
I
would
point
4
out
that
I
understand
what
you're
saying.
5
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
a
6
combination
of
this
­­
it's
also
the
other
7
thing
to
make
sure
you
comment
on
in
your
8
written
comments
is
we
are
taking
comments
9
on
outside
of
areas
smaller
that
are
10
dominated
by
industrial
sources.
That's
11
not
Topeka
obviously,
but
it
clearly
is
12
both
Steubenville
and
Provo.
So
I
just
­­
13
it
would
be
useful
to
take
a
look
at
how
14
you
might
comment
on
that
aspect
of
it.
15
MR.
COX:
Right.
I
think
16
Earthjustice
has
been
involved
in
17
litigation
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
now
18
for
quite
some
time,
and
a
lot
of
our
19
concern
over
this
particular
issue
stems
20
from
that
litigation,
like
regions
of
21
Southern
California
and
Arizona.
22
MR.
BACHMANN:
Next
I
think
23
we're
bringing
back
Debbie
Shprentz,
but
24
also
John
Rutkowski.
25
73
On
the
list
here,
I
have
­­
1
actually,
Mr.
Rutkowski,
we
have
you
going
2
first.
3
MR.
RUTKOWSKI:
Thank
you.
4
My
name
is
John
Rutkowski.
That's
spelled
5
R­
U­
T­
K­
O­
W­
S­
K­
I.
I'm
chairman
of
the
6
board
for
the
American
Lung
Association
of
7
New
Jersey.
I'm
also
a
registered
8
respiratory
therapist
and
asthmatic
first
9
diagnosed
in
1958.
10
The
average
person
breathes
11
about
3,000
gallons
of
air
each
day.
Most
12
of
us
do
not
fully
understand
the
potential
13
health
effects
of
this
seemingly
simple,
14
but
absolutely
necessary,
act
which
usually
15
occurs
without
our
own
awareness,
unless
16
you
suffer
from
an
acute
or
chronic
17
pulmonary
disease.
18
Thousands
of
studies
on
19
particulate
matter
have
been
published
and
20
peer­
reviewed
since
1996.
These
studies
21
confirm
the
relationship
between
particles
22
and
illness,
hospitalizations
and
premature
23
death.
Researchers
are
constantly
24
producing
new
information
on
the
health
25
74
effects
of
air
pollutants
and
the
1
mechanisms
by
which
pollutants
damage
the
2
lungs,
heart
and
contribute
to
asthma
3
attacks
and
premature
death.
4
The
science
is
clear;
fine
5
particle
pollution
is
the
nation's
6
deadliest
air
pollution.
The
more
we
learn
7
about
particulate
pollution,
the
more
we
8
understand
how
dangerous
it
is.
9
Scientific
studies
clearly
10
show
the
current
standards
for
particle
11
pollution
are
far
too
weak
to
protect
12
public
health.
Based
on
this
evidence,
13
administration's
own
independent
science
14
advisors
and
EPA
staff
scientists
15
recommended
that
the
administration
16
substantially
strengthen
the
standards
to
17
protect
public
health.
18
Over
100
scientists,
the
19
American
Lung
Association
and
other
health
20
and
environmental
groups
recommended
the
21
most
protective
level
under
EPA
22
consideration.
The
health
effects
of
23
particulate
pollutants
in
the
air
we
24
breathe
include
aggravated
asthma,
chronic
25
75
bronchitis,
decreased
lung
development,
1
lung
growth
and
lung
function
in
children,
2
increased
inflammation
of
lung
tissue
in
3
young,
healthy
adults,
lung
cancer,
4
increased
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
5
hospitalizations,
premature
deaths.
6
EPA
scientists
estimated
7
over
4700
premature
deaths
occur
each
year
8
in
just
nine
cities
that
were
analyzed.
If
9
you
extrapolate
that
data,
that
estimates
10
the
death
toll
to
be
tens
of
thousands
11
annually.
12
More
than
26
percent
of
the
13
U.
S.
population
lives
in
areas
with
14
unhealthful
short­
term
levels
of
15
particulate
pollution.
One
in
five
of
the
16
U.
S.
population
lives
in
areas
with
17
unhealthful
year­
round
levels
of
18
particulate
pollution.
In
the
Northeastern
19
states,
38
percent
of
the
population
is
20
especially
susceptible
to
particulate
air
21
pollution.
The
greater
risk
is
the
result
22
of
age,
presence
of
chronic
lung
disease
or
23
cardiovascular
disease.
24
Children
are
especially
25
76
susceptible
to
the
dangers
of
air
1
pollutants.
In
2010,
the
United
States
2
would
save
a
projected
$
1100
billion
in
3
health
costs
associated
with
reduction
in
4
air
pollution
if
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
5
were
simply
implemented
as
written.
6
The
science
is
clear.
The
7
studies
clearly
show
that
the
current
8
standards
for
particulate
pollution
are
too
9
weak
to
protect
public
health.
There
is
no
10
scientific
evidence
to
support
relaxation
11
in
standards
that
are
already
inadequate
to
12
protect
the
public
health.
There's
no
13
excuse
to
set
the
new
standards
at
levels
14
that
still
do
not
meet
the
basic
legal
15
requirement
outlined
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
16
to
protect
the
lives
and
health
of
the
17
public.
18
The
American
Lung
19
Association
of
New
Jersey,
along
with
lung
20
associations
across
the
country,
encourage
21
everyone
to
join
them
in
supporting
strong
22
national,
state
and
local
pollution
control
23
programs.
We
oppose
revision
to
the
Clean
24
Air
Act,
including
loopholes
for
polluting
25
77
power
plants
that
would
weaken
existing
1
laws.
2
Thank
you
for
this
3
opportunity
to
comment.
4
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
5
Ms.
Shprentz.
6
MS.
SHPRENTZ:
Thank
you,
7
and
I
have
a
slide.
I'm
Debbie
Shprentz.
8
I'm
a
technical
consultant
to
the
American
9
Lung
Association,
and
I'm
also
the
mother
10
of
a
very
active
eight­
year­
old
little
girl
11
with
asthma.
Today
I'd
like
to
focus
on
12
the
public
health
implications
of
the
13
proposed
standards
and
the
need
to
lower
14
both
the
annual
and
daily
fine
particle
15
standards
in
order
to
protect
public
16
health.
17
As
part
of
its
review
18
process,
EPA
performs
a
limited
risk
19
assessment
to
explore
the
public
health
20
implications
of
alternative
standard
21
levels.
It's
limited
because
it
looks
at
22
only
a
few
cities
and
only
a
few
health
end
23
points.
The
methodology
for
the
risk
24
assessment
and
the
risk
assessment
itself
25
78
undergo
multiple
peer
reviews
by
EPA's
1
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee.
2
Now,
this
chart
is
derived
3
from
EPA's
risk
assessment.
EPA
estimated
4
the
risk
of
premature
death
from
fine
5
particles
in
nine
cities,
Los
Angeles,
6
Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh,
Detroit,
St.
7
Louis,
Boston,
Phoenix,
San
Jose
and
8
Seattle.
Most
of
the
country,
including
9
many
of
the
nation's
largest
cities,
are
10
not
included
by
this
analysis.
11
EPA
looked
at
how
many
12
premature
deaths
attributable
to
fine
13
particle
pollution
would
occur
each
year
if
14
each
of
these
cities
were
able
to
lower
15
their
pollution
to
the
level
of
the
current
16
EPA
standards.
17
And
you
can
see
in
the
first
18
column
that
after
meeting
the
current
19
standards
of
15/
65,
that
is
an
annual
20
average
standard
of
15
and
a
daily
standard
21
of
65,
an
estimated
4700
people
would
die
22
early
in
these
nine
cities
alone.
So
23
clearly,
the
current
standards
cannot
be
24
considered
protective
of
public
health.
25
79
Now,
if
EPA
tightened
the
1
standards
to
15/
35
as
proposed,
there
would
2
still
be
3700
premature
deaths
each
year
3
remaining
in
these
nine
cities
alone,
again
4
not
protective
of
public
health.
5
With
a
standard
of
13/
30,
6
the
number
of
people
dying
could
be
reduced
7
by
half,
to
2400
deaths.
And
under
the
8
most
protective
option
analyzed
by
EPA,
the
9
12/
25,
99
percentile,
premature
deaths
10
would
be
reduced
by
86
percent.
11
So
the
take­
home
message
12
from
this
chart
is
that
if
EPA
sets
the
13
standard
anywhere
but
12/
25,
99th
14
percentile,
lots
of
people
will
die
15
prematurely
by
EPA's
own
calculation.
16
And
premature
deaths
are
17
just
a
tip
of
the
iceberg.
This
chart
18
doesn't
show
the
heart
attacks,
strokes,
19
emergency
room
visits,
asthma
flare­
ups,
20
respiratory
problems,
doctor
visits
and
21
lost
school
days
associated
with
22
particulate
pollution
at
levels
below
the
23
current
standards.
24
Unfortunately,
EPA
25
80
Administrator
Johnson
has
ignored
the
1
results
of
this
peer­
reviewed
risk
2
assessment
and
proposed
standards
that
will
3
not
protect
public
health.
EPA
scientists
4
reviewed
thousands
of
studies
in
preparing
5
the
Criteria
Document.
After
CASAC's
6
thorough
peer
review,
the
bottom
line
7
conclusions
of
the
CD
are
clear.
Adverse
8
health
effects
are
occurring
at
levels
far
9
below
the
current
standards.
10
This
proposal
does
not
11
follow
the
standard­
setting
recommendations
12
of
EPA
staff
scientists
in
the
Staff
Paper
13
either.
There's
ample
evidence
in
the
CD
14
and
Staff
Paper
to
support
setting
far
more
15
stringent
standards
than
proposed
by
EPA.
16
The
American
Lung
17
Association
supports
setting
the
daily
fine
18
particle
standards
no
higher
than
25
19
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
based
on
the
20
99th
percentile
concentration,
and
annual
21
average
fine
particle
standards
at
12
22
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
or
below
with
no
23
spatial
averaging
of
monitors.
24
Now,
dozens
of
new
studies
25
81
published
more
recently
reinforce
that
1
conclusion.
Just
today
in
the
Journal
of
2
the
American
Thoracic
Society,
an
extended
3
analysis
of
the
Harvard
six­
cities
study
4
shows
decline
in
PM
pollution
leads
to
5
reduction
in
death
rates.
6
Today
in
the
Journal
of
the
7
American
Medical
Association,
we
see
8
publication
of
another
important
new
9
nationwide
study
showing
that
the
elderly
10
are
at
increased
risk
of
hospital
11
admissions
for
cardiovascular
problems
at
12
daily
and
annual
PM2.5
levels
well
below
13
the
proposed
standard.
14
The
headlines
of
recent
15
studies
reinforce
the
conclusions
of
the
16
earlier
studies
summarized
in
the
Criteria
17
Document.
18
Item:
Risk
of
premature
19
death
from
chronic
air
pollution
to
PM2.5
20
in
LA,
three
times
greater
than
previously
21
reported.
22
Item:
Long­
term
effects
of
23
air
pollution
on
mortality
confirmed
in
24
French
study.
25
82
Item:
Particle
pollution
1
increases
women's
risk
of
developing
and
2
dying
from
coronary
heart
disease.
3
Item:
Long­
term
fine
4
particle
exposure
in
California
linked
to
5
lower
birth
weight
and
infant
mortality.
6
Item:
Researchers
link
7
childhood
asthma
to
exposure
to
traffic
8
related
air
pollution.
9
Item:
Long­
term
exposure
to
10
air
pollution
implicated
in
clogging
up
the
11
arteries.
12
And
I
could
go
on
and
on
and
13
on.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
But
please
15
don't.
Thank
you.
No,
I
appreciate
your
16
stopping
and
I
know
you're
submitting
that
17
in
writing
as
well
as
others,
any
comments
18
that
you
have.
19
Any
questions?
20
MR.
SILVERMAN:
One
question
21
for
Ms.
Shprentz.
Are
you
planning
to
22
address
the
monitoring
for
PM2.5,
the
23
spatial
monitoring
provision
that
we
24
propose?
Or
spatial
averaging,
excuse
me.
25
83
MS.
SHPRENTZ:
Yes.
We're
1
very
appreciative
that
EPA
has
proposed
2
narrowing
of
the
spatial
averaging
3
exemption
for
fine
particle
monitoring.
We
4
would
like
to
see
it
eliminated
altogether,
5
and
we
will
be
addressing
that
in
more
6
detail
in
our
written
comments.
Our
7
concern
is
that
if
a
monitor
is
recording
8
high
concentrations
of
fine
particle
9
pollution,
that
area
needs
to
be
designated
10
as
a
non­
attainment
area
so
control
11
measures
could
go
into
place.
Under
the
12
current
system,
EPA
actually
allows
areas
13
to
average
out
those
emissions
from
those
14
high
monitors
recording
exceedances
with
15
monitors
measuring
lower
concentrations
in
16
cleaner
areas.
Thus,
the
area
as
a
whole
17
can
avoid
cleanup
obligations.
And
we
18
would
like
to
see
that
spatial
averaging
19
loophole
eliminated.
20
MR.
BACHMANN:
Okay.
21
Thanks.
Thanks
to
both
of
you.
22
We'll
bring
up
the
McCloskey
23
family.
It's
Natalie,
Sean,
Erin
and
24
parents.
25
84
Who
is
speaking
for
the
1
family?
2
MS.
McCLOSKEY:
Okay.
I
am
3
speaking.
I'm
Natalie
McCloskey.
Over
4
here
is
my
husband,
Sean.
On
his
lap
is
5
Brendan,
who
is
six.
This
is
Kailyn;
she's
6
seven.
This
is
Erin;
she'll
be
12
7
tomorrow.
This
is
Sean;
he
is
14.
This
is
8
Dacy;
she
is
4.
And
this
is
Annalivia
down
9
here,
and
she's
2.
10
Before
I
had
children,
I
11
never
thought
that
asthma
was
that
serious.
12
I
always
thought
if
you
felt
an
attack
13
coming
on,
you'd
take
a
puff
or
two
from
14
your
inhaler
and
you'd
feel
better.
It
15
wouldn't
be
long
before
I
would
realize
the
16
harsh
realities
of
this
disease.
17
Our
struggles
with
asthma
18
began
when
our
second
child,
Erin,
was
13
19
months
old.
I
had
made
an
appointment
for
20
what
I
thought
at
the
time
would
be
a
21
typical
sick
visit.
The
doctor's
22
appointment
would
go
on
to
change
our
lives
23
forever.
24
What
I
thought
was
a
benign
25
85
lingering
cough
was
anything
but.
It
was
1
asthma.
The
treatment
was
not
going
home
2
with
a
prescription
for
cough
syrup
as
I
3
had
anticipated.
In
fact,
it
wasn't
going
4
home
at
all.
For
Erin,
it
was
going
to
the
5
hospital
for
round­
the­
clock
nebulizer
6
treatments,
IV
steroids
and
oxygen
7
supplementation.
8
For
my
husband
and
me,
it
9
was
a
crash
coarse
in
asthma.
Medical
10
terminology
suddenly
became
commonplace
in
11
our
household;
crackles
in
the
lungs,
12
coarse
sounds,
expiratory
and
inspiratory
13
wheezing,
pulsox,
sats.
Medicines,
too;
14
Solumedrol,
theophylline
drip,
Intal,
15
albuterol.
16
Our
playground
trips
were
17
replaced
by
trips
to
the
doctor's
office.
18
Playtime
was
now
interrupted
by
breathing
19
treatments.
Long
gone
was
the
fantasy
that
20
asthma
was
no
big
deal.
This
disease
had
21
put
the
squeeze,
so
to
speak,
on
our
family
22
and
its
lifestyle
as
it
had
on
our
23
daughter's
lungs.
24
Attacks
that
I
had
thought
25
86
could
last
only
for
minutes
could
go
on
for
1
weeks.
Most
of
Erin's
hospitalizations
2
here
has
been
for
status
asthmatic
as
an
3
asthma
attack
that
will
not
break.
Attacks
4
that,
despite
usually
a
week
of
intensive
5
treatment,
round­
the­
clock
nebulizers,
high
6
dose
oral
steroids
and
countless
doctors'
7
visits,
ER
visits
and
often
3
a.
m.
runs
for
8
EpiPens
still
continued.
9
After
about
a
week
in
the
10
hospital,
we
were
returned
to
our
more
11
typical
medicine
schedule.
We
began
to
12
think
that
we
had
control
of
the
disease
13
until
shortly
after
the
birth
of
our
fifth
14
child,
Dacy,
Mini­
E
as
we
like
to
call
her
15
because
of
her
resemblance
to
Erin.
16
When
she
was
five
months
17
old,
we
realized
that
the
resemblance
ran
18
down
to
her
lungs
as
well.
We
went
to
the
19
park
on
one
evening
and
Dacy
began
20
wheezing.
She
was
hospitalized
the
next
21
day.
That
would
be
a
similar
scenario
that
22
would
unfold
itself
five
more
times
by
the
23
time
that
she
was
four.
24
Though
not
all
of
our
25
87
children
suffer
from
asthma,
they
have
all
1
suffered
the
repercussions.
Having
to
2
leave
vacations
because
one
is
sick,
trick
3
or
treating
for
only
a
few
houses
because
4
of
an
ER
visit,
missing
out
on
concerts
5
because
we're
afraid
to
buy
tickets,
6
especially
in
the
summertime
when
there
are
7
more
ozone
alerts.
8
Evidence
increasingly
shows
9
that
air
pollution
plays
a
major
role
as
a
10
trigger
in
asthma
episodes.
I
know
that
11
because
my
girls
suffer
from
intrinsic
and
12
extrinsic
asthma
that
tighter
standards
of
13
pollution
will
not
cure
their
asthma,
but
14
it
will
help.
15
Please
help
lessen
the
16
amount
of
particle
pollution
we
all
breathe
17
in
the
air
each
and
every
day.
It
would
18
not
only
benefit
my
family
and
other
19
asthmatics,
but
it
would
benefit
us
all
as
20
well.
Thank
you.
21
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thanks
for
22
coming.
I
know
it's
an
effort.
23
Any
questions?
24
Thank
you
very
much.
25
88
And
next
is
Marisa
1
Bolognese,
I'm
not
sure
that's
right,
and
2
Laura
Quinn
who
are
sharing
five
minutes.
3
MS.
BOLOGNESE:
My
name
is
4
Marisa
Bolognese,
like
the
sauce.
And
for
5
the
record,
it's
M­
A­
R­
I­
S­
A,
last
name,
6
B­
O­
L­
O­
G­
N­
E­
S­
E.
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
7
the
American
Lung
Association
of
New
Jersey
8
and
I'm
reading
testimony
on
behalf
of
Dr.
9
Philip
Schiffman.
10
I'm
a
physician
specialized
11
in
the
treatment
of
diseases
of
the
lung,
12
and
have
been
practicing
medicine
in
the
13
State
of
New
Jersey
for
over
28
years.
I
14
am
board
certified
in
pulmonary
medicine.
15
I
regret
that
I
am
unable
to
be
present
at
16
this
meeting
today,
but
I
am
grateful
to
17
the
American
Lung
Association
of
New
Jersey
18
for
presenting
my
testimony
for
me.
19
Airborne
particles
are
a
20
health
threat
to
all
of
us.
It
is
now
well
21
documented
that
particle
pollution
is
a
22
significant
factor
in
morbidity
and
23
mortality
of
people
with
lung
diseases
and
24
people
with
heart
diseases.
Present
EPA
25
89
standards
do
not
adequately
regulate
1
particles.
2
The
air
we
breathe
started
3
out
clean.
We
all
should
have
the
right
to
4
breathe
it
that
way.
Once
pollutants
are
5
added
to
our
atmosphere,
we
lose
control
6
over
what
we
breathe.
Emissions
from
7
factories,
diesel,
et
cetera,
know
no
8
boundaries.
If
someone
walked
into
your
9
neighborhood
onto
your
block
or
even
into
10
your
home
and
opened
a
box
suddenly
11
releasing
noxious
agents
threatening
your
12
health,
you
would
be
outraged.
You
would
13
call
for
law
enforcement
to
stop
such
an
14
action,
and
were
damage
to
occur
to
you,
15
you
would
want
the
wrong
done
to
you
16
addressed
and
righted.
17
Present
standards
allow
this
18
to
occur
in
a
more
insidious
fashion.
19
While
the
polluter
may
not
be
in
your
front
20
yard
or
house,
the
pollution
knows
no
21
boundaries.
While
you
may
not
always
see
22
the
cause
of
the
pollution,
it
still
23
invades
your
space
and
may
cause
damage
to
24
the
health
of
your
family
and
to
yourself.
25
90
Moreover,
it
may
not
be
apparent
to
you
1
that
it
is
there
in
every
breath
that
you
2
take.
3
As
a
physician
specializing
4
in
the
treatment
of
lung
disorders,
I
see
5
the
results
of
the
shortsightedness
every
6
day.
Some
worry
about
the
cost
of
reducing
7
polluting
emissions.
Remember,
the
air
was
8
clean.
The
pollution
was
added
and
doesn't
9
belong
there.
10
I
worry
more
about
the
11
health
consequences
to
my
family,
friends
12
and
patients.
And
surely,
the
cost
of
13
treating
those
consequences
will
ultimately
14
be
thrust
upon
us
all.
What
are
the
costs?
15
There
are
costs
of
treatment
of
disease,
16
there
are
costs
of
absenteeism
from
work
17
and
there
are
costs
in
suffering.
18
Short­
term
elevations
of
19
particulates
have
correlated
with
increased
20
numbers
of
emergency
room
visits,
21
exacerbations
of
chronic
lung
disease
and
22
rises
in
incidents
of
cardiac
death.
Were
23
someone
to
overtly
invade
your
home
and
24
release
noxious
matter
bringing
your
child
25
91
to
the
emergency
room
medical
treatment,
1
causing
you
to
have
difficulty
breathing
2
and
require
medication
and
loss
of
time
3
from
work
or
causing
the
sudden
death
of
a
4
loved
one,
you
would
be
outraged.
5
Allowing
unseen
polluters
to
6
do
the
same
is
no
different.
Long­
term
7
exposure
to
elevated
particulates
in
8
polluted
communities
leads
to
increased
9
rates
of
lung
disease
in
children
in
these
10
communities
and
premature
deaths
in
adults
11
in
those
same
communities.
Remember,
those
12
at
the
greatest
risk
are
of
children,
the
13
elderly,
and
those
that
are
sick
with
14
chronic
diseases.
However,
we
all
are
at
15
risk.
What
is
needed
are
better
standards
16
of
air
quality
in
all
communities.
17
The
average
24
concentration
18
of
particulates
2.5
microns
and
under
19
should
be
regulated
to
under
25
micrograms
20
per
cubic
meter
of
air.
The
standard
for
21
annual
average
particulate
under
2.5
22
microns
should
be
under
12
micrograms
per
23
cubic
meter.
24
This
testimony
today
is
25
92
given
by
me
as
a
private
concerned
citizen.
1
I
am
joined
and
supported
in
this
testimony
2
by
my
partners
in
the
practice
of
pulmonary
3
medicine,
all
of
whom
are
also
certified
by
4
the
American
Board
of
Internal
Medicine
in
5
the
practice
of
pulmonary
medicine:
6
Douglas
Hutt,
Andrea
Harangozo,
Donna
7
Klitzman,
Tricia
Gilbert
and
David
8
Fischler.
9
Thank
you.
10
MS.
QUINN:
Briefly,
I
am
11
Laura
Quinn,
also
from
the
American
Lung
12
Association
of
New
Jersey,
and
I
am
reading
13
on
behalf
of
the
New
Jersey
Clean
Air
14
Council.
15
The
Clean
Air
Council
of
New
16
Jersey,
or
CAC,
is
an
advisory
board
to
the
17
Commissioner
of
the
New
Jersey
Department
18
of
Environmental
Protection.
They
directly
19
work
with
air
pollution
matters
impacting
20
the
State
of
New
Jersey's
public
health
and
21
welfare.
22
Although
the
CAC
does
not
23
normally
offer
comments
to
EPA
proposals,
24
the
NAAQS
for
fine
particulate
matter
is
25
93
extremely
important
for
the
protection
of
1
public
health.
Numerous
scientific
studies
2
conducted
throughout
the
nation
lead
to
the
3
conclusion
that
both
the
annual
and
24­
hour
4
standards
should
be
tightened.
EPA's
own
5
scientific
experts,
as
well
as
CASAC,
have
6
called
for
strengthening
of
both
standards.
7
It
is
the
CAC's
position
that
EPA,
the
8
federal
agency
responsible
for
protecting
9
public
health
of
the
nation,
must
adopt
the
10
recommendations
of
its
own
scientific
and
11
health
experts.
And
that
the
EPA's
12
proposal
and
the
lack
of
action
does
not
13
adequately
address
CASAC's
recommendations.
14
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
15
Since
you
were
sharing
that,
a
little
grace
16
period
because
of
that,
and
I
appreciate.
17
And
obviously,
the
doctor
isn't
here
to
ask
18
questions
of,
but
questions
of
the
19
panelists?
20
All
right.
Thank
you
both.
21
Next,
Reverend
Joseph
22
Parrish
and
Dr.
Joseph
Sokolowski.
23
REV.
PARRISH:
My
name
is
24
Reverend
Joseph
R.
Parrish,
Jr.,
25
94
P­
A­
R­
R­
I­
S­
H.
I'm
the
Rector
and
Pastor
1
of
St.
John's
Church,
a
300­
year­
old
2
congregation
in
the
heart
of
midtown
3
Elizabeth,
New
Jersey,
where
I
have
served
4
since
1989.
And
I'm
a
member
of
the
board
5
of
directors
of
the
American
Lung
6
Association
of
New
Jersey.
7
If
things
did
not
8
aggregate
­­
and
I
also
have
a
Ph.
D.
in
9
Biological
Chemistry.
If
things
did
not
10
aggregate,
particulates
would
be
no
problem
11
for
humans
except
in
geographic
areas
where
12
things
were
ground
up,
blown
apart
or
13
otherwise
dissected.
But
indeed,
things
do
14
aggregate,
more
so
if
they
are
of
similar
15
origin,
composition
or
chemistry.
The
16
difficulty
for
the
human
body
is
that
it
is
17
unable
to
disaggregate
small
aggregates
18
effectively,
and
they
lodge
deeply
in
one's
19
breathing
organs,
the
lungs.
20
The
second
problem
with
21
particulates
is
that
they
serve
as
nuclei
22
for
other
chemicals
or
they
adsorb
toxics,
23
effectively
delivering
them
to
the
depths
24
of
the
lung
of
alveoli
where
they
slowly
or
25
95
quickly
are
absorbed
into
the
blood
to
be
1
distributed
to
the
rest
of
the
body.
2
Especially,
aromatic
hydrocarbons
adsorb
3
easily
and
bind
tightly
to
carbon
particles
4
from
incomplete
diesel
combustion,
but
in
5
the
inner
confines
of
alveoli,
the
6
aromatics
are
disassociated
from
the
carbon
7
particles
by
the
action
of
mucus
or
8
phagocytes
and
enter
the
blood
stream
to
9
cause
toxic
effects
in
the
lungs
and
other
10
parts
of
the
body.
11
The
body's
response
to
the
12
insult
of
particulates
is
that
of
an
13
allergic
reaction,
cancerous
lesions
and
14
dysfunction,
particularly
being
with
the
15
lungs
themselves.
Asthma,
emphysema,
16
bronchitis,
cardiovascular
disease
and
17
cancer
are
common
in
areas
where
18
particulate
concentrations
are
high.
19
A
complicating
factor
is
20
that
ozone
is
also
often
high
in
areas
21
where
particulates
are
high,
as
both
result
22
from
combustion
of
hydrocarbons.
Nitrogen
23
oxides
from
the
high
temperature
of
24
combustion
are
formed
from
the
oxygen,
and
25
96
nitrogen
in
the
atmosphere
and
ozone
1
results
from
such
combustion
when
the
2
nitrogen
oxides
interact
with
the
unburned
3
hydrocarbons.
Ozone
is
a
known
lung
4
irritant
and
produces
allergic
responses
in
5
the
bronchi.
Thus,
combustion
of
6
hydrocarbons
usually
results
in
two
severe
7
lung
irritants,
particulates
and
ozone.
8
And
the
particulates
also
become
carriers
9
of
unburned
hydrocarbons,
usually
10
carcinogenic.
Lung
irritation
enhances
the
11
hydrocarbons'
entry
into
the
lung
tissues
12
as
well
as
to
the
rest
of
the
body.
Thus,
13
the
cycle
of
disease
begins.
14
Our
area
of
Elizabeth,
New
15
Jersey,
population
120,000,
has
PM2.5
16
levels
of
15
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
as
17
been
measured
since
1999.
And
we
have
also
18
the
highest
concentrations
both
of
these
19
particulates
and
ozone
of
any
in
the
state.
20
We
have
NJDEP
particulate
monitors
placed
21
within
a
few
hundred
yards
of
Public
School
22
22,
where
our
gifted
and
talented
students
23
study
in
elementary
school
very
near
Exit
24
13
of
the
New
Jersey
Turnpike.
25
97
Across
the
highway
from
the
1
school
and
a
monitor
about
400
yards
away
2
are
the
giant
smoke
stacks
of
the
Linden
3
Bayway
Refinery,
which
itself
is
an
4
enormous
source
of
airborne
hydrocarbons.
5
The
City
of
Elizabeth
is
directly
downwind
6
of
both
Exit
13
and
the
Linden
Refinery,
so
7
we
constantly
receive
effluents
from
both
8
the
Turnpike
and
the
Refinery.
9
In
addition,
we
are
the
10
recipients
of
the
soot
from
the
trucks
and
11
cars
accelerating
and
decelerating
from
the
12
Goethals
Bridge
to
and
from
Staten
Island.
13
A
particular
concern
is
the
possibility
of
14
the
twinning
of
the
Goethals
Bridge
where
15
the
single
lanes
up
and
down
the
bridge
16
will
be
made
double
lane
wide,
doubling
the
17
amount
of
traffic
and
doubling
at
least
the
18
amount
of
particulates
and
ozone
that
the
19
City
of
Elizabeth
will
receive
from
this
20
misbegotten
bridge
twinning
idea.
21
As
you
may
know,
the
22
Goethals
Bridge
dead­
ends
into
the
City
of
23
Elizabeth
where
it
diverts
into
either
24
local
roadways
into
the
City
of
Elizabeth
25
98
or
onto
the
New
Jersey
Turnpike.
1
In
addition
to
the
2
acceleration
and
deceleration
from
toll
3
booths
of
the
Turnpike,
we
in
Elizabeth
4
have
the
14
lanes
of
the
New
Jersey
5
Turnpike
coursing
directly
north
and
south
6
through
the
City
of
Elizabeth
cutting
off
7
what
is
called
the
port
from
the
rest
of
8
the
city,
dissecting
the
city
into
two
9
parts
with
about
a
quarter
of
the
city's
10
residents
east
of
the
Turnpike,
and
11
three­
quarters
west
of
the
Turnpike.
12
Just
to
the
west
of
the
13
Turnpike,
some
15
blocks
to
the
west,
are
14
the
six
lanes
of
the
north
and
southbound
15
lanes
of
Routes
1
and
9,
a
heavily
16
truck­
used
roadway
that
is
often
completely
17
congested
with
trucks
and
automobiles
most
18
hours
of
every
day.
This
roadway
itself
is
19
often
a
slow
moving,
highly
congested
20
source
of
huge
amounts
of
particulates,
21
ozone
and
carcinogenic
hydrocarbons.
22
In
short,
the
enormous
flow
23
of
traffic
along
the
New
Jersey
Turnpike,
24
Routes
1
and
9
and
the
Goethals
Bridge
25
99
produce
one
of
the
most
unbreathable
1
stretches
of
geography
in
the
entire
United
2
States,
which
is
why
this
part
of
New
3
Jersey
is
known
worldwide
as
Cancer
Alley,
4
as
it
has
some
of
the
highest
cancer
rates
5
in
the
entire
nation.
6
MR.
BACHMANN:
Reverend
Dr.
7
Parrish,
I
should
say
at
this
point,
we
are
8
running
out
of
time.
I
see
that
there's
a
9
substantial
amount
left
in
your
statement,
10
and
just
in
fairness,
we
need
to
move
on.
11
REV.
PARRISH:
I'll
just
12
make
one
final
statement.
The
PM2.5
13
monitors
that
show
we
have
averages
of
15
14
show
that
we
have
­­
it's
totally
15
inadequate
for
healthful
conditions
in
our
16
city.
We
have
to
have
12
or
below.
17
MR.
BACHMANN:
We
see
that
18
very
clear
statement
at
the
end.
Thank
19
you.
20
Dr.
Sokolowski.
21
DR.
SOKOLOWSKI:
Good
22
morning.
I'm
Joseph
W.
Sokolowski,
Jr.,
23
M.
D.,
a
board
certified
specialist
in
24
pulmonary
diseases
and
internal
medicine.
25
100
That's
S­
O­
K­
O­
L­
O­
W­
S­
K­
I.
1
I'm
a
clinical
professor
of
2
medicine
at
Jefferson
Medical
College
at
3
Thomas
Jefferson
University
here
in
4
Philadelphia.
I'm
testifying
in
behalf
of
5
the
American
Lung
Association
of
New
6
Jersey,
as
well
as
the
New
Jersey
Thoracic
7
Society.
8
The
Clean
Air
Act
directs
9
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
10
promulgate
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
11
Standards
for
particulate
material
that
are
12
evidence­
based
and
that
protect
the
public
13
health
and
welfare
with
an
adequate
margin
14
of
safety
regardless
of
cost.
These
15
standards
were
last
revised
in
1997
and
16
have
undergone
an
extensive
review
in
a
17
multi­
year
process.
The
new
18
recommendations
are
not
as
stringent
as
19
summarized
by
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
20
Advisory
Committee,
as
well
as
the
EPA
21
Criteria
Document,
which
clearly
22
demonstrate
that
adverse
health
effects
23
occur
at
levels
below
the
current
standard.
24
Particulate
material
has
25
101
been
linked
to
a
wide
range
of
adverse
1
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
health
2
effects
and
epidemiologic
and
toxicologic
3
research.
The
major
contributors
of
4
particulate
matter
in
the
urban
environment
5
are
vehicles,
particularly
those
with
6
diesel
combustion
engines,
power
generation
7
and
finally,
industry
itself.
Monitoring
8
data
for
fine
particulate
material,
PM2.5
9
micrograms
or
less,
varies
nationwide
10
within
urban
areas
and
by
season.
11
The
national
median
annual
12
average
for
this
is
13
micrograms
per
cubic
13
meter
with
higher
levels
in
urban
areas
and
14
in
the
eastern
United
States
and
15
California.
The
result
is
that
the
effects
16
of
particulate
matter
vary
across
the
17
country.
Epidemiologic
evidence
provides
18
the
primary
impetus
for
the
proposed
19
revision
with
evidence
of
increased
risk
20
for
mortality.
21
In
90
cities
in
the
U.
S.,
22
the
National
Morbidity
and
Mortality
Air
23
Pollution
Study
estimated
a
0.2
percent
24
increase
in
all­
cause
mortality
per
10
25
102
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
in
particulate
1
matter.
The
risk
was
the
highest
in
the
2
northeastern
United
States
for
respiratory
3
and
cardiovascular
causes
of
death.
That
4
the
resultant
loss
of
life
may
be
5
substantial
was
identified
in
followup
6
studies,
the
Harvard
Six
Cities
Study
and
7
the
American
Cancer
Society's
Cancer
8
Prevention
II
Study.
The
World
Health
9
Organization
has
estimated
that
the
10
inhalation
of
particulate
material
and
11
ambient
air
causes
500,000
premature
deaths
12
per
year.
13
Some
of
the
adverse
14
pulmonary
health
effects
of
short­
term
15
exposure
to
high
levels
of
particulate
16
matter,
2.5
micrograms
or
less,
include
17
increased
hospital
admissions,
increased
18
emergency
room
and
physician
office
visits
19
for
respiratory
disorders,
increased
20
respiratory
symptoms
and
altered
lung
21
function,
particularly
in
individuals
with
22
respiratory
disorders,
such
as
asthma.
23
The
health
effects
24
associated
with
long­
term
exposures
are
25
103
premature
deaths
in
individuals
with
1
respiratory
disease,
including
lung
cancer,
2
reduced
lung
function
and
the
development
3
of
chronic
respiratory
disorders
in
4
children.
5
In
concurrence
with
the
6
recommendations
of
the
American
Lung
7
Association
and
the
American
Thoracic
8
Society,
which
I'm
members
of
both,
I
urge
9
the
EPA
to
implement
a
revised
National
10
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
for
fine
11
particulate
material
2.5
micrograms
or
less
12
as
follows:
12.5
micrograms
per
cubic
13
millimeter
for
the
annual
standard;
25
14
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
24­
hour
15
standard;
and
a
99th
percentile
used
for
16
compliance
determination.
17
In
regard
to
the
latter
18
recommendation,
the
current
98
percentile
19
form
of
the
24­
hour
standard
allows
nearly
20
three
weeks
of
dangerous
air
pollution,
21
including
exposure
­­
which
includes
22
excluding
from
calculating
compliance
with
23
the
daily
standard.
The
inappropriate
24
exclusion
for
air
pollution
spikes
caused
25
104
by
forest
and
other
anomalies
in
the
1
calculation
falsely
lowers
exposure
2
averages.
Thank
you.
3
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
4
MS.
HASSETT­
SIPPLE:
5
Reverend
Parrish,
the
end
of
your
6
statement,
which
you
ran
out
of
time,
you
7
didn't
get
the
chance
to
present
orally,
8
talks
about
asthma
rates
in
children
in
9
your
parish.
10
REV.
PARRISH:
Yes.
11
MS.
HASSETT­
SIPPLE:
As
well
12
as
cardiovascular
mortality.
Are
you
aware
13
if
any
of
that
data
has
been
published?
14
REV.
PARRISH:
It
hasn't
been
15
published.
I
write
up
in
the
Gazette
16
Leader
with
Hillside.
It's
been
published
17
there,
but
not
in
scientific
journals.
18
MS.
HASSETT­
STIPPLE:
Okay.
19
Thank
you.
20
MS.
KATZ:
Okay.
Our
next
21
panel
is
going
to
be
Arthur
Stamoulis
and
22
Annie
Leary.
23
Mr.
Stamoulis
will
go
first.
24
MS.
STAMOULIS:
Thank
you.
25
105
My
name
is
Arthur
Stamoulis,
1
S­
T­
A­
M­
O­
U­
L­
I­
S.
I
am
presenting
on
2
behalf
of
National
Environmental
Trust.
3
Given
that
many
witnesses
4
are
focusing
their
comments
on
the
proposed
5
primary
standard,
I'll
spend
my
limited
6
time
addressing
the
proposed
secondary
7
welfare
standard.
8
EPA
needs
to
significantly
9
strengthen
the
secondary
fine
particle
10
standard
in
order
to
protect
against
11
adverse
environmental
public
welfare
12
impacts,
including
visibility
degradation.
13
We
urge
you
to
adopt
a
secondary
PM2.5
14
standard
of
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
15
four­
hour
average,
98th
percentile
16
compliance
level.
17
We
also
support
the
most
18
protective
primary
PM2.5
standard
19
recommended
by
EPA
staff
and
others,
12
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
annual,
21
25
for
the
daily,
using
the
99th
22
percentile.
23
Both
of
these
standards
are
24
necessary
and
appropriate
to
protect
both
25
106
the
health
of
millions
of
Americans
and
to
1
protect
the
welfare
of
our
nation's
rich
2
natural
resources
from
the
well­
documented
3
harm
caused
by
fine
particle
pollution.
4
In
virtually
every
part
of
5
the
country,
rural
and
urban
alike,
once
6
spectacular
views
are
commonly
shrouded
in
7
a
white
haze.
In
the
East,
pollution
has
8
reduced
visibility
to
a
range
of
about
18
9
to
40
miles.
Without
the
effects
of
10
pollution,
the
natural
visible
range
in
the
11
East
is
approximately
90
miles.
12
In
1977,
Congress
recognized
13
this
problem
and
established
a
clear
14
national
goal
for
improved
visibility.
15
Despite
this
mandate,
for
almost
30
years,
16
little
action
has
been
taken
and
air
17
quality
in
many
areas
has
only
18
deteriorated.
While
EPA
rule­
making
19
activity
concerning
haze
pollution
has
20
shown
a
marked
increase
over
the
past
21
decade,
there's
been
virtually
no
22
improvement
of
actual
visibility
23
conditions.
24
Unfortunately,
the
recent
25
107
Interstate
and
Haze
Rules
will
perpetuate
1
this
lack
of
progress
by
delivering
2
visibility
benefits
that
are
both
too
3
little
and
too
late.
4
EPA's
legacy
of
neglect
in
5
the
area
of
combating
visibility
impairment
6
strongly
favors
the
adoption
of
a
7
meaningful
secondary
welfare
standard
that
8
accomplishes
actual
reductions
in
9
haze­
causing
pollutants.
10
Section
109
of
the
Clean
Air
11
Act
requires
the
Administrator
to
12
promulgate
secondary
air
quality
standards
13
that
protect
visibility.
And
as
noted
in
14
EPA's
June
2005
Staff
Paper,
fine
particles
15
transported
from
power
plants
and
from
16
urban
and
industrial
areas
impair
urban
and
17
class
one
areas
alike.
They're
the
leading
18
cause
of
haze
and
loss
of
visibility.
Fine
19
particles
have
been
shown
to
cause
20
significant
damage
to
vegetation,
aquatic
21
life
and
visibility
at
levels
well
below
22
the
current
PM2.5
secondary
standard.
23
In
fact,
EPA's
Staff
Paper
24
demonstrates
that
restoration
of
natural
25
108
visible
range
in
eastern
cities
like
1
Philadelphia
would
require
that
PM2.5
2
levels
be
reduced
to
as
low
as
2.5
3
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
4
The
photographic
images
5
included
in
the
Staff
Paper
demonstrate
6
that
views
with
concentrations
at
the
upper
7
end
of
the
proposed
range,
30
micrograms
8
per
cubic
meter,
are
noticeably
hazy
and
9
would
not
constitute
a
visibility
10
protection
standard.
In
contrast,
a
marked
11
improvement
in
visual
clarity
is
evident
at
12
the
20
microgram
per
cubic
meter
level.
13
Staff's
recommendation
that
14
a
four­
hour
averaging
time
for
the
standard
15
is
appropriate.
The
availability
of
16
continuous
PM
monitors
make
the
use
of
a
17
four­
hour
averaging
time
practicable,
and
18
the
four­
hour
averaging
time,
we
feel,
must
19
be
applied
on
a
rolling
basis
throughout
20
the
daylight
hours
when
visual
air
quality
21
is
most
important,
particularly
the
morning
22
hours.
23
We
further
urge
EPA
to
24
consider
a
form
for
the
standard
that
25
109
assesses
violations
based
on
a
higher
1
percentile
than
the
90th
percentile.
A
2
standard
that
excuses
10
percent
of
the
3
days,
36
days
each
year,
from
meeting
any
4
limit
is
too
lax.
Rather
than
an
arbitrary
5
percentile
cutoff,
EPA
should
consider
6
excusing
time
periods
based
on
meteorology.
7
So
in
conclusion,
the
low
8
end
of
the
staff's
recommendation
for
a
9
secondary
standard
would
lead
to
10
significant
progress
in
cleaning
up
the
11
hazy
skies
in
cities
like
Philadelphia.
It
12
has
been
nearly
three
decades
since
13
Congress
first
called
for
a
concerted
14
effort
to
improve
rural
and
urban
15
visibility.
We,
therefore,
urge
EPA
to
16
take
swift
action
to
adopt
the
strongest
17
possible
primary
and
secondary
fine
18
particulate
matter
standards
to
protect
19
public
health
and
bring
us
closer
to
the
20
goal
of
restoring
clear
views.
21
Thank
you
very
much.
22
MS.
KATZ:
Ms.
Leary.
23
MS.
LEARY:
Good
morning.
24
My
name
is
Annie
Leary,
L­
E­
A­
R­
Y,
and
I'm
25
110
the
Regional
Conservation
Organizer
for
the
1
Sierra
Club's
Building
Environmental
2
Community
Campaign.
I'd
like
to
thank
you
3
for
hearing
my
testimony
today.
4
As
an
organizer
with
the
5
Sierra
Club's
Building
Environmental
6
Community
Campaign,
I
work
directly
with
7
citizen
volunteers
and
members
of
the
8
community
and
community
leaders
on
a
9
day­
to­
day
basis.
These
folks
are
10
dedicated
to
protecting
public
health,
11
protecting
our
environments
and
moving
12
toward
smart
energy
solutions.
The
Sierra
13
Club
is
the
nation's
oldest
and
largest
14
grassroots
organization
with
over
750,000
15
members
nationwide.
16
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
all
of
17
those
members
to
ask
the
EPA
to
adopt
a
18
PM2.5
fine
soot
limitation
consistent
with
19
the
most
recent
scientific
evidence
that's
20
sufficient
to
protect
the
most
vulnerable
21
and
sensitive
members
of
our
community,
22
including
infants,
the
elderly
and
those
23
suffering
from
asthma
and
other
respiratory
24
illnesses.
25
111
The
Sierra
Club's
Building
1
Environmental
Community
Campaign
is
based
2
on
the
fact
that
the
environment,
the
air
3
we
all
breathe,
the
water
we
all
drink,
is
4
a
value
and
something
every
citizen
5
deserves.
Unfortunately,
community
members
6
here
in
Southeastern
Pennsylvania
and
7
across
the
country
are
all
too
aware
how
8
weak
environmental
standards
can
directly
9
affect
their
ability
to
go
outside,
to
take
10
part
in
physical
activity
and
sometimes
11
even
to
breathe.
12
All
of
the
volunteers
that
I
13
work
with
do
the
best
that
they
can
every
14
day
to
keep
their
families
safe.
They
take
15
all
the
necessary
precautions
to
ensure
16
that
their
children
grow
up
safe
and
17
healthy.
18
For
example,
Jennifer
and
19
Chris
Milani,
a
young
couple
who
live
here
20
in
Southeastern
Pennsylvania
on
the
Main
21
Line
live
with
their
twin
daughters,
22
Gabriella
and
Juliet,
and
four­
year­
old
23
son,
Ethan.
They
make
sure
their
children
24
wear
bike
helmets
when
they
go
outside,
25
112
wear
seatbelts
when
they're
riding
in
the
1
car,
eat
healthy
foods.
When
they
moved
2
into
their
old
Victorian
home,
they
had
3
someone
test
their
walls
to
ensure
there
4
was
no
lead
paint
there.
And
they
might
5
even
go
to
the
trouble
to
test
their
6
drinking
water
to
make
sure
it's
okay
to
7
drink.
8
They
do
everything
they
9
possibly
can,
but
like
all
parents,
the
10
Milanis
cannot
control
some
dangers
that
11
may
affect
their
kids,
like
the
air
that
12
they
breathe
every
minute,
every
hour,
13
every
day.
They,
like
all
families,
fully
14
expect
and
trust
that
the
Environmental
15
Protection
Agency
will
also
do
everything
16
it
can
to
keep
their
kids
safe
from
these
17
dangers
that
they
cannot
regulate
18
themselves,
like
soot
pollution
from
19
coal­
fired
power
plants
and
diesel
engines.
20
In
2002
here
in
21
Pennsylvania,
over
two
million
kids
lived
22
within
30
miles
of
a
coal­
fired
power
plant
23
and
almost
150,000
of
them
suffered
from
24
asthma.
We
are
not
in
a
position
to
cut
25
113
off
our
main
source
of
electricity
and
shut
1
down
these
power
plants.
It's
just
not
2
realistic.
So
families
and
communities
3
across
the
country
are
counting
on
the
EPA
4
to
take
a
protective
approach
to
soot
5
pollution
by
using
the
most
recent
6
scientific
data
and
recommendations
to
7
create
PM2.5
standards
that
are
below
what
8
the
best
published
science
shows
to
be
9
harmful
to
human
health.
10
The
Sierra
Club
does
not
11
support
the
current
standards
proposed
by
12
the
EPA
because
they
do
not
protect
all
13
people.
They
don't
provide
equal
14
protection
to
urban
and
rural
communities,
15
and
because
of
loopholes,
such
as
excusing
16
a
week
or
more
of
bad
air
from
being
17
included
in
the
calculation
of
average
18
annual
air
quality.
Every
day
should
be
a
19
clean
air
day.
20
The
Sierra
Club
supports
21
soot
standards
which
are
below
levels
shown
22
by
the
best
available
science
to
be
harmful
23
and
within
a
margin
of
safety
sufficient
to
24
protect
vulnerable
people,
again,
like
25
114
infants,
children,
those
with
asthma
or
1
cardiac
conditions
and
also
the
elderly.
2
Short­
term
exposure
to
3
elevated
levels
of
coarse
particulate
4
pollution
results
in
increased
hospital
5
admissions
for
respiratory
symptoms
and
6
heart
disease,
reduced
lung
function
and
7
premature
deaths.
We
need
a
standard
that
8
takes
a
protective
approach
to
air
9
pollution
and
not
one
that
pushes
possible
10
health
risks
to
the
absolute
limit.
Our
11
families
and
communities
must
come
first.
12
The
Sierra
Club
supports
the
13
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics'
14
recommendation
to
lower
the
annual
standard
15
of
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
the
16
daily
standard
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
17
meter.
These
levels
are
consistent
with
18
the
most
recent
comprehensive
and
reliable
19
scientific
evidence
and
provides
some
20
margin
of
safety
for
children,
the
elderly
21
and
other
vulnerable
people.
22
The
EPA
should
close
23
loopholes
excluding
rural
areas
from
full
24
protection
from
soot
pollution,
exempting
25
115
the
mining
and
agriculture
industry
from
1
soot
pollution
standards
and
excusing
a
2
week
or
more
of
bad
air
from
being
included
3
in
the
calculation
of
average
annual
air
4
quality.
5
On
behalf
of
our
750,000
6
members,
the
Milani
family
and
all
the
7
other
families
and
community
members
across
8
the
country
who
are
doing
the
best
they
can
9
to
keep
their
children
safe,
the
Sierra
10
Club
urges
the
adoption
of
a
soot
level
11
consistent,
again,
with
the
most
recent
12
comprehensive
and
reliable
scientific
13
evidence
and
that
is
protective
of
14
children,
the
elderly
and
other
vulnerable
15
populations.
16
The
Sierra
Club
supports
the
17
most
protective
option
evaluated
by
the
EPA
18
for
fine
particulate
matter.
For
the
sake
19
of
our
families
and
for
our
future,
thank
20
you
again
for
letting
me
speak
today
on
21
behalf
of
all
of
the
Sierra
Club
members,
22
communities
and
families
across
the
country
23
who
are
putting
the
health
of
their
24
families
and
children
in
your
hands.
25
116
MS.
KATZ:
Thank
you.
1
Any
questions
from
the
2
panel?
3
Our
next
panel
will
be
4
Heather
Hill
and
Scott
Segal.
5
MR.
BACHMANN:
Ms.
Hill,
6
whenever
you're
ready.
7
MS.
HILL:
Hello.
My
name
8
is
Heather
Hill,
H­
I­
L­
L.
I
am
a
9
stay­
at­
home
mother
of
three
young
boys.
10
Colin
is
three
and
a
half
and
my
twins
are
11
22
months
old.
They
keep
me
very
busy,
yet
12
I
come
here
today
because
I
feel
that
the
13
Clean
Air
Act
is
in
jeopardy
and
my
14
family's
health
depends
upon
it.
Thank
you
15
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
16
you
today.
17
I
was
diagnosed
with
asthma
18
about
five
years
ago.
I
take
care
of
my
19
asthma
pretty
well.
I'm
followed
regularly
20
by
a
doctor.
I
take
an
inhaler
every
day.
21
I
am
well­
educated
about
my
triggers
and
22
try
to
avoid
the
ones
that
I
can,
like
23
excessive
dust
and
dog
dander.
However,
24
what
I
cannot,
and
should
not
have
to,
25
117
avoid
is
the
air
I
breathe.
1
There
are
days
I
cannot
take
2
a
deep
breath
and
I
can
feel
the
thickness
3
of
the
air
in
my
throat
and
lungs.
I
am
a
4
physically
active
person,
and
on
bad
ozone
5
days,
I
can't
run
or
exercise
outside.
I
6
have
to
consider
whether
or
not
it
is
7
healthy
for
my
children
to
play
outside.
8
Even
one
bad
ozone
day
is
unacceptable.
9
Every
day
should
be
a
clean
air
day.
10
For
this
reason,
I
strongly
11
urge
the
EPA
to
set
standards
for
12
particulate
matter
that
would
protect
13
people's
health.
I
not
only
speak
for
14
myself
when
I
ask
for
stronger
standards
15
for
clean
air,
I
speak
for
my
children.
16
One
of
my
twin
boys,
Owen,
has
respiratory
17
difficulties
and
will
most
likely
be
18
diagnosed
with
asthma.
I
worry
about
him
19
growing
up
in
a
place
where
the
air
he
20
breathes
every
day
could
trigger
an
asthma
21
attack.
22
Philadelphia
has
some
of
the
23
worst
air
quality
in
the
country.
I
don't
24
want
Owen
to
grow
up
breathing
polluted
air
25
118
knowing
that
there
are
steps
the
EPA
can
1
take
to
improve
it
now.
I
feel
outraged
at
2
the
thought
of
having
to
move
from
3
Philadelphia
simply
because
the
air
quality
4
is
not
healthy
for
my
children
or
myself.
5
And
where
would
we
go?
6
If
we
were
to
move
to
the
7
country
where
the
air
is
purportedly
8
cleaner,
our
health
would
still
be
in
9
danger
if
the
EPA
leaves
a
loophole
that
10
excludes
rural
areas
from
full
protection
11
from
pollution.
The
Clean
Air
Act
gives
12
all
Americans
access
to
clean
air
13
regardless
of
where
they
may
live.
14
I
urge
the
EPA
to
close
the
15
loopholes
excluding
rural
areas
from
full
16
protection
from
soot
pollution
and
17
exempting
the
mining
and
agriculture
18
industry
from
soot
pollution
standards.
19
I
can
only
do
so
much
to
20
protect
my
own
and
my
children's
health.
I
21
sincerely
hope
the
administration
will
not
22
ignore
the
scientific
evidence
that
23
connects
soot
pollution
to
increased
24
illness
and
death
in
our
most
vulnerable
25
119
populations,
infants,
the
elderly
and
1
asthma
sufferers,
and
take
the
appropriate
2
actions
as
soon
as
possible.
3
Thank
you.
4
MR.
BACHMANN:
Thank
you.
5
Mr.
Segal.
6
MR.
SEGAL:
Thanks.
My
name
7
is
Scott
Segal.
It's
S­
E­
G­
A­
L.
And
I'm
8
Director
of
the
Electric
Reliability
9
Coordinating
Council.
We're
a
group
of
10
major
power
producers
providing
reliable
11
electricity
to
millions
of
Americans,
and
I
12
guess
I'm
the
lead­
off
batter
for
those
who
13
take
a
somewhat
different
perspective
on
14
today's
hearing.
15
Thanks
for
holding
the
16
hearing
regarding
the
proposed
revisions
to
17
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
18
for
particulate
matter.
I
want
to
19
emphasize
that
today
is
not
a
discussion
of
20
whether
to
regulate
particulate
matter.
21
Particulate
matter
is
already
regulated,
22
and
it
will
be
regulated
even
further
23
pursuant
to
the
'
97
standards,
and
it
will
24
be
regulated
even
further
pursuant
to
the
25
120
proposed
standards.
It
is
a
question
of
1
how
and
what
is
the
best
way
to
approach
2
it.
3
I
wanted
to
get
that
clear
4
right
off
the
beginning
to
demonstrate
5
there's
a
lot
more
common
ground
here
than
6
might
appear
from
the
sort
of
firey
7
rhetoric
that
we
hear
associated
with
this
8
and
other
environmental
issues
that
come
9
before
you
from
time
to
time.
10
ERCC
understands
that
EPA
11
has
come
under
significant
scrutiny
in
its
12
efforts
to
revise
the
PM
NAAQS.
We
support
13
the
notion
that
the
NAAQS
revision
should
14
not
be
an
automatic
exercise.
It
should
15
carefully
review
factors
and
appropriate
16
data
before
reaching
the
conclusion
that
17
revisions
for
criteria
air
pollutants
are
18
justified.
19
In
the
case
of
existing
PM
20
standards,
EPA
has
only
recently
proposed
21
implementation
for
the
1997
fine
PM
22
standard.
Even
before
implementation
of
23
the
previous
standards,
EPA
has
already
24
served
notice
of
its
intent
to
revise
those
25
121
standards.
1
Contrary
to
some
of
the
2
discussion
we
have
heard
today,
the
3
proposed
revisions
do
make
significant
4
changes
to
the
PM
standard.
The
24­
hour
5
standard
is
lower
by
almost
half.
The
new
6
24­
hour
standards
are
suggested
for
7
inhalable
coarse
particles,
and
recent
8
analysis
of
the
proposal
demonstrates
that
9
EPA
modeling
may
have
underestimated
the
10
actual
number
of
nonattainment
designations
11
that
will
result
by
a
factor
of
as
great
as
12
two.
13
I'm
not
going
to
present
14
that
data
here,
but
I
understand
that
15
others
will
be
presenting
it
for
the
record
16
today.
17
Any
argument
that
the
18
proposed
PM
standards
represent
19
insignificant
change
or
lack
of
change
or
20
lack
of
care
are
just
simply
incorrect.
21
And
this
brings
me
to
the
22
discussion
we've
heard
a
lot
of
today
about
23
the
EPA
Clean
Air
Science
Advisory
24
Committee
and
what
role
it
should
play.
It
25
122
goes
without
saying
that
in
the
acronym
1
CASAC,
the
second
"
A"
is
for
Advisory.
2
This
is
not,
and
never
was,
intended
to
be
3
a
delegation
of
EPA
authority
to
an
outside
4
advisory
panel.
I
think
if
you
were
to
5
take
a
consensus
of
administrative
law
6
experts,
they
might
well
tell
you
that
such
7
a
delegation
where
EPA
could
exercise
no
8
discretion
in
what
was
recommended
by
an
9
outside
panel
might
well
make
the
entire
10
section
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
11
unconstitutional.
I
don't
think
that's
12
what's
going
on
here.
13
Not
only
do
I
not
think
14
that's
what's
going
on
here,
I'm
pretty
15
sure
that
even
those
who
defend
CASAC's
16
virtue
at
this
point
are
willing
to
also
17
say,
yes,
but
take
the
lower
numbers
and
18
all
the
ranges
they
propose,
yes,
but
19
ignore
them
when
they
talk
about
particular
20
sources
of
PM,
speciating
particular
21
sources
that
we
think
still
ought
to
be
22
covered.
So
it
is
not
an
automatic
desire
23
to
embrace
CASAC.
24
And
then
one
for
the
irony
25
123
department
for
you,
you
know,
if
you
need
1
to
find
information
regarding
criticism
of
2
the
federal
government
for
listening
too
3
much
to
advisory
panels,
you
need
to
look
4
only
as
far
as
the
legal
challenge
of
the
5
activist
community
to
the
President's
6
National
Energy
Plan,
which
went
all
the
7
way
to
the
Supreme
Court
on
the
notion
that
8
overreliance
on
outside
advisory
panels
9
rendered
what
was
illegal.
10
So
I
guess
it's
a
case
of
11
having
the
cake
and
eating
it,
too.
I
12
would
ask
you
not
to
be
cowed
into
13
accepting
an
advisory
panel
in
lieu
of
14
delegation
of
your
own
authority.
If
some
15
future
CASAC
were
to
recommend,
for
16
example,
no
revisions
to
enact
standard
and
17
EPA
were
to
uncritically
accept
their
18
recommendations,
can
you
imagine
the
howls
19
of
protest
that
would
come
from
some
of
the
20
same
witnesses
we
hear
today
on
that
21
subject.
22
So
CASAC
alone
sprinkling
23
its
unique
brand
of
holy
water
on
results
24
is
insufficient.
EPA
is
right
to
exercise
25
124
its
discretion
and
to
think
critically
1
about
the
information
that
is
presented
2
before
it.
3
Well,
I've
got
a
lot
more
to
4
say
in
my
statement
here.
In
fact,
that
5
whole
last
part
isn't
really
in
the
written
6
statement,
just
little
riffing
for
you
on
7
some
things
that
I
heard
today.
8
As
far
as
the
rest
of
what
I
9
was
going
to
say,
I'll
end
on
a
little
bit
10
of
good
news.
I
know
I
can
yield
back
11
time,
but
it's
not
in
my
nature,
so
I'm
12
going
to
end
on
a
little
bit
of
good
news.
13
We
ought
to
keep
in
mind
14
that
since
1970,
emissions
levels
of
PM
and
15
the
other
five
criteria
of
principal
air
16
pollutants
have
decreased
by
some
48
17
percent.
During
that
same
period,
the
18
economic
growth
rate,
as
measured
by
Gross
19
Domestic
Product,
has
increased
by
164
20
percent
with
energy
consumption
alone
up
by
21
42
percent.
22
In
the
2004
report
on
23
Ambient
Air
Quality
Trends,
Meszler
24
Engineering
examined
EPA
data
from
nearly
25
125
10,000
monitors
looking
over
100
million
1
data
points.
The
study's
authors
2
concluded,
"
Air
quality
in
the
U.
S.
is
3
substantially
better
today
than
at
any
time
4
since
data
began
in
earnest
in
the
1970s."
5
I
leave
you
with
that
6
thought
only
to
say
that
while
addressing
7
particulate
matter
is
significant
and
we
8
should
do
so
and
we
should
do
so
in
a
9
principled
fashion,
great
good
has
already
10
been
done
in
reducing
the
emissions
of
11
criteria
air
pollutants.
12
Thanks
very
much.
13
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Mr.
Segal,
I
14
think
I
heard
you
mention
rate
of
15
nonattainment
in
part
of
your
statement.
16
Do
you
think
that's
relevant
to
either
the
17
form
or
the
level
of
the
NAAQS?
18
MR.
SEGAL:
What
it
is
19
relevant
to
is
an
answer
to
the
critique
20
that
your
proposed
PM
standards,
quote
21
unquote,
do
nothing,
result
in
no
actual
22
change
or
are
an
abdication
of
your
23
responsibility.
Whether
it's
relevant
to
24
the
actual
standard­
setting
for
the
number
25
126
is
not
something
I'm
prepared
to
comment
on
1
right
here,
but
I
am
prepared
to
say
that
2
the
implication
of
the
data
is
that
these
3
are
tough
standards
you're
proposing,
and
4
perhaps
in
the
case
of
the
24­
hour
5
standard,
may
be
not
justified
on
material
6
on
the
record,
but
that
was
the
part
I
7
didn't
talk
about
today.
8
MR.
BACHMANN:
Okay.
9
Thanks.
10
Our
next
panelists
are
Paul
11
Billings
and
Alan
Schaeffer.
12
Okay,
Mr.
Billings.
When
13
you're
ready.
14
MR.
BILLINGS:
Good
morning.
15
I'm
Paul
Billings,
B­
I­
L­
L­
I­
N­
G­
S,
Vice
16
President
of
National
Policy
and
Advocacy
17
for
the
American
Lung
Association.
18
Air
pollution
kills.
In
19
recognition
of
this
reality,
a
decade
ago,
20
EPA
set
a
new
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
21
Standard
for
PM2.5.
Since
then,
2000
22
studies
have
looked
at
the
pollutant
and
23
confirmed
the
conclusions
that
a
range
of
24
serious
health
effects
are
caused
by
25
127
particles.
1
Particle
pollution
is
2
ubiquitous.
It
comes
from
many
sources,
3
stationary
sources
like
the
facilities
that
4
Scott
Segal
represents,
the
coal­
fired
5
power
plants,
mobile
sources
including
6
diesel
trucks,
buses
and
heavy
equipment.
7
Certainly
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
are
8
significant
sources
of
particle
pollution,
9
and
agricultural
and
mining
operations,
10
too.
11
These
range
of
health
12
effects
that
particles
cause,
EPA
well
13
documents
them
in
the
proposal.
The
most
14
serious
health
effect
is
premature
15
mortality,
death.
Tens
of
thousands
of
16
lives
are
shortened
every
year
by
particle
17
pollution.
In
addition,
particle
pollution
18
causes
a
wide
range
of
respiratory
19
morbidity,
including
hospital
admissions,
20
visits
to
ERs,
reduced
lung
function
and
21
other
respiratory
symptoms.
22
What
does
this
mean
in
lay
23
terms?
We
have
heard
about
it
today
from
a
24
family,
but
it's
coughing,
wheezing,
25
128
shortness
of
breath,
asthma
attacks,
what
1
is
commonly
referred
to
as
heart
attack.
2
PM2.5
is
also
linked
to
lung
cancer.
3
Who's
at
risk?
Well,
4
perhaps
these
are
questions,
who's
not
at
5
risk.
But
I
will
talk
about
who
is
6
included
in
that
list.
7
People
with
asthma,
chronic
8
obstructive
pulmonary
disease,
emphysema,
9
chronic
bronchitis,
people
with
10
cardiovascular
disease
and
diabetes
are
at
11
risk.
In
addition,
EPA
has
identified
12
older
adults,
our
parents
and
grandparents.
13
They're
a
sensitive
group,
as
are
children,
14
or
is
it
EPA's
terms,
the
very
young.
15
EPA
highlights
many
reasons
16
why
children
are
more
susceptible
to
PM's
17
related
health
effects,
including
that
18
children
are
more
active
outdoors.
As
my
19
11­
year­
old
would
say,
"
duh."
20
Further
evidence
suggests
21
that
people
of
lower
socioeconomic
strata
22
and
people
who
live
in
levels
of
high
23
exposure
are
more
vulnerable.
24
So
to
recap,
who's
at
risk?
25
129
Millions
and
millions
of
Americans.
People
1
with
some
of
the
most
prevalent
chronic
2
disease,
lung
disease,
heart
disease,
3
diabetes,
our
children,
our
seniors
and
4
people
who
live
near
roads
and
people
5
living
in
poverty.
6
It's
a
good
thing
that
7
Congress,
when
they
wrote
the
Clean
Air
Act
8
and
designed
the
National
Ambient
Air
9
Quality
Standards
not
simply
to
protect
a
10
reasonably
healthy,
middle­
aged
man
like
11
me,
but
the
most
sensitive,
the
most
12
vulnerable
in
our
society.
That
is
why
the
13
American
Lung
Association
is
so
perplexed
14
by
the
EPA
proposal.
15
The
statute
is
clear.
The
16
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
17
shall
allow
for
an
adequate
margin
of
18
safety,
and
be
requisite
to
protect
public
19
health.
Incredibly,
the
EPA
proposal
for
20
new
standards
fails
in
both
counts.
It's
21
not
a
level
that's
requisite
to
protect
22
public
health,
and
certainly,
there's
no
23
margin
of
safety.
24
The
American
Lung
25
130
Association
strongly
supports
the
most
1
protective
standards
considered
by
the
EPA
2
staff
and
scientific
advisors.
We
support
3
an
annual
standard
of
no
higher
than
12
4
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
24­
hour
5
standard
of
25.
The
EPA
should
change
the
6
form
of
that
standard
to
the
99th
7
percentile.
8
Cleaning
the
air
to
these
9
levels
would
provide
the
most
protection
of
10
public
health.
At
a
minimum,
this
is
the
11
level
that's
requisite
to
protect
public
12
health
and
provide
a
margin
of
safety.
13
Furthermore,
EPA
should
set
a
more
14
stringent
standard,
25
to
30
micrograms
per
15
cubic
meter,
or
the
24
hours,
for
the
16
coarse
particles,
the
so­
called
PM10
minus
17
two
and
a
half,
again
at
the
99th
18
percentile,
not
based
on
particle
­­
based
19
on
particle
size,
not
based
on
composition
20
or
source.
21
There's
no
acceptable
22
justification
to
exempt
emissions
from
23
mining
and
agricultural
sources.
EPA's
24
proposal
ensures
that
additional
25
131
information
will
not
be
gathered
on
these
1
sources
nor
the
health
impacts.
The
EPA
2
will
exempt
from
monitoring
areas
where
the
3
most
dominant
sources
of
particles
are
4
believed
to
be
agricultural
or
mining
5
operations.
6
The
American
Lung
7
Association
strongly
urges
the
agency
to
8
reconsider
this
approach
which
can
only
be
9
described
as
the
head­
in­
the­
sand
approach.
10
In
closing,
we
implore
you
11
to
set
standards
that
truly
protect
public
12
health,
especially
the
most
vulnerable,
13
like
our
children.
We
recommend
an
annual
14
standard
of
12,
a
daily
of
25,
use
the
99th
15
percent,
and
please,
please,
please
do
not
16
ignore
coarse
particles.
Set
a
standard
17
that
protects
public
health,
25
to
30
at
18
the
99th
percentile.
19
Please
discard
any
20
ill­
advised
approach
to
monitoring,
or
21
should
I
say
not
monitoring
pollution
in
22
communities
that
ignores
agricultural
and
23
mining
sources.
Set
standards
that
truly
24
protect
public
health.
25
132
And
I
just
want
to
respond
1
to
one
question
earlier
in
my
remaining
2
time.
You
mentioned
the
EPA
diesel
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
