1
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1
2
Transcript
of
Public
Hearing
to
Take
Comment
on
3
Two
Proposed
Rules:
4
5
1.
Revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
6
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
7
8
and
9
10
2.
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
11
12
13
March
8,
2006
14
15
Courtyard
Marriott
San
Francisco
Downtown
16
299
Second
Street
17
San
Francisco,
California
94105
18
19
20
Reported
by:
21
Alderson
Reporting
22
Nancy
J.
Palmer,
CERT
00121;
and
23
George
B.
Palmer,
CERT
222
24
25
2
Hearing
Panel:
1
2
LYDIA
WEGMAN,
HEARING
OFFICER
3
SUSAN
STONE,
Director,
Health
and
Environmental
4
Impacts
Division
5
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
6
Ambient
Standards
Group
7
TIM
HANLEY,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
8
and
Standards
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Group
9
JOHN
HANNON,
Office
of
General
Counsel
10
11
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S:
12
13
Carl
Pope,
private
citizen
14
Larry
Greene,
Sacramento
Metropolitan
Air
Quality
15
Management
District
16
John
Balbus,
M.
D.,
Environmental
Defense
17
Robert
Gould,
M.
D.,
Kaiser
Hospital,
San
Francisco
Bay
18
Area
Chapter
of
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility
19
Bart
Ostro,
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
20
Assessment,
California
EPA
21
Lisa
Chamberlain,
M.
D.,
Packard
Children's
Hospital
22
Laurie
Bauer,
Ravenswood
City
School
District
23
Bridgette
Tollstrup,
Sacramento
Metropolitan
Air
Quality
24
Management
District
25
3
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Gina
Solomon,
M.
D.,
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council;
3
U.
C.
San
Francisco,
Pediatric
Environmental
Health
4
Specialty
Unit
5
Sarah
Jackson
(
for
Theodore
Schade,
Air
Pollution
Control
6
Officer
for
the
Great
Basin
Unified
Air
Pollution
7
Control
District)
8
Kevin
Hamilton,
Asthma
Program
at
Community
Medical
9
Centers
10
Jesse
Marquez,
Coalition
for
a
Safe
Environment
11
John
Balmes,
M.
D.,
University
of
California
12
Tom
Politeo,
Sierra
Club
Harbor
Vision
Task
Force
13
Anthony
Gerber,
M.
D.,
University
of
California
San
14
Francisco
15
Jonah
Ramirez,
ten­
years­
old,
American
Lung
Association
16
Richard
Bode,
California
Air
Resources
Board
17
Rajiv
Bhatia,
M.
D.,
Director
of
Environmental
Health,
18
City
of
San
Francisco
19
Michael
Lipsett,
M.
D.
20
John
Sakamoto,
Eichleay
Engineers
of
California
21
Marcie
Keever,
Esq.,
Our
Children's
Earth
Foundation
22
Linda
Weiner,
American
Lung
Association
of
California,
23
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
Clean
Air
Task
Force
24
Laura
Fultz,
private
citizen
25
4
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Kent
Bransford,
M.
D.,
Physicians
for
Social
3
Responsibility
4
Brian
Linde,
M.
D.,
Northern
California
Chapter
of
the
5
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
6
Mary
Cranley,
Nurse
Practitioner
7
Gordon
Fung,
M.
D.,
San
Francisco
Medical
Society,
UCSF
8
Medical
Center
9
Teri
Shore,
Bluewater
Network,
Friends
of
the
Earth
10
Dawn
Sanders­
Koepke,
McHugh
&
Associates,
California
11
Manufacturers
and
Technology
Association
12
Tony
Hansen,
Ph.
D.
13
Francisco
Da
Costa,
Environmental
Justice
Advocacy,
Muwek
14
Maohlone
15
Isaac
Bloom,
Environment
California
for
Northern
16
California
17
Anthony
Myers,
Environment
California
18
Carolina
Simunovic,
Fresno
Metro
Ministry,
Environmental
19
Health
Program
20
Isabella
Simunovic,
infant
daughter
21
Daniela
Simunovic,
Fresno
Metro
Ministry,
Environmental
22
Health
Program
23
Ray
Leon,
Latino
Issues
Forum
24
25
5
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Sarah
Janssen,
M.
D.,
San
Francisco
Physicians
for
Social
3
Responsibility
4
Mark
Oldenkamp,
United
Egg
Producers
5
David
Schonbrunn,
Transportation
Solutions
Defense
and
6
Education
Fund
7
Molly
Martin,
private
citizen
8
Norah
Schwartz,
M.
D.,
El
Colegio
de
la
Frontera
Norte
9
Brent
Newell,
Esq.,
Center
on
Race,
Poverty,
and
the
10
Environment;
the
Center's
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Quality
11
Project
12
Sandy
Garcia,
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Quality
Project
13
Esther
Martinez,
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Quality
Project
14
Rolio
Martinez,
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Quality
Project
15
Santos
Valenzuela,
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Quality
Project
16
David
Pepper,
M.
D.
17
Blakeman
Early,
American
Lung
Association
18
Paul
Cort,
Esq.,
EarthJustice
19
Judy
Levin,
private
citizen
20
Elmer
Grossman,
M.
D.
21
Matthew
Hodges,
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
22
Association
23
24
25
6
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Eric
Meyer,
for
Assemblywoman
Loni
Hancock,
Chair
of
the
3
California
Assembly
Natural
Resources
Committee
4
David
Chatfield,
Californians
for
Pesticide
Reform
(
and
5
for
Teresa
DeAnda,
CPR)
6
Dennis
Bolt,
Western
States
Petroleum
Association
7
Frances
Spivy­
Weber,
Policy
at
the
Mono
Lake
Committee
8
Matt
Mengarelli,
private
citizen
9
Patricia
Monahan,
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
10
Emily
Lee,
Pacific
Institute
11
Anna
Mills,
Mono
Lake
Committee
member
12
Kelly
Runyan,
Mono
Lake
Committee
member
13
Mel
Zeldin,
California
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
14
Association
15
Seth
Silverman,
Students
for
a
Sustainable
Stanford
16
Kaitlin
Sanford,
Students
for
a
Sustainable
Stanford
17
Samantha
Staley,
Center
on
Environment
and
Energy,
18
Stanford
Chapter
of
the
Roosevelt
Institution
19
Jonas
Ketterle,
Center
on
Environment
and
Energy,
20
Stanford
Chapter
of
the
Roosevelt
Institution
21
Marc
Geller,
Plug
In
America
22
Jenny
Bard,
American
Lung
Association
of
California,
23
Redwood
Empire
Branch
24
25
7
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Bruce
Young,
private
citizen
3
Karen
Robertson
Strain,
American
Heart
Association,
4
Health
Network
for
Clean
Air
member
5
Andy
Reimers,
private
citizen
6
Dennis
Ransel,
Clark
County
of
Nevada
Department
of
Air
7
Quality
and
Environmental
Management
8
Everett
Olsen,
retired
science
teacher
9
Carolyn
Casavan,
Southern
California
Rocks
Product
10
Association
11
Dorothy
Alther,
Owens
Valley
Indian
Water
Commission
12
Paula
Stigler,
Air
Quality
Specialist,
Pala
Band
of
13
Mission
Indians
14
Monique
Sullivan,
Environment
California
15
Kirsten
Clemmensen,
Environment
California
16
Mauricio
Garzon,
Environment
California
17
Laura
Kowler,
Environment
California
18
David
Wyman,
citizen,
Environment
California
19
Jessica
Giannini,
CALPIRG
20
Reverend
Sally
Bingham,
Environmental
Minister,
Grace
21
Cathedral
22
Moira
Chapin,
Environment
California
23
Adam
Harper,
California
Mining
Association
24
25
8
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Ron
Wyzga,
Ph.
D.,
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
3
Lee
Jones,
private
citizen
4
Michelle
Steele,
Environment
California
5
John
Kisman,
Edison
Electric
Institute
6
Janis
Kim,
M.
D.
7
Douglas
Kerr,
M.
D.
8
Annemarie
Donjacour,
private
citizen
9
Harold
Farber,
M.
D.
10
Kathleen
Foree,
Social
Responsibility
Committee
at
11
Epiphany
Parish,
member
12
Tamara
Theis,
National
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association
13
Scott
Nester,
San
Joaquin
Valley
Unified
Air
Pollution
14
Control
District
15
Margaret
Gordon,
West
Oakland
Environmental
Indicators
16
Project
17
Karen
Lindholdt,
Safe
Air
for
Everyone
18
Larry
Alba,
private
citizen
19
Darrel
Sweet,
private
citizen
20
Gordon
Matassa,
Mono
Lake
Committee
member
21
Cosette
Dudley,
private
citizen
22
Steve
Ziman,
Ph.
D.,
American
Petroleum
Institute
23
Marcie
Pinkard,
M.
D.
24
25
9
S
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
continued:
1
2
Tommaso
Boggia,
California
Public
Interest
Research
Group
3
Diane
Vornoli,
private
citizen,
Mono
Lake
Committee
4
member
5
Mercedes
Corbell,
M.
D.
6
Aubrry
Stone,
California
Black
Chamber
of
Commerce
7
Neal
Desai,
Nonpartisan
National
Parks
Conservation
8
Association
9
Lauri
Tanner,
private
citizen
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
9:
09
a.
m.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
morning,
3
everyone.
I
think
we'll
get
started
with
our
4
hearing.
My
name
is
Lydia
Wegman.
And
I
want
to
5
thank
you
all
for
attending
this
morning,
the
6
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Public
Hearing
on
7
our
Two
Proposed
Rules
for
Particulate
Matter.
8
Can
everybody
hear
me
all
right?
First
9
let's
just
check
that.
Okay,
seeing
no
problem.
10
I
recognize
many
of
you
have
traveled
a
11
good
distance
to
come
to
this
hearing
and
I
12
appreciate
the
time
you
have
taken
and
any
money
you
13
have
spent
to
be
here,
because
we
very
much
14
appreciate
your
interest
in
these
proposed
rules.
15
As
I
said,
my
name
is
Lydia
Wegman.
I'm
the
16
Director
of
the
Health
and
Environmental
Impacts
17
Division
in
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
18
Standards,
which
is
part
of
the
Office
of
Air
and
19
Radiation
in
North
Carolina.
20
I'm
going
to
be
the
Chair
of
today's
Public
21
Hearing.
And
we
are
obviously
here
to
listen
to
your
22
comments
about
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
23
Standards
Proposal
for
Particulate
Matter
and
also
24
our
Proposed
Revisions
to
our
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
25
11
Regulations.
1
This
of
course
is
an
opportunity
to
comment
2
on
our
proposed
rules.
We,
the
panel,
who
I
will
3
introduce
in
a
minute,
may
ask
you
questions
to
4
clarify
your
comments,
but
we
are
obviously
not
here
5
to
debate
or
discuss
the
proposals.
Our
chief
6
purpose
in
being
here
is
to
hear
your
comments
on
7
those
proposals.
8
I
want
to
take
a
moment
to
briefly
describe
9
the
proposal
that
are
the
subject
of
today's
hearing.
10
As
I
think
most
of
you
know,
the
proposals
were
11
published
on
January
17th.
12
Particulate
matter,
also
known
as
particle
13
pollution,
includes
a
mixture
of
solids
and
liquid
14
droplets.
They
come
in
a
wide
range
of
sizes.
Some
15
are
emitted
directly
and
others
are
formed
in
the
16
atmosphere
when
pollutant
emissions,
such
as
sulfur
17
oxide,
nitrogen
oxides,
ammonia,
or
volatile
organic
18
compounds
react
together
chemically.
19
Exposure
to
such
particles
has
been
20
associated
with
premature
death
as
well
as
21
significant
adverse
cardiovascular
and
respiratory
22
effects.
23
Our
proposed
rules
address
two
categories
24
of
particles:
First,
fine
particles
or
PM2.5
which
25
12
are
2.5
micrometers
in
diameter
or
smaller;
and
1
inhalable
course
particles,
or
PM10­
2.5,
which
2
are
particles
smaller
than
10
micrometers
in
diameter
3
but
larger
than
PM2.5.
4
We've
had
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
5
Standards
for
PM2.5
since
1997
and
for
PM10
since
6
1987.
And
we
of
course
have
proposed
revisions
to
7
these
standards
and
requested
comments
on
a
range
of
8
alternative
standards
for
both
fine
and
inhalable
9
course
particles.
10
The
Proposed
Revisions
address
both
Primary
11
Standards,
which
address
public
health,
and
Secondary
12
Standards
designed
to
protect
public
welfare,
13
including
visibility
impairment.
14
Our
proposal
with
respect
to
the
two
15
Primary
Standards,
one,
our
first
proposal
was
to
16
lower
the
level
of
the
24­
Hour
Fine
Particle
Standard
17
from
the
current
level
of
65
micrograms
per
cubic
18
meter
to
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
And
we've
19
requested
comment
on
a
range
of
alternatives,
20
including
retaining
the
current
level
of
the
standard
21
at
65
and
on
levels
between
25
and
65
micrograms
per
22
cubic
meter
and
on
alternative
approaches
for
23
selecting
the
level
of
the
standard.
24
As
far
as
the
Annual
Standard
goes
we
have
25
13
proposed
to
retain
the
current
level
of
the
Annual
1
Standard
at
15
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
are
2
considering
and
taking
public
comment
on
a
range
of
3
levels
from
15
to
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
4
We
are
proposing
to
establish
a
new
5
indicator
for
inhalable
course
particles.
And
the
6
Proposed
New
PM10­
2.5
Standard
has
been
7
qualified
to
include
any
ambient
mix
of
PM10
minus
8
2.5
where
the
majority
of
course
particles
is
9
resuspended
dust
from
high­
density
traffic
on
paved
10
roads
and
particulate
matter
generated
by
industrial
11
sources
and
construction
sources.
12
And
we
are
proposing
to
exclude
any
ambient
13
mix
of
PM1025
where
the
majority
of
course
particles
14
is
rural
wind­
blown
dust
and
soils
and
particulate
15
matter
generated
by
agricultural
and
mining
sources.
16
We
propose
setting
a
24­
hour
standard
for
these
17
particles
at
70
grams
per
cubic
meter.
18
And
our
Proposed
Regulations
for
19
agricultural
sources,
mining
sources,
and
other
20
similar
sources
of
crustal
materials
shall
not
be
21
subject
to
control
in
meeting
this
standard.
22
And
we
have
requested
comment
on
a
level
23
down
to
50
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
on
24
selecting
an
unqualified
PM1025
indicator.
25
14
We've
also
asked
for
comment
on
whether
we
1
should
retain
the
current
PM10
standard
in
place
of
2
this
Proposed
Inhalable
Course
Particle
Standard
of
3
PM1025;
and
on
whether
or
not
we
should
establish
a
4
course
particle
standard
at
this
time,
pending
the
5
development
of
a
course­
particle
monitoring
network
6
and
further
research
on
the
health
effects
related
to
7
course
particles.
8
With
respect
to
the
Secondary
Standards
to
9
protect
public
welfare,
we
propose
that
the
Secondary
10
Standards
be
identical
to
the
primary
health­
based
11
standards
and
have
requested
comment
on
setting
a
12
subdaily,
four­
to­
eight­
hour
averaging
time
PM2.5
13
standard
to
address
visibility
impairment
within
a
14
range
of
20­
to
30­
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
15
If
we
were
to
set
a
PM1025
standard
the
16
question
arises
as
to
what
happens
to
our
current
17
PM10
standards.
We've
proposed
that
current
18
scientific
evidence
does
not
support
setting
an
19
annual
standard
for
inhalable
course
particles
and
20
have
proposed
to
revoke
the
current
annual
PM10
21
standards
in
all
areas.
22
And
if
we
do
finalize
a
24­
hour
standard
23
for
PM1025,
we
propose
to
revoke
the
current
24­
hour
24
PM10
standard
except
in
those
areas
that
have
at
25
15
least
one
monitor
located
in
an
urbanized
area
with
a
1
minimum
population
of
100,000
people
and
it
has
2
measured
a
violation
of
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
3
based
on
the
most
recent
three
years
of
data.
4
That's
the
summary
of
our
proposal
on
the
5
PM
NAAQS,
and
then
we
have
a
second
rule
on
which
6
we've
proposed
revisions
to
the
Ambient
Air
7
Monitoring
Requirements
for
criteria
pollutants
and
8
those
proposed
changes
would
support
proposed
9
revisions
to
the
NAAQS,
as
I've
just
described,
10
including
new
minimum­
monitoring
network
requirements
11
for
the
PM1025
particles
and
criteria
for
approval
of
12
applicable
sampling
methods.
13
These
changes
would
also
establish
a
new
14
nationwide
network
of
monitoring
stations
that
take
15
an
integrated
multi­
pollutant
approach
to
ambient
air
16
monitoring.
The
proposed
amendments
would
modify
the
17
current
requirements
for
ambient
air
monitors
and
18
would
focus
requirements
on
populated
areas
with
air
19
quality
problems.
20
And
the
aim
of
these
proposed
changes
is
to
21
enhance
our
ambient
air
quality
monitoring
to
better
22
serve
current
and
future
air
quality
management
and
23
research
needs.
24
We
have
fact
sheets
on
both
of
these
25
16
proposed
rules
for
those
of
you
who
would
like
some
1
additional
information.
2
Turning
to
today's
hearing,
this
is
one
of
3
three
public
hearings
we're
holding
today
on
these
4
two
rules.
The
other
two
are
in
Chicago
and
5
Philadelphia.
We
will
be
preparing
a
written
6
transcript
of
today's
hearings.
And
we
have
two
7
court
reporters
here
working
on
that,
Nancy
and
8
George
Palmer,
who
are
helping
us
out.
And
we're
9
very
appreciative
of
their
efforts.
These
10
transcripts
will
be
available
as
part
of
the
official
11
record
for
each
of
these
rules.
12
The
comment
period
on
these
rules
is
open
13
until
April
17th.
And
if
you
are
interested
in
14
submitting
written
comments,
we
do
have
a
handout
in
15
the
registration
area
that
will
tell
you
more
about
16
what
you
need
to
do
to
get
comments
to
us.
17
The
way
we're
going
to
work
the
hearing
18
today
is
I'm
going
to
call
speakers
in
pairs
of
two.
19
And
when
you
come
forward,
please
state
your
name
20
and
your
affiliation.
And,
if
you
can,
spell
your
21
name
for
the
court
reporters,
that
would
be
very
22
helpful.
23
We
are
asking
everyone
to
please
limit
your
24
testimony
to
five
minutes.
We
have
a
very
full
day.
25
17
At
this
point
we
are
scheduled
to
go
till
9:
30
1
tonight.
And
so
we
are
going
to
be
fairly
vigilant
2
in
ensuring
everybody
limits
their
testimony
to
five
3
minutes.
4
After
you've
finished
your
testimony
one
of
5
our
panel
members
may
ask
you
clarifying
questions.
6
And
we
of
course
would
give
you
time
to
answer
those
7
questions.
If
you
do
have
a
written
copy
of
your
8
statement,
please
give
that
to
the
staff
at
the
9
registration
table.
And
we
will
put
the
full
text
of
10
your
written
comments
into
the
docket.
11
We
have
a
timekeeping
system
here
of
green,
12
yellow,
and
red
lights.
When
you
begin
speaking
the
13
green
light
will
come
on.
You
have
five
minutes.
At
14
the
two­
minute
mark
the
yellow
light
will
come
on.
15
And
when
the
five
minutes
is
up,
the
red
light
will
16
come
on.
17
Let
me
also
say
that
if
you
are
here
and
18
you
want
to
testify
please,
please,
please
sign
in.
19
We
have
a
system
of
registration.
It's
very
20
important
to
know
who
is
here,
who
has
come,
has
21
signed
up.
And
if
others
have
arrived
who
want
to
22
speak
and
you've
not
signed
up,
please
do
go
to
the
23
registration
table.
We
plan
to
stay
until
everyone
24
is
done
speaking.
So
if
you
have
not
signed
up
and
25
18
want
to
speak,
please
feel
free
to
do
that.
1
We
have
tried
to
accommodate
everyone's
2
request
for
specific
time
slots.
Obviously
we
are
3
not
going
to
match
your
time
slot
exactly
since
we're
4
already
running
a
little
late,
but
please
be
a
little
5
forgiving
of
us
if
we're
not
exactly
on
time
and
when
6
you
were
expecting
to
speak.
And
we
do
appreciate
7
your
patience.
8
The
other
EPA
folks
on
the
panel
here
are
9
Susan
Stone.
She
works
with
me
in
the
Office
of
Air
10
Quality
Planning
and
Standards.
Tim
Hanley,
who
also
11
works
with
me
in
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
12
and
Standards.
And
John
Hannon,
who
is
with
our
13
Office
of
General
Counsel
in
Washington,
D.
C.
14
Again,
thank
you
all
for
participating
15
today.
And
we
will
now
get
started.
Our
first
two
16
witnesses
are
Carl
Pope
and
Larry
Greene.
17
All
right,
Mr.
Pope.
18
MR.
POPE:
Good
morning.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
morning.
20
MR.
POPE:
I
have
submitted
a
formal
21
statement.
I
am
not
going
to
read
it.
I
am
going
to
22
speak
from
the
heart.
23
It
is
conventional
to
say
that
you're
24
pleased
and
honored
to
be
present
at
hearings
like
25
19
this.
I
am
saddened.
1
This
rulemaking
amounts
to
a
statement
by
2
the
government
of
the
United
States,
which
is
sworn
3
to
protect
and
keep
safe
the
citizens
of
the
United
4
States,
that
it
is
willing
to
sentence
thousands
of
5
them
to
unnecessary
early
death.
6
The
Agency's
justification
for
this
7
approach
is
that
it
does
not
know
precisely
how
many
8
thousands
of
Americans
will
die
as
a
result
of
the
9
inadequacies
of
this
rule
and
that
it
does
not
know
10
how
to
protect
those
Americans
without
cleaning
up
11
innocent
particulate
matter
as
well
as
guilty
12
particulate
matter.
13
The
essence
of
this
rulemaking
is
that
the
14
rights
of
fine
and
course
particles
and
those
who
15
emit
them
have
been
allowed
to
trump
the
safety
and
16
health
of
thousands
of
Americans.
17
Let's
look
at
a
couple
of
the
problems.
18
First,
46
million
Americans
apparently
do
19
not
have
lungs
or
if
they
have
lungs
they
have
lungs
20
which
function
differently
because
they
live
in
rural
21
areas.
A
course
particle
standard
simply
will
not
22
apply
to
these
Americans.
The
Agency
has
absolutely
23
no
scientific
basis
for
this
exclusion.
24
I
do
not
believe
there
is
a
single
official
25
20
in
the
Agency
who
under
oath
would
say
that
the
1
scientific
justification
showing
that
this
exclusion
2
will
fully
protect
the
public
health
of
those
3
Americans
is
stronger
than
the
evidence
which
the
4
Agency
has
described
as
inadequate
for
promulgating
5
more
stringent,
more
protective
standards.
6
Second,
the
Agency
has
said
that
if
lead,
7
chromium,
asbestos,
copper,
beryllium,
cadmium,
8
pesticides,
volatile
organics
are
emitted
as
9
particulates
from
mining
operations
or
agriculture,
10
they
are
somehow
not
hazardous
to
the
health
of
11
Americans
who
breathe
them.
12
The
Agency
since
1980
has
spent
billions
of
13
dollars
attempting,
manfully
but
often
14
unsuccessfully,
to
clean
up
mining
wastes.
Suddenly
15
we
are
told
that
when
these
mining
wastes,
which
16
warranted
billions
of
dollars
of
public
expenditure
17
when
they
were
in
the
ground,
become
airborne
they
18
are
no
longer
a
problem.
19
And,
finally,
the
Agency
has
declined
20
explicitly
and
repeatedly
to
follow
the
clear
21
statutory
language
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
There
are
22
many
aspects
of
Clean
Air
regulation
in
which
EPA
is
23
asked
to
balance.
In
some
cases
I
would
suggest
the
24
Agency
is
often
asked
to
balance
so
many
variables
25
21
that
it
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
to
do
its
job.
1
But
in
one
area
the
Agency
is
given
a
clear
2
mandate:
When
it
sets
a
national
air
quality
3
standard
it
is
not
to
protect
some
of
the
people
who
4
might
die
from
that
pollution.
It
is
not
to
protect
5
a
reasonable
percentage
of
those
people
or
a
6
convenient
or
cost­
effective
proportion.
7
Its
duty
and
its
only
statutory
authority
8
in
setting
such
a
standard
is
to
fully
protect
9
everyone
with
a
margin
of
error.
And
repeatedly
in
10
its
justification
of
this
rulemaking
the
Agency
has
11
said
that
it
was
trying
to
balance
and
to
ensure
that
12
it
was
neither
too
stringent
nor
too
lax.
I
can't
13
conceive
of
how
the
Administrator
would
explain
how
14
that
language
is
consistent
with
the
requirement
for
15
a
margin
of
safety
for
the
public
health.
16
I
am
not
a
scientist.
The
Agency
has
many
17
fine
scientists
to
whom
it
should
listen.
I
am
not
a
18
lawyer.
The
statute
is
clear:
This
rulemaking
is
19
reckless,
it
is
dangerous,
it
is
in
violation
of
the
20
Agency's
moral
obligations,
and
it
is
illegal.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Pope.
22
Mr.
Greene.
23
MR.
GREENE:
The
mics
seem
to
be
facing
24
this
direction.
25
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
That's
true.
1
MR.
POPE:
Facing
right.
2
MR.
GREENE:
Okay.
Ready
to
go?
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
Sorry.
4
MR.
GREENE:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
5
Larry
Greene
and
I'm
the
Executive
Director
of
the
6
Sacramento
Metropolitan
Air
Quality
Management
7
District,
and
you
have
this
written
testimony
up
8
there.
9
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
STAPPA
and
10
ALAPCO,
the
national
associations
representing
air
11
and
local
air
pollution
control
agencies
throughout
12
the
country.
13
We
have
three
major
concerns
with
EPA's
14
proposal:
The
levels
of
PM2.5
standards,
source­
and­
15
population
exemptions
associated
with
the
Course
16
Particle
Standard,
and
the
lack
of
funding
for
17
monitoring.
18
First,
we
find
it
very
troubling
that
EPA's
19
revisions
to
the
Annual
and
Daily
PM2.5
Standards
are
20
outside
the
ranges
recommended
by
CASAC,
a
21
Congressionally­
chartered
group
of
outside
scientific
22
experts.
23
While
CASAC
recommended
tightening
the
24
Annual
PM2.5
Standard
in
conjunction
with
lowering
25
23
the
Daily
Standard,
EPA
totally
ignored
this
1
recommendation.
2
With
respect
to
the
Annual
Standard,
the
3
Agency
proposed
no
changes
at
all,
even
though
CASAC
4
told
EPA
it
did
not
endorse
the
option
of
keeping
the
5
Annual
Standard
at
the
present
level.
Even
EPA's
own
6
staff
paper
indicates
that
more
deaths
from
fine
PM
7
are
avoided
by
lowering
the
Annual
Average
Standard
8
than
by
lowering
the
Daily
Standard.
9
With
respect
to
the
Daily
Standard
the
10
CASAC
recommended
a
range
of
limits.
It
made
the
11
upper
end
of
the
range
conditional
on
tightening
the
12
Annual
Standard.
Regretfully,
EPA
has
chosen
the
13
upper
limit
of
CASAC's
Recommended
Daily
Standard
14
without
the
important
condition
of
tightening
the
15
Annual
Standard.
16
Unless
EPA
strengthens
its
proposal
17
consistent
with
the
recommendations
of
CASAC,
our
18
associations
are
extremely
concerned
we
will
continue
19
to
see
significant
increased
premature
mortality
and
20
adverse
health
effects
throughout
the
country.
21
Our
second
concern
with
EPA's
proposal
22
relates
to
the
Course
PM
Standard.
While
we
support
23
the
adoption
of
such
a
standard,
we
believe
EPA's
24
proposal
is
seriously
flawed
in
two
major
respects.
25
24
We
are
deeply
troubled
that
the
proposal
1
exempts
from
control
major
sources
contributing
2
significantly
to
course
PM
emissions,
including
3
agriculture,
mining,
and
other
sources
of
crustal
4
material.
Excluding
those
sources
implies
their
5
emissions
are
not
harmful,
yet
EPA
does
not
present
6
any
such
evidence.
7
On
the
contrary,
it
is
likely
that
course
8
particles
from
agriculture
and
mining
activities
pose
9
risks
similar
to
course
urban
PM.
These
exemptions
10
also
pose
insurmountable
implementation
problems
for
11
states
and
local
agencies.
12
For
example,
are
mining
and
agricultural
13
activities
that
occur
in
or
near
urban
areas
to
be
14
exempted
from
controls,
even
if
they
are
a
dominant
15
source
of
course
PM
emissions
in
that
area?
16
We
are
also
extremely
concerned
that
EPA's
17
Proposed
Course
PM
Standard
has
the
practical
effect
18
of
ignoring
the
health
and
welfare
of
millions
of
19
people
throughout
the
country
living
in
areas
with
20
populations
less
than
100,000.
Exempting
those
areas
21
from
monitoring
their
air
quality
is
an
unprecedented
22
action
and
completely
ignores
the
recommendations
of
23
CASAC.
24
Moreover,
we
do
not
believe
the
Clean
Air
25
25
Act
makes
any
provision
for
selective
protection
of
1
public
health.
Accordingly,
we
urge
EPA
to
rescind
2
those
exemptions
from
course
PM.
3
Finally,
while
it
is
critical
that
EPA
4
establish
NAAQS
that
are
fully
protective
of
public
5
health
and
welfare,
it
is
also
vitally
important
that
6
we
have
adequate
monitoring
networks
that
allow
the
7
public
to
know
their
air
is
safe
to
breathe.
8
Unfortunately,
EPA's
proposal
and
the
2007
budget
9
request
ignore
the
important
funding
issues
10
associated
with
deploying
and
operating
networks
of
11
both
PM2.5
and
course
PM.
12
With
respect
to
PM2.5
EPA
has
made
no
13
provision
to
increase
federal
funding
to
address
the
14
expanded
monitoring
requirements
for
that
new
15
standard.
In
fact,
the
President's
proposed
budget
16
for
FY2007
slashes
fine
particle
monitoring
by
$
17
17
million,
which
will
severely
weaken
existing
18
monitoring
programs
and
likely
result
in
significant
19
staff
cuts
throughout
the
country.
20
Agencies
will
have
serious
difficulties
21
rehiring
personnel
who
have
been
laid
off
as
a
result
22
of
these
budget
cuts
and
who
would
have
been
expected
23
to
operate
these
monitoring
networks.
24
We
urge
that
the
proposed
FY2007
budget
25
26
cuts
be
restored
and
that
EPA
provide
funding
in
2008
1
to
expand
the
PM2.5
monitoring
program.
2
We
are
also
troubled
that
EPA
has
ignored
3
our
commitment
to
funding
the
proposed
PM
course
4
network
scheduled
for
deployment
in
FY2008.
EPA
has
5
estimated
that
the
capital
cost
of
this
monitoring
6
network
could
easily
exceed
$
14
million,
with
annual
7
operating
expenses
of
approximately
$
13
million.
8
State
and
local
agencies
will
simply
not
be
able
to
9
assume
those
significant
cuts.
We
urge
EPA
to
10
provide
new
funding
in
2008
for
a
course
PM
11
monitoring
network.
12
In
conclusion,
we
strongly
recommend
that
13
EPA
follow
CASAC's
recommendations
in
setting
the
14
PM2.5
Air
Quality
Standards;
establish
a
course
15
particle
standard
without
exemptions;
and
require
PM
16
monitors
in
rural
areas;
and,
four,
commit
to
17
providing
additional,
not
reprogram
funds
for
PM2.5
18
and
course
monitoring.
19
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
20
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much,
22
Mr.
Greene.
23
MR.
GREENE:
All
right.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Any
questions?
25
27
MR.
HANNON:
Mr.
Greene,
I
have
one
1
question.
You
mentioned
that
there
would
be
2
insurmountable
implementation
problems
with
the
3
states
in
implementing
the
exclusion
on
­­
or
I
4
should
say
the
prohibition
on
controls
by
states
in
5
ag
and
mining
for
purposes
of
the
course
PM.
6
In
your
written
comments
it
would
be
useful
7
to
go
into
some
detail
on
that,
just
so
we
understand
8
exactly
what
the
problems
are.
And
I
think
also
9
differentiating,
being
clear
whether
the
problems
are
10
implementation
problems
or
science­
based
problems.
11
You
know,
the
science
behind
the
prohibition
as
well
12
as
the
­­
if
the
science
is
fine
or
assuming
the
13
science
were
fine,
what
are
the
specific
14
implementation
problems.
15
MR.
GREENE:
Certainly
will
do
that.
Thank
16
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
both
very
18
much.
19
A
couple
of
details
here.
I
don't
know
if
20
it's
possible
for
the
person
to
get
rid
of
their
21
ringing
we're
getting
on
the
sound
system.
22
And
also
­­
well,
maybe
we'll
wait
just
a
23
minute.
Yeah,
can
the
mic
move
back
and
forth
24
or...
okay.
Okay,
great.
25
28
Alina,
should
I
wait
a
minute
before
1
calling
or...
2
All
right.
Next
­­
I
guess
we'll
work
on
3
this.
But
I'll
ask
our
next
two
speakers
to
come
4
forward:
John
Balbus
and
Robert
Gould
are
the
next
5
two
speakers.
And
we'll
take
just
a
minute
to
try
to
6
get
the
sound
system
to
function
a
little
better.
7
DR.
BALBUS:
Is
there
only
one
live
mic
8
here?
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
No.
There
­­
10
MR.
HANNON:
It
doesn't
matter.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Those
both
are
live
12
and
they
are
­­
they
do
move,
so,
yes.
13
Are
you
hearing
all
right?
14
THE
REPORTER:
We're
doing
fine.
Thanks.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Good.
16
Until
the
sound
system
gets
set
up
again.
17
DR.
BALBUS:
I'm
waiting
on
you,
right,
or
18
are
we
ready
to
go?
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
are
waiting
on
the
20
sound
system,
I
think.
21
Are
we
ready,
Alina,
to
­­
okay,
good.
22
DR.
BALBUS:
We
don't
have
to
reset
the
23
clock
or
anything
like
that?
I
can
see
­­
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
No,
no.
That
didn't
25
29
count
against
you.
Okay,
and
please
do
speak
into
1
the
mic
so
that
the
rest
of
the
room
can
hear.
Okay.
2
DR.
BALBUS:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
John
3
Balbus.
I'm
a
physician
Board
certified
in
internal
4
medicine
and
occupational
medicine,
and
I
direct
the
5
Health
Program
for
the
nonprofit
Environmental
6
Defense,
a
group
with
400,000
members
around
the
7
country
that's
committed
to
preserving
our
climate,
8
oceans,
biodiversity,
and
human
health.
9
While
I'm
based
in
Washington,
D.
C.
it's
10
very
appropriate
that
I
make
these
comments
in
11
California.
California
is
where
people
suffer
from
12
our
nation's
worst
air
quality.
It's
where
some
of
13
the
most
crucial
studies
have
been
done,
14
demonstrating
the
harm
that
comes
from
exposure
to
15
particulate
matter.
And
it's
where
some
of
the
most
16
innovative,
collaborative,
and
positive
solutions
to
17
air
pollution
can
be
found.
18
The
cornerstone
of
our
nation's
efforts
to
19
solve
our
air
pollution
problems
is
to
setting
a
20
science­
based
national
standards
for
the
most
serious
21
air
pollutants.
Standards
that
make
clear
to
the
22
public
the
types
and
amounts
of
air
pollution
that
23
are
harmful
to
them.
24
The
Proposed
Particulate
Matter
Standards
25
30
fall
far
short
of
the
mandate
and
the
spirit
of
the
1
Clean
Air
Act.
The
EPA
has
diverted
from
the
2
recommendations
of
its
scientists
and
advisory
panels
3
to
weaken
public
health
protections
in
very
serious
4
ways.
5
Specifically,
the
Annual
Standard
left
6
unchanged
at
15
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
is
outside
7
of
the
range
recommended
by
the
Clean
Air
Science
8
Advisory
Council,
which
I'll
refer
to
as
the
CASAC
9
from
here
on
in,
and
clearly
above
the
level
where
10
exposure
can
be
expected
to
lead
to
significant
11
numbers
of
premature
deaths
based
on
scientific
12
evidence.
13
The
new
JAMA
study
that
was
publicized
14
yesterday
only
is
one
more
study
added
to
hundreds
of
15
studies
that
clearly
show
harm
­­
disease,
16
hospitalization,
and
death
at
levels
below
the
17
current
standard.
18
Next,
the
categorical
exemptions
for
the
19
agricultural
and
mining
industries
from
the
Course
20
Particulate
Standard
are
unprecedented
and
did
not
21
come
from
any
official
recommendations
of
EPA
staff
22
or
the
CASAC.
23
Last,
the
categorical
exclusion
of
most
of
24
the
country
from
the
Course
Particulate
Standards
25
31
with
the
exception
of
urbanized
areas
with
1
populations
greater
than
100,000
in
combination
with
2
the
shutting
off
of
course
particulate
monitors
3
outside
the
urbanized
areas,
this
was
not
recommended
4
to
the
Administrator.
5
There
are
strong
science­
based
reasons
why
6
EPA
staff
and
the
CASAC
did
not
recommend
these
7
provisions.
The
written
comments
that
we
will
8
provide
will
give
the
basis
in
the
scientific
9
literature
for
concluding
that
these
Proposed
10
Standards
and
actions
are
far
from
adequately
11
protecting
the
nation's
public
health.
12
In
addition
to
these
unprecedented
13
departures
from
the
recommendations
of
its
14
independent
expert
advisors,
the
EPA
has
chosen
the
15
weakest
options
presented
to
it
from
the
16
recommendations
for
other
measures.
This
total
17
package
of
proposed
standards
and
monitoring
18
guidelines
is
thus
far
weaker
than
what
the
science
19
dictates
is
necessary
for
public
health
protection.
20
Environmental
Defense
joins
with
the
more
21
than
100
prominent
air
quality
researchers,
22
physicians,
and
public
health
officials,
many
of
whom
23
are
the
nation's
leading
scientists
who
actually
24
wrote
the
studies
that
EPA
is
using
to
set
the
25
32
standards
in
recommending
the
following
from
their
1
letter
of
December
2005:
2
An
annual
average
fine
particulate
standard
3
of
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter;
a
daily
fine
4
particulate
standard
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
5
meter;
a
stringent
daily
course
particulate
standard
6
that
applies
equally
to
all
areas
of
the
country
­­
7
we
believe
that
the
level
of
the
standard
needs
to
be
8
in
the
range
of
25
to
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
9
All
Daily
Standards
should
use
the
ninety­
ninth
10
percentile
form
to
reduce
the
number
of
days
allowed
11
over
the
level
acknowledged
to
be
safe.
12
In
addition,
we
call
on
the
EPA
to
undo
the
13
exemption
for
the
agricultural
and
mining
industries
14
and
the
don't
look­
don't
tell
policy
of
not
15
regulating
or
even
monitoring
course
particles
in
16
rural
areas,
and
instead
continue
its
traditional
of
17
using
data
and
sin
to
determine
appropriate
public
18
health
protections
and
implementing
truly
national
19
course
particle
standards.
20
All
of
these
points
have
also
been
21
recommended
to
the
EPA
in
a
letter
that
was
received
22
this
week
from
the
Children's
Health
Protection
23
Advisory
Committee,
a
consensus
letter
from
a
panel
24
of
children's
health
experts
representing
multiple
25
33
stakeholders.
1
Nowhere
is
the
irrationality
of
the
2
Proposed
Course
Particle
Standards
clearer
than
in
3
the
Central
and
Imperial
Valleys
of
California.
4
People
living
in
these
areas
do
not
agree
with
EPA
5
that
contaminated
dusts
kicked
up
by
tractors
and
6
farm
animals
do
not
need
to
be
covered
by
the
new
7
standard.
They
know
their
children
have
8
astonishingly
high
asthma
rates,
as
high
as
one
in
9
six
children.
10
They
know
that
the
dusts
inhale
contain
11
contaminants
that
could
come
from
manure
or
chemicals
12
found
on
farms,
or
in
the
case
of
the
Salton
Sea
the
13
four
carcinogenic
metals
found
in
substantial
amounts
14
in
the
crustal
particles
there.
15
What
they
may
not
know
is
the
manner
in
16
which
EPA
and
the
White
House
through
its
Office
of
17
Management
and
Budget
applied
the
arguments
of
an
18
industry
consultant
to
discredit
the
results
of
the
19
Coachella
Valley
Study.
This
study,
published
and
20
peer
reviewed,
demonstrated
increased
mortality
from
21
breathing
in
course
particles
in
that
part
of
the
22
state.
23
The
preamble
of
the
Proposed
Standards
goes
24
to
great
lengths
to
characterize
the
study
as
25
34
unreliable.
Discrediting
the
study
paves
the
way
for
1
the
Agency
to
propose
only
to
monitor
and
regulate
2
course
particles
in
major
urban
centers.
3
In
conclusion,
with
these
proposed
4
standards
the
EPA
has
turned
good
science
into
bad
5
policy.
It
is
unacceptable
that
EPA's
action
would
6
allow
serious
harm
from
particulate
pollution,
7
especially
for
children,
people
with
heart
and
lung
8
disease,
and
families
in
rural
communities.
9
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
provide
10
comments.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
12
Balbus.
13
I
don't
know
if
you
have
a
copy
of
the
JAMA
14
study,
but
we
are
of
course
going
to
consider
studies
15
that
have
come
out
since
the
closure
of
the
criteria
16
document,
so
it
would
be
good
if
somebody
ensures
17
that's
in
the
record
for
our
consideration.
Thank
18
you.
19
Mr.
Gould.
When
you're
­­
20
DR.
GOULD:
I'll
just
get
this
set
up.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
When
you're
ready.
22
DR.
GOULD:
Okay.
Can
you
hear
me
okay?
23
Is
this
all
right?
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
that's
fine.
25
35
DR.
GOULD:
Thank
you
for
having
me
here.
1
My
name
is
Dr.
Robert
Gould.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I'm
sorry.
Dr.
3
Gould.
4
DR.
GOULD:
Since
1981
I
have
been
an
5
associate
pathologist
at
Kaiser
Hospital
in
San
Jose,
6
California.
In
addition,
since
1989
I
have
been
7
President
of
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
Chapter
of
8
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
or
PSR,
9
representing
close
to
3,000
physicians
and
health
10
providers
throughout
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area.
11
In
2003
I
served
as
President
of
National
12
PSR,
a
30,000­
member
organization
dedicated
to
the
13
protection
on
environmental
and
public
health
in
its
14
broadest
terms.
15
In
pursuit
of
these
objectives
I
have
also
16
personally
worked
for
years
within
the
California
17
Medical
Association,
or
CMA,
to
help
develop
sound
18
scientifically­
based
policies
that
aim
for
maximally
19
protecting
the
health
and
welfare
of
our
patients
20
from
a
variety
of
environmental
hazards.
21
In
my
almost
25
years
as
a
pathologist
I
22
have
witnessed
a
deadly
toll
ultimately
wrought
by
23
manifold
environmental
pollutants,
including
24
particulate
matter.
Whether
through
the
dramatic
25
36
evidence
of
arthro
thoracic
heart
disease
revealed
on
1
postmortem
examination
or
the
scores
of
primary
lung
2
cancers
that
I
review
under
the
microscope,
I
am
on
a
3
daily
basis
reminded
of
the
suffering
that
our
4
patients
endure
and
how
much
of
this
preventable
if
5
we
do
our
utmost
to
support
stringent
environmental
6
safeguards,
long
known
to
protect
public
health.
7
Given
that
the
EPA
has
over
the
last
decade
8
reviewed
over
2,000
peer­
reviewed
studies
firmly
9
establishing
the
relationship
between
particulate
10
matter
and
illness,
malignancies,
and
premature
11
deaths
that
directly
impact
tens
of
thousands
of
12
Americans
a
year,
it
is
unconscionable
that
EPA
has
13
opted
to
reject
the
advice
of
its
own
Staff
14
Scientists
and
countless
independent
researchers
that
15
have
called
for
stricter
standards
than
the
EPA
16
recommendations.
17
With
numerous
organizations
in
the
medical
18
and
public
health
community,
including
the
American
19
Public
Health
Association,
the
American
Thoracic
20
Society,
the
American
College
of
Cardiology,
and
the
21
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics,
having
weighed
in
on
22
recommending
that
EPA
adopt
the
most
protective
PM
23
standards,
it
is
instructive
to
review
the
position
24
of
the
"
house
of
medicine"
in
our
state,
as
the
25
37
California
Medical
Association
has
consistently
1
called
for
protection
of
the
public
from
the
harmful
2
effects
of
air
pollution.
3
In
1968,
two
years
before
the
1970
Clear
4
Air
Act
established
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
5
Standards
for
Particulates,
referred
to
on
the
EPA's
6
own
website
as
being
promulgated
to
"
Protect
public
7
health
and
welfare,"
the
CMA
House
of
Delegates
8
established
policy
to
"
Vigorously
support
all
9
national
efforts
for
the
control
of
air
pollution,"
10
as
well
as
to
"
Urge
the
support
of
studies
and
the
11
enactment
of
laws
that
will
ensure
a
healthful
air
12
supply
in
the
future."
13
In
the
ensuing
almost
40
years
the
CMA
has
14
followed
this
pioneering
step
by
enacting
numerous
15
policies
calling
for
increasingly
comprehensive
steps
16
to
protect
the
public
from
the
health
effects
of
air
17
pollution,
such
as:
The
Resolution
in
1987,
air
18
pollution
crisis;
1992,
health
consequences
of
19
ambient
air
pollution;
2001,
diesel
exhaust
in
zero­
20
emission
vehicles;
2002,
air
pollution
energy
and
21
health;
2004
reducing
sources
of
diesel
exhaust.
And
22
all
of
this
is
in
my
written
comments
and
reference.
23
In
the
most
recent
policy
statements
24
referenced,
the
CMA
has
specifically
supported
strong
25
38
steps
to
curb
particulate
pollution,
particularly
1
diesel,
with
recommendations
including:
Support
of
2
"
Regulatory
efforts
by
the
California
Air
Sources
3
Board
and
the
Legislature
to
reduce
public
exposure
4
to
diesel
exhaust
and
increase
funding
for
cleaning
5
up
diesel
engines,"
to
"
Encourage
the
U.
S.
EPA
to
6
finalize
the
most
stringent
feasible
standards
to
7
control
pollution
emissions"
­­
excuse
me.
I
just
8
lost
my
­­
"
the
most
stringent
feasible
standards
to
9
control
pollutant
emissions
from
both
large
and
small
10
nonroad
engines,
including
construction
equipment,
11
farm
equipment,
boats
and
trains,"
to
"
Encourage
the
12
State
of
California
to
continue
to
pursue
13
opportunities
to
reduce
diesel
exhaust
pollution,
14
including
reducing
harmful
emissions
from
existing
15
diesel
vehicles,"
among
other
steps.
16
Hence
the
voice
of
California
physicians
is
17
clear
in
supporting
the
most
stringent
possible
18
standards
to
protect
the
health
of
our
patients.
19
Accordingly,
I
and
other
members
of
PSR
strongly
urge
20
EPA
to
heed
the
advice
of
its
own
scientists,
to
21
maximally
tighten
the
Annual
Standard
for
Fine
Air
22
Particles,
the
Daily
Fine
Particulate
Matter
23
Standard,
and
to
guarantee
that
rural
communities
are
24
given
the
same
protection
from
course
particles
25
39
afforded
urban
areas.
1
EPA
needs
to
stand
by
its
explicit
NAAQS
2
mission
to
"
Protect
public
health
and
welfare,"
not
3
the
privileges
of
politically­
connected
polluters.
4
Are
patients'
lives
are
literally
in
your
hands.
5
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Gould.
7
One
question.
You
say
"
maximally
tighten
the
8
standards."
Did
you
have
any
specific
levels
in
9
mind?
10
DR.
GOULD:
We
are
in
support
of
the
other
11
standards
that,
for
example,
Dr.
Balbus
indicated,
12
down
to
12
micrograms
per
meter
squared
for
those
PM
13
standards.
14
Also,
as
indicated,
to
make
sure
that
the
15
rural
communities
are
afforded
the
same
protection
as
16
urban
communities,
to
reduce
down
from
the
65
17
micrograms
per
meter
squared
­­
meter
cubed,
down
to
18
the
25
level.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you
for
20
that
clarification.
21
Any
questions
from
anyone
else?
22
Thank
you
both
very
much.
23
DR.
GOULD:
Thank
you.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Our
next
folks:
25
40
Laurie
Bauer
and
Dr.
Bart
Ostro.
1
MS.
BAUER:
We're
sharing
a
testimony.
We
2
are.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Dr.
Ostro?
4
DR.
OSTRO:
So
maybe
we
should...
don't
5
start
me
yet.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
No,
don't
worry.
Let
7
us
know
when
you're
ready.
8
DR.
OSTRO:
Okay.
Thank
you.
I'm
Bart
9
Ostro
for
the
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
10
Assessment,
part
of
the
California
EPA.
Not
to
be
11
confused
with
the
U.
S.
EPA.
12
It
is
our
position
that
the
Proposed
­­
it
13
is
our
position
that
the
Proposed
EPA
Standards
14
ignore
the
best
available
peer­
reviewed
science.
15
Specifically,
EPA
has
overstated
the
uncertainty
and
16
misrepresents
the
scientific
consensus.
17
It
is
essential
that
EPA
incorporate
the
18
findings
from
the
longterm
exposure
studies
on
fine
19
particles
as
well
as
many
new
studies
on
course
20
particles.
21
Also,
EPA
needs
to
consider
the
public
22
health
costs
of
less
stringent
standards
and
the
23
delay
in
attainment,
and
I
want
to
discuss
each
of
24
these
three
points
very
quickly.
25
41
In
terms
of
overstating
the
uncertainty
and
1
misrepresenting
the
scientific
consensus,
the
Federal
2
Register
Notice
includes
many
statements
not
3
supported
by
either
the
EPA
staff
paper
or
the
CASAC
4
Review.
The
Notice
minimizes
the
multi­
year,
5
independent
Health
Effects
Institute
reanalysis
of
6
the
American
Cancer
Society
study
and
the
Harvard
7
Sick
City
Study.
8
And
indeed
there's
many
contradictions
as
9
well
in
the
Federal
Register
Notice.
For
example,
in
10
one
part
of
the
document
it
indicates
clearly
that
11
education
was
not
a
confounder
in
the
American
Cancer
12
Society
study.
A
few
pages
later
they
say
that
EPA
13
cannot
use
the
American
Cancer
Society
to
interpret
14
it
too
rigorously
since
there
is
potential
15
confounding
or
effect
modification
from
education.
16
This
is
just
one
small
example
of
many
cases
of
17
misrepresentation
of
the
existing
science.
18
EPA
needs
to
incorporate
the
findings
from
19
these
newer
longterm
studies.
And
I'm
not
going
to
20
read
this
whole
thing,
but
the
Administrator
does
21
indicate
in
the
Notice
that
he
will
rely
on
evidence
22
provided
by
these
longterm
studies
and
consideration
23
of
the
ranges
of
exposures.
So
let's
talk
a
little
24
bit
about
the
evidence
and
the
ranges
of
exposures.
25
42
Over
the
last
few
years
there
have
been
1
several
new
longterm
studies
looking
at
exposures
to
2
fine
particles
on
outcomes
including
mortality.
For
3
example,
the
American
Cancer
Society
Study
now
that's
4
been
reproduced
for
the
L.
A.
region,
studies
that
5
look
at
disease
specific
endpoints.
6
There's
a
new
study
that
just
came
out
7
yesterday
on
cardiovascular
mortality
that's
an
8
update
of
the
Six
City
Harvard
study.
Many
other
9
studies
including
one
that
indicates
effects
on
the
10
carotid
artery
relating
to
PM2.5
exposure;
and
now
11
some
animal
exposures
that
clearly
indicate
12
biological
mechanism,
such
as
the
Sun
Study
and
the
13
Mort
Litman
series
of
studies
that
show
plaque
14
development
and
even
mortality
in
animals
exposed
15
after
six
months
to
current
ambient
levels
of
fine
16
particles.
17
What
about
the
ranges
of
exposures
that
the
18
Administrator
is
talking
about?
Well,
again
I'm
not
19
going
to
read
all
of
this,
but
you
can
see
very
20
quickly
that
many
of
the
ranges
of
the
studies
that
21
we're
talking
about
here
are
at
15
and
below
22
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
PM2.5.
23
And,
specifically,
the
newest
study
that
24
has
come
out,
this
Laden
Study,
the
mean
in
their
25
43
follow­
up,
in
their
second
stage
of
follow­
up,
is
1
actually
14.8.
You
can
see
from
these
numbers
that
2
there's
no
margin
of
safety
from
the
current
Proposed
3
15
microgram
per
cubic
meter.
Instead
we
should
be
4
going
to
something
like
12.
5
By
the
way,
these
numbers
are
indicative
of
6
the
lower
end
of
the
range
of
the
distribution.
I've
7
looked
at
the
mean
plus
and
minus
one
standard
8
deviation,
which
includes
about
70
percent
of
the
9
data,
so
it's
a
lot
of
the
data
that
are
driving
the
10
results.
The
numbers
I
have
here
reflect
the
mean
11
minus
one
standard
deviation.
12
More
specifically
to
speak
for
a
second
13
about
this
new
Laden
Study,
the
Harvard
Six
City
14
Study,
I
wanted
to
make
three
quick
points.
15
First,
it
seems
to
indicate
that
more
16
recent
exposure,
exposure
over
the
previous
year
or
17
two
seems
to
be
driving
these
mortality
effects.
So
18
it's
not
exposures
from
20
or
30
years
ago.
19
The
exposures
from
a
year
or
two
ago
in
20
these
studies
had
an
average
of
under
15
micrograms
21
per
cubic
meter.
In
addition,
the
monitor
sites
were
22
specifically
selected
to
be
representative
of
the
23
population.
And,
finally,
the
study
had
very
good
24
treatment
for
confounders.
25
44
EPA
indicates
that
the
longterm
studies
are
1
too
uncertain
to
be
relied
on.
Again,
I've
indicated
2
there's
many
new
studies
that
suggest
lower
3
uncertainties.
And
also
I
want
them
to
remember
the
4
National
Academy
opinion
that
the
potential
for
5
improving
decisions
through
research
and
reducing
6
uncertainty
must
be
balanced
against
the
public
7
health
costs
incurred
by
delays.
8
So
what
are
the
costs?
The
new
studies
9
indicate
that
with
better
exposure
measurements,
that
10
the
PM2.5
effects
from
longterm
exposure
on
mortality
11
may
be
twice
as
high
as
those
previously
indicated.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Dr.
Ostro,
your
time
13
is
up.
14
DR.
OSTRO:
Okay.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Can
you
wrap
up,
16
please?
17
DR.
OSTRO:
I'll
just
summarize
by
saying
18
based
on
the
available
science
we
urge
that
EPA
19
promulgate
lower
standards
than
those
originally
20
proposed
for
both
fine
and
course
particles.
Thank
21
you.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Ostro.
23
I
hope
you
will
ensure
that
the
studies
that
you've
24
cited,
the
more
recent
studies,
are
in
our
record.
25
45
DR.
OSTRO:
Right.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
they're
not
2
already
there.
3
DR.
OSTRO:
I
will
be,
yes.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
5
DR.
OSTRO:
And
written
comments.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
And
one
7
question
on
the
Laden
Study,
what
area
did
that
8
cover,
was
it
­­
9
DR.
OSTRO:
This
is
the
Six
Cities,
of
the
10
Harvard
Six
Cities
Study,
so
it's
most
East
Coast
and
11
Midwest
cities.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
Thank
13
you.
14
MS.
BAUER:
And
Dr.
Lisa
Chamberlain
and
I
15
will
be
sharing
the
next
five­
minute
time
period.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Ostro.
17
And
you'll
introduce
yourself.
Okay,
18
great.
19
DR.
CHAMBERLAIN:
So
good
morning.
My
name
20
is
Lisa
Chamberlain,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
21
to
present
testimony
on
behalf
of
Packard
Children's
22
Hospital
at
Stanford.
23
At
Stanford
I
am
a
general
pediatrician
and
24
see
patients
in
the
underserved
community
of
East
25
46
Palo
Alto
as
well
as
serving
on
the
East
Palo
Alto
1
Asthma
Task
Force.
2
I
have
been
working
for
the
past
three
3
years
in
the
East
Palo
Alto
community
to
reduce
the
4
unequal
burden
of
childhood
asthma
that
that
5
community
bears.
6
I
got
involved
with
asthma
prevention
7
because
it
is
impossible
not
to.
Asthma
is
the
8
number
one
chronic
illness
in
children
and
the
rates
9
are
continuing
to
rise.
10
As
a
pediatrician
I
know
that
children
are
11
not
just
small
adults.
First,
they
have
entirely
12
different
lungs.
Eighty
percent
of
the
most
fragile
13
part
of
the
lungs
develop
after
birth.
And
lung
14
development
continues
through
adolescence.
The
15
damage
that's
sustained
in
childhood
to
these
lungs
16
is
irreversible.
17
Second,
children
lead
different
lives
than
18
adults.
They
spend
more
time
outdoors
and
they
are
19
therefore
uniquely
sensitive
to
damaging
pollution.
20
In
recent
studies
children
most
at
risk
to
developing
21
asthma
in
polluted
areas
were
those
that
were
most
22
involved
in
sports
because
they
were
outside
more
23
often.
24
Finally,
children
just
breathe
faster
than
25
47
adults,
thus
they
inhale
more
ambient
air
pollution.
1
Because
of
these
reasons
children
are
significantly
2
impacted
by
the
decisions
that
will
be
made
by
the
3
EPA
in
the
coming
months.
4
I'd
like
to
share
with
you
briefly
the
5
story
of
one
of
my
patients
that
I'll
call
Juan.
The
6
first
time
I
met
Juan
he
was
a
thin,
pale
eight­
year­
7
old.
I
remember
being
struck
by
how
dark
the
circles
8
were
under
his
eyes
and
how
quiet
and
subdued
he
9
seemed.
10
His
mother
had
two
concerns.
Number
one,
11
he
had
a
chronic
cough
for
two
years.
And,
number
12
two,
he
couldn't
seem
to
gain
any
weight.
He
was
13
living
with
untreated
asthma,
which
we
were
able
to
14
get
under
control.
His
cough
disappeared.
15
I've
seen
this
case
over
and
over
again,
16
but
the
reason
that
I
remember
and
will
never
forget
17
him
is
how
his
appearance
and
demeanor
changed
once
18
he
was
better.
He
gained
weight.
The
circles
under
19
his
eyes
disappeared
­­
I
think
it's
because
he
20
wasn't
up
at
night
coughing.
His
color
and
energy
21
level
returned.
I
honestly
did
a
double
take
when
I
22
saw
him
two
months
later.
23
He
jumped
onto
the
exam
table
and
on
exam
24
he
was
breathing
at
ease.
I
also
expect
that
his
25
48
school
performance
has
improved
significantly.
1
I'm
glad
that
Juan
is
better,
but
I
can't
2
help
but
wonder
did
he
have
to
get
sick
in
the
first
3
place?
Was
it
the
air
pollution
that
tipped
the
4
balance
and
made
him
develop
asthma?
For
Juan
as
an
5
individual
I
can't
say,
but
from
a
population
6
perspective
the
studies
and
the
science
are
7
unambiguous.
Particulate
matter
air
pollution
makes
8
children
sick
and
it
can
have
lifelong
consequences.
9
I
concur
with
the
medical
and
scientific
10
communities
that
standards
should
be
set
at
the
most
11
protective
levels
within
the
EPA's
recommended
12
ranges.
13
Thank
you
for
your
commitment
to
protecting
14
the
health
of
our
nation's
children.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
16
Chamberlain.
17
MS.
BAUER:
And
my
name
is
Laurie
Bauer.
18
I'm
the
District
Nurse
for
the
Ravenswood
City
School
19
District.
And
our
school
district
is
located
in
East
20
Palo
Alto,
a
small
urban
city
approximately
two
and
a
21
half
miles
in
diameter,
bordered
on
one
side
by
22
Highway
101
and
in
the
path
of
a
major
commute
route
23
from
South
Bay
to
the
East
Bay
across
the
Dunbarton
24
Bridge.
25
49
Studies
from
our
local
health
department
1
have
shown
that
children
in
East
Palo
Alto
are
2
hospitalized
at
a
rate
that
is
three
times
higher
3
than
children
in
surrounding
communities
­­
4
hospitalized
for
asthma.
Between
10
and
15
percent
5
of
our
students
have
asthma.
And
in
one
school
it's
6
as
high
as
20
percent.
The
school
with
the
highest
7
report
of
asthma
also
happens
to
share
the
playground
8
wall
with
a
Highway
101
retaining
wall.
9
Our
school
district
is
not
entirely
unique.
10
Nationwide
asthma
is
the
most
common
chronic
disease
11
in
children
and
is
the
leading
cause
of
school
12
absenteeism.
Asthma
prevalence
and
morbidity
13
disproportionately
affects
children
and
young
adults,
14
especially
in
poorer
urban
populations
like
ours.
15
Our
school
district's
population
is
16
composed
of
70
percent
Hispanic,
20
percent
African
17
American,
and
10
percent
Pacific
Islander
children.
18
A
study
published
in
the
Environmental
Health
19
Prospectus
found
that
mothers
from
these
ethnic
20
groups
experienced
higher
mean
levels
of
air
21
pollution
and
were
more
than
twice
as
likely
to
live
22
in
the
most
polluted
countries
compared
with
white
23
mothers.
24
California
children
living
in
close
25
50
proximity
to
a
freeway
have
been
found
to
have
1
greater
risk
of
developing
asthma
than
children
2
living
away
from
traffic­
related
pollution.
3
In
closing,
I
want
to
tell
you
about
one
of
4
our
students,
a
third­
grade
girl
whose
teacher
5
contacted
me
because
she
had
been
missing
so
much
6
school
due
to
her
asthma.
7
I
thought
I
would
find
that
she
didn't
have
8
insurance,
didn't
have
adequate
medical
care,
or
9
wasn't
taking
her
medications.
I
didn't
find
any
of
10
these
factors
to
be
true.
11
I
scheduled
a
home
visit
to
see
if
I
could
12
help
identify
some
asthma
triggers
in
her
home.
What
13
I
found
was
that
Rosa
lived
right
next
to
Highway
14
101.
And
because
so
many
people
lived
in
the
home,
15
Rosa's
bed
was
in
the
front
room
next
to
the
window
16
right
next
to
the
highway.
17
My
advice
to
the
family
was
to
move
away
18
from
the
highway
for
Rosa's
health.
The
sad
thing
is
19
that
most
likely
any
other
house
they
could
afford
to
20
live
in
would
be
near
similar
environmental
21
pollutants.
22
I
speak
for
the
school
nurses
who
can't
be
23
here
today
and
from
Los
Angeles
and
Central
Valley
to
24
say
please
consider
our
most
vulnerable
population
25
51
and
those
in
need
of
our
health,
children
like
Rosa,
1
when
determining
our
nation's
air
quality
standards.
2
Thank
you.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
both
very
4
much
for
your
testimony.
5
Our
next
witnesses
are
Bridgette
Tollstrup
6
and
Gina
Solomon.
7
MS.
TOLLSTRUP:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
8
Bridgette
Tollstrup
and
I
represent
the
Sacramento
9
Metropolitan
Air
Quality
Management
District.
I'm
10
speaking
today
to
express
our
concerns
regarding
the
11
lack
of
sufficient
federal
funding
associated
with
12
EPA's
proposed
revisions
to
the
Ambient
Air
13
Monitoring
Regulations.
14
EPA's
proposed
rule
includes
new
monitoring
15
requirements
associated
with
the
revisions
to
the
16
Particulate
Matter
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
17
Standards
along
with
recommended
changes
resulting
18
from
the
more
comprehensive
National
Ambient
Air
19
Quality
Monitoring
Strategy.
20
The
new
provisions
for
the
network
of
21
course
particulate
matter
monitors
will
require
22
substantial
costs
for
site
selection,
installation,
23
operation,
maintenance,
and
daily
management.
24
Additional
district
costs
will
be
incurred
from
other
25
52
proposed
federal
requirements,
including
the
National
1
Air
Multi
Pollutant
Monitoring
Stations,
increased
2
quality
assurance
provisions,
and
more
formal
and
3
frequent
network
assessment
plans
and
reports.
Also
4
future
resources
will
be
needed
for
anticipated
5
national
security­
related
air
monitors.
6
EPA
has
assumed
that
state
and
local
7
agencies
will
be
able
to
significantly
reduce
the
8
size
of
the
current
monitoring
networks
in
order
to
9
reach
the
approximate
size
of
the
federally
mandated
10
networks.
EPA
also
assumes
that
these
reductions
in
11
the
existing
networks
will
generate
the
required
12
savings
in
order
to
free
up
funding
for
future
13
monitoring
projects.
We
do
not
believe
these
14
reductions
will
materialize.
15
In
reality
state
and
local
monitoring
16
networks
collect
data
for
multiple
systems.
These
17
include
monitoring
for
state
ambient
air
quality
18
standards
and
public
outreach
for
programs
such
as
19
EPA's
Air
Now
Website.
Therefore
it's
unrealistic
to
20
forecast
reductions
in
the
size
of
the
current
air
21
monitoring
networks
to
the
degree
that
EPA
assumes
22
for
needed
cost
savings.
23
The
proposed
federal
2007
budget
cuts
will
24
impact
certain
air
monitoring
programs
and
exacerbate
25
53
the
funding
shortfalls
needed
to
address
the
PM
1
course
monitoring
requirements.
Furthermore,
the
2
cost
benefit
effectiveness
of
the
proposed
PM
course
3
monitoring
network
is
questionable
since
many
areas
4
of
the
country
will
be
in
compliance
with
the
5
standards
due
to
population
cutoffs
and
certain
rural
6
source
exemptions.
7
In
conclusion,
we
request
that
EPA
remove
8
the
projected
cost
savings
from
the
assumed
9
monitoring
reductions,
as
they
will
not
occur
in
10
Sacramento
and
perhaps
other
areas
of
California.
As
11
a
result,
EPA
needs
to
reexamine
the
monitoring
12
requirements
in
light
of
changing
budget
assumptions
13
and
find
new
sources
of
funding
to
support
the
new
14
monitoring
programs.
15
Thank
you.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
17
Did
you
have
any
questions,
anyone
have
18
questions?
I
have
one
question
which
is
I
think
19
we're
all
facing
declining
budgets.
If
in
your
20
comments
you
have
any
thoughts
about
other
ways
that
21
we
could
address
the
funding
problem
or
the
­­
you
22
know,
our
proposal
on
what
to
do
with
the
monitoring
23
system,
because
we're
obviously
trying
to
streamline
24
and
make
the
whole
system
more
efficient.
And
so
25
54
additional
thoughts
you
have
besides
providing
more
1
funding
would
be
helpful.
Thank
you.
2
MS.
TOLLSTRUP:
Thank
you.
3
MR.
HANNON:
Lydia?
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah.
5
MR.
HANNON:
I
had
one
question.
I
wasn't
6
clear
whether
you
were
saying
there
would
be
no
7
savings
or
the
degree
of
savings
wouldn't
be
as
much
8
as
EPA
projected?
9
MS.
TOLLSTRUP:
Well,
the
degree
of
savings
10
surely
won't
be
what's
projected.
There
may
be
some
11
ability
to
make
the
network
more
efficient.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
13
Yes,
Ms.
Solomon.
14
DR.
SOLOMON:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
15
Gina
Solomon
and
I'm
a
Senior
Scientist
at
the
16
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
also
an
Assistant
17
Clinical
Professor
of
Medicine
at
U.
C.
San
Francisco,
18
a
new
Assistant
Director
of
the
UCSF
Pediatric
19
Environmental
Health
Specialty
Unit.
20
And
I
intend
to
focus
my
comments
today
on
21
the
Proposed
24­
hour
PM2.5
Standard.
This
is
really
22
the
only
aspect
of
EPA's
proposal
that
might
23
initially
appear
to
be
more
protective
of
health
24
because
the
proposal
is
to
lower
the
standard
from
65
25
55
to
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
1
Unfortunately
both
the
scientific
evidence
2
and
the
stark
reality
both
demonstrate
that
the
3
proposal
is
utterly
insufficient
to
protect
human
4
health,
and
that's
for
at
least
three
reasons.
5
First,
the
scientific
studies
on
shortterm
6
exposures
to
PM2.5
show
clear
evidence
of
serious
7
adverse
health
effects,
including
death,
at
levels
8
well
under
35.
9
Second,
the
CASAC,
Clean
Air
Scientific
10
Advisory
Committee,
recommended
a
standard
11
significantly
more
stringent
and
only
contemplated
a
12
number
this
lax
if
the
Annual
Standard
were
13
significantly
strengthened,
which
EPA
has
not
done.
14
And,
third,
the
current
standard
appears
15
almost
as
if
it
were
designed
to
result
in
no
16
significant
practical
changes
in
nonattainment
area
17
designations.
Meaning
that
air
quality
for
most
18
breathing
Americans
will
not
change
in
any
meaningful
19
way
if
this
proposal
were
finalized.
20
And
the
implications
of
failing
to
protect
21
the
public
from
particulate
matter
are
not
frivolous.
22
Finalization
of
EPA's
current
proposal
would
be
23
measured
in
tens
of
thousands
of
premature
deaths,
24
cases
of
lung
cancer,
mitochondrial
infarction,
25
56
supportable
hospitalizations,
emergency
room
visits,
1
missed
school
days,
and
respiratory
illnesses,
along
2
with
a
difficult­
to­
quantify
number
of
adverse
birth
3
outcomes.
And
these
implications
are
extremely
4
severe
and
often
fatal
for
the
individuals
who
are
5
affected
and
they're
clearly
damaging
for
society
as
6
a
whole
and
also
represent
a
drain
on
the
healthcare
7
system
that
is
substantial
in
any
terms.
8
An
adequately
health­
protective
standard
is
9
needed
to
mitigate
these
health
problems.
And
10
unfortunately,
according
to
EPA's
own
analysis,
the
11
Proposed
24­
Hour
Standard
of
35,
ninety­
eighth
12
percentile
form,
with
the
current
Annual
Standard
13
would
result
in
shortterm
mortality
reductions
that
14
range
but
are
clearly
well
under
30
percent
in
most
15
of
the
cities
analyzed.
16
And,
in
contrast,
a
health­
protective
24­
17
Hour
Standard
of,
say,
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
18
combined
with
an
Annual
Standard
of
12
would
result
19
in
decreases
in
mortality
in
the
range
of
86
to
92
20
percent
depending
on
the
form
of
the
standard.
21
This
is
especially
important
because
22
mortality
isn't
the
only
endpoint
of
concern.
It
23
represents
only
the
tip
of
the
iceberg.
24
I
want
to
focus
just
for
a
moment
on
25
57
cardiovascular
events,
such
as
mitochondrial
1
infarction
and
arrhymthias
and
mortality.
Research
2
indicates
that
particulate
matter
triggers
abrupt
3
disruption
of
unstable
arthro­
sclerotic
plaque.
This
4
event
is
likely
the
result
of
transient
inflammation,
5
vasal
constriction,
hyper
coagulability
following
6
exposure
to
PM.
7
And
a
number
of
major
studies
have
8
identified
increased
cardiovascular
events
at
PM2.5
9
levels
well
below
the
EPA
Standards.
For
example,
10
the
Peters
et
al.
Study
of
772
patients
in
Boston
11
with
mitochondrial
infarction
was
published
in
12
circulation
in
2001
really
needs
to
be
part
of
this
13
discussion
in
a
serious
way,
identified
a
significant
14
association
between
MI
24­
hour
PM
between
the
fifth
15
and
ninety­
fifth
percentiles
of
exposure
in
the
16
study,
but
the
ninety­
fifth
percentile
of
exposure
in
17
this
study
was
24.3
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
And
18
this
exposure
level
was
associated
with
the
62­
19
percent
increased
risk
of
mitochondrial
infarction.
20
So
there's
clear
evidence
a
standard
of
35
21
will
not
protect
against
this
serious
endpoint.
A
22
major
new
study
of
11
and
a
half
million
MediCal
23
enrollees
that
was
published
in
today's
Journal
of
24
the
American
Medical
Association
showed
huge
numbers
25
58
and
estimated
11,000
daily
hospitalizations
as
a
1
result
of
a
10­
microgram­
per­
cubic­
meter
rise
in
fine
2
PM.
3
And
historically
as
the
health
effects
data
4
on
PM
has
emerged
the
evidence
has
become
stronger
at
5
lower
concentrations.
Each
review
of
the
NAAQS
it's
6
become
clear
that
the
previous
standard
wasn't
7
sufficiently
health
protective.
This
is
again
the
8
inescapable
conclusion
of
this
round
of
revisions.
9
So
I
urge
you
to
heed
both
history
and
10
science,
and
to
make
real
improvements
to
the
PM
11
Standards
rather
than
effectively
heading
backwards
12
on
perhaps
the
most
important
public
health
issue
13
we're
facing
today.
14
Thank
you.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
16
Solomon.
A
quick
question
from
me
at
least.
The
17
percentages
you
were
citing
in
terms
of
improvement
18
in
the
risk­
reduction
percentages,
were
those
from
19
the
risk
assessments
done
by
EPA
or
are
those
other
20
risk
analyses?
21
DR.
SOLOMON:
The
numbers
that
I
was
22
actually
citing
for
the
­­
initially
about
the
35
23
versus
25
­­
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Right.
25
59
DR.
SOLOMON:
­­
were
from
EPA's
own
staff
1
paper.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
3
DR.
SOLOMON:
Yeah,
EPA's
analysis.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
I
did
just
want
5
to
ask
you.
You
said
that
there
were
serious
adverse
6
effects,
health
effects
below
35,
and
in
your
written
7
comments
or
the
written
comments
of
your
8
organization,
if
you
could
elaborate
on
that
that
9
would
be
very
helpful
as
to
what
your
thoughts
are
10
there.
11
John.
12
MR.
HANNON:
You
mentioned
various
studies.
13
And
just
to
flag
that,
it
would
be
useful
to
make
14
sure
you
identify
those
studies
in
your
comments,
15
whether
they're
the
ones
that
are
already
covered
in
16
the
CASAC
Review
and
the
Criteria
Document
or
the
17
staff
paper,
or
are
they
subsequent
to
that.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
19
Sarah
Jackson
and
Kevin
Hamilton.
20
MR.
HAMILTON:
Good
morning.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
morning.
22
MS.
JACKSON:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
23
Sarah
Jackson.
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
Theodore
24
Schade,
who
couldn't
make
it
from
Eastern
California
25
60
because
of
the
snow
in
the
Sierra
Mountains.
I'm
1
just
going
to
read
his
statement.
2
"
My
name
is
Theodore
Schade.
I
am
an
Air
3
Pollution
Control
Officer
for
the
Great
Basin
Unified
4
Air
Pollution
Control
District
which
regulates
air
5
quality
in
the
Counties
of
Alpine,
Mono,
and
Inyo
in
6
Eastern
California.
7
"
The
Great
Basin
Air
Pollution
Control
8
District
has
the
dubious
distinction
of
being
home
to
9
two
of
the
largest
single
sources
of
course
10
particulate
matter
air
pollution
in
the
country:
The
11
dried
beds
of
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes.
We
hope
that
12
because
of
this
you
will
give
our
comments
more
than
13
due
consideration.
14
"
during
my
testimony
I
will
show
some
15
timelapse
video"
­­
which
is
not
showing
actually.
I
16
don't
know
why.
I'm
going
to
keep
reading,
but
it's
17
a
good
video.
"
Every
four
second
of
this
video"
­­
18
if
it
ever
comes
up
­­
"
corresponds
to
one
hour
of
19
clock
time.
20
"
The
24­
hour
PM10
concentrations
in
this
21
video
range
from
1300
to
over
4,000
micrograms
per
22
cubic
meter."
There
we
go.
23
"
One
hundred
years
ago
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes
24
were
two
of
the
largest
natural
lakes
in
California.
25
61
They
are
both
salt
water
terminal
lakes:
Fresh
1
water
flows
into
them,
but
only
leaves
through
2
evaporation.
The
small
amount
of
chemicals
contained
3
in
the
fresh
inflow
waters
are
left
behind
as
water
4
evaporates.
And
over
thousands
of
years
these
5
chemicals
have
concentrated
and
made
the
lakes
very
6
salty,
more
than
twice
as
salty
as
sea
water.
7
"
However,
due
to
water
diversions
from
the
8
Eastern
Sierra
by
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
that
began
9
in
1913,
by
the
mid­
1920s
Owens
Lake
was
essentially
10
dry
and
by
1980
Mono
Lake
was
over
50
feet
lower
than
11
it
had
been
in
1920.
12
"
The
City
of
Los
Angeles'
water
diversions
13
caused
the
lake
levels
to
drop
and
the
sediments
on
14
the
beds
of
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes
became
exposed
and
15
subject
to
wind
erosion.
The
resulting
dust
storms
16
are
the
worst
source
of
particulate
matter
air
17
pollution
in
the
United
States,
both
in
terms
of
18
maximum
levels
of
24­
hour
PM10
levels
and
in
terms
of
19
total
tons
emitted
per
year.
20
"
The
current
24­
Hour
Standard
for
PM10
is
21
150
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
Since
2000
the
22
highest
annual
24­
hour
PM10
values
at
Mono
Lake
have
23
ranged
from
987
to
10,500
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
24
and
from
5500
to
21,000
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
at
25
62
Owens
Lake.
1
"
These
are
exceedences
of
up
to
140
times
2
the
current
federal
standard.
The
state
3
implementation
plans
for
these
two
sources
estimate
4
that
prior
to
placement
of
dust
controls,
Mono
Lake
5
emitted
5,700
tons
of
PM10
annually
and
Owens
Lake
6
emitted
over
80,000
tons
per
year.
Of
the
100
7
highest
dusty
days
that
occurred
in
the
entire
United
8
States
during
the
five­
year
period,
99
of
those
days
9
occurred
at
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes.
10
"
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes
are
located
in
11
Eastern
California,
which
is
sparsely
populated.
An
12
estimated
40,000
people
are
affected
by
the
PM10
13
emissions,
including
the
residents
of
five
federally­
14
recognized
Indian
tribes.
However,
because
the
dust
15
from
the
lakebeds
is
generally
course
or
greater
than
16
1.5
microns
in
size
and
the
exposed
population
is
17
less
than
100,000,
the
U.
S.
EPA's
Proposed
Course
PM
18
Standard
would
simply
redefine
the
extreme
dust
19
emissions
from
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes
as
not
air
20
pollution.
And
the
Federal
PM
Standards
would
not
21
provide
the
protection
intended
by
Congress
as
well
22
as
the
protection
that
40,000
people
deserve.
23
"
The
Great
Basin
requests
that
the
EPA
24
amend
the
proposed
rule
to
require
course
PM
controls
25
63
in
the
Owens
Valley
and
Mono
Basin
nonattainment
1
areas.
2
"
EPA
argues
in
the
proposed
rule
that
there
3
is
an
intrinsic
difference
between
the
course
dust
4
created
in
cities
with
more
than
100,000
people
and
5
the
dust
generated
in
areas
with
less
then
100,000
6
people.
That
may
very
well
be
true
even
if
the
EPA's
7
distinction
between
urban
and
rural
is
completely
8
disconnected
from
the
mechanisms
that
cause
dust.
9
However
it
is
certainly
true
that
there
are
10
differences
in
the
chemical
compositions
of
course
11
dust
generated
in
different
rural
areas.
12
"
Because
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes
are
both
salt
13
water
terminal
lake
basins,
the
chemicals
naturally
14
found
in
their
sediments
are
concentrated
many
times
15
above
the
natural
levels
found
in
upland
areas.
For
16
example,
the
PM10
generated
at
Owens
Lake
contains
17
naturally
elevated
levels
of
the
metals
arsenic,
18
cadmium,
and
nickel.
And
it
contains
extremely
19
highly
levels
of
sulfate
salts.
20
"
These
are
precisely
the
type
of
particles
21
that
the
EPA
contends
can
influence
health
responses.
22
They
are
also
the
type
of
particles
that
the
23
proposed
rule
will
protect
urban
residents
from.
A
24
rural
dust
is
every
bit
as
toxic
and
possibly
even
25
64
more
toxic
than
urban
dust.
Yet
under
the
U.
S.
EPA's
1
Standards,
because
the
dust
does
not
directly
affect
2
more
than
100,000
people
and
is
not
caused
by
urban
3
processes,
we
would
be
denied
protection
provided
by
4
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
more
populated
areas.
5
"
The
proposed
rule
must
be
amended
to
6
require
course
PM
controls
in
the
Owens
Valley
and
7
Mono
Basin
nonattainment
areas
as
well
as
in
rural
8
communities
threatened
by
toxic
dust
regardless
of
9
the
source.
10
"
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
11
on
this
important
issue.
Sincerely,
Theodore
D.
12
Schade."
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Ms.
14
Jackson,
and
thank
you
to
Ms.
Schade.
And
tell
him
15
we're
sorry
he
couldn't
be
here.
16
And
just
please
ask
him
to
document
the
17
statements
about
the
particles,
you
know,
what
they
18
contain.
19
MS.
JACKSON:
I
submitted
his
full
comment
20
letter.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Great.
Thank
you.
22
Thank
you.
23
Let
me
check.
Other
questions?
24
MR.
HANLEY:
I
was
going
to
ask
on
that
25
65
note,
so
do
you
actually
have
the
chemical
species
1
data,
not
just
that
it's
elevated
for
the
metals,
but
2
do
you
know
if
you
have
the
metals
­­
and
I'm
sure
3
somebody
does,
but
to
make
sure
that
it
gets
in
the
4
docket
so
it
can
be
considered?
5
MS.
JACKSON:
Okay.
I
don't
think
that
he
6
submitted
that
with
his
letter,
but
I'll
pass
that
7
on.
8
MR.
HANLEY:
Yeah,
I
would
encourage
you
to
9
do
that.
10
MS.
JACKSON:
Okay.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
12
Mr.
Hamilton.
13
MR.
HAMILTON:
Hi.
I'm
Kevin
Hamilton.
14
I'm
a
Registered
Respiratory
Therapist
and
for
the
15
past
16
years
Director
of
the
Asthma
Program
at
16
Community
Medical
Centers
in
Fresno,
California,
17
serving
the
medically
underserved
rural
and
urban
18
population
of
Fresno
County.
19
In
listening
to
your
discussion
regarding
20
the
budget
effect
on
this
particular
process
and
what
21
you
might
do
to
save
money,
I
was
reminded
of
our
own
22
internal
struggles
with
budget
and
how
different
23
sections
of
the
hospital
will
often
look
at
24
themselves;
and
thought
the
clinic
system
is
25
66
individual
entities
without
considering
the
whole,
as
1
our
pharmacy
continued
to
try
to
cut
its
access
to
2
certain
medications
to
save
costs
at
the
expense
of
3
having
our
emergency
room
visits
increase
because
4
patients
were
not
obtaining
their
medicine
because
5
they
couldn't
afford
it.
6
And
that
kind
of
planning
unfortunately
7
creates
a
very
negative
outcome
to
the
whole
entity.
8
In
your
case,
the
government
as
a
whole,
and
the
9
healthcare
system
that's
rapidly
collapsing
under
its
10
cost
expansion
and
failure
to
be
budgeted
adequately.
11
This
whole
concept
of
creating
two
areas
of
12
regulation,
one
outside
of
the
urban
and
core
and
one
13
within
it
is
ludicrous
in
the
extreme.
Having
taken
14
care
of
patients
now
for
28
years
of
my
adult
life
15
and
most
of
them
coming
from
both
areas
that
are
in
16
concern
here,
I
can
tell
you
that
these
areas
17
significantly
overlap.
18
In
one
week
in
Firebaugh,
a
small
community
19
about
45
miles
west
of
Fresno,
which
would
fall
under
20
your
rural
classification,
I
might
instruct
my
21
patients
that
almond
hulling
was
about
to
begin,
22
which
will
generate
a
significant
amount
of
air
23
toxins
that
will
trigger
the
exacerbation
of
most
of
24
my
patients'
COPD
and
asthma,
and
bring
them
into
the
25
67
hospital
emergency
room.
1
Since
most
of
them
are
either
migrant
2
workers
or
folks
who
are
uninsured,
agriculture
3
providers
who
are,
people
don't
know,
but
many
4
farmers
are
not
insured,
we
have
to
recommend
5
precautionary
tactics
for
these
folks
to
protect
6
themselves
and
we've
been
very
successful
with
that
7
overall.
8
However,
this
doesn't
mean
that
they
don't
9
need
to
be
protected
and
that
we
don't
need
to
10
understand
the
gases
and
the
dust
that
are
affecting
11
them
and
its
composition.
12
I'm
very
concerned
that
we
would
consider
13
knowing
the
data
that
we
do,
that
the
California
14
Regional
Particulate
Transport
Study,
CRPTS,
that
we
15
understand
very
well
know
that
particulate
matter
may
16
be
ascended
into
the
atmosphere
into
its
source
100
17
to
300
kilometers
and
travel
as
far
as
100k
on
any
18
given
day
in
winds
of
only
three
to
five
miles
an
19
hour.
The
executive
summary
of
that
work
will
be
20
released
on
May
the
18th
here
in
California.
And
I'm
21
sure
that
through
the
High
Desert
Institute
this
22
panel
can
access
that
data
early
on
from
Dr.
John
23
Watson,
who
I
don't
believe
could
be
here
today
to
24
testify.
25
68
We're
very,
very
concerned
that
this
would
1
create
two
classes
of
citizenship
and
in
not
only
the
2
battle
for
air
quality
but
the
battle
for
the
health
3
of
our
patients
we
would
be
significantly
4
disadvantaged.
The
idea
that
transport
actually
5
doesn't
occur
in
fine
and
course
particulate
matter
6
again
has
been
disproved
time
and
time
again
since
7
the
total
TSP
studies
in
the
mid­'
70s
showed
that
8
fire
damage
and
the
residual
smoke
and
soot
from
9
forest
fires
in
Massachusetts
and
Pennsylvania
could
10
actually
affect
infant
mortality
rates
and
live
birth
11
rates
in
Pennsylvania
and
New
Jersey
at
that
time.
12
And
the
government's
own
economist
did
those
studies,
13
looking
at
the
cost
to
healthcare.
14
And
many
people
don't
realize
how
far
back
15
the
literature
goes
looking
at
respirable
particles,
16
but
we've
known
since
the
1930s
that
particles
in
the
17
2­
to
10­
micron
range
were
certainly
respirable.
And
18
these
course
PM
particles
were
our
initial
bad
actors
19
in
healthcare
and
the
ones
that
we
were
all
taught
to
20
have
our
patients
avoid
no
matter
the
cost.
21
The
fact
that
we've
learned
much
more
in
22
the
last
10
years
to
suggest
that
PM2.5
and
fine
and
23
ultrafine,
even
PM.
25
are
very
dangerous
actors,
and
24
we
need
to
be
paying
attention
to
those,
certainly
25
69
doesn't
negate
the
prior
literature
that
suggests
and
1
in
fact
proves
that
the
courser
PM
is
extremely
2
dangerous
to
human
health
and
continues
to
be.
3
The
primary
particles
that
occur
from
much
4
of
cigarette
smoking
is,
of
course,
coarse
PM
as
well
5
as
aerosols.
The
two
come
mixed
together.
And
the
6
same
thing
is
occurring
in
the
residual
pollution
7
from
agriculture,
mining,
and
the
oil
industry
in
our
8
rural
areas
of
the
country.
9
To
suggest
that
an
area
like
Firebaugh
or
10
Rolinda
or
Biola
would
­­
not
all
these
small
11
communities
in
the
Valley,
even
larger
communities
12
like
Tulare,
a
population
of
48,000
people,
or
13
Visalia,
a
population
of
86,000,
when
do
we
hit
this
14
threshold
of
100,000
or
500
people
per
square
mile
in
15
density?
This
is
ludicrous
in
the
extreme.
16
To
even
suggest
that
there
is
a
fine
line
17
that
we
could
draw
that
would
say:
At
this
point
the
18
people's
health
will
not
be
affected
and
at
this
19
point
they
will.
At
this
point
I
won't
have
45
20
patients
a
day
coming
through
the
waiting
room
and
at
21
this
point
I'll
only
have
20
patients
coming
through
22
a
day
­­
I
can't
make
those
kind
of
distinctions
and
23
the
weather
and
the
air
pollution
doesn't
do
that
for
24
me.
So
I'm
very
concerned
about
any
regulation
that
25
70
would
try
to
create
this
artificial
distinction.
1
And
I
think
I'll
finish
earlier.
I
thank
2
you
very
much
for
allowing
me
to
comment
today.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
both.
4
Thank
you
very
much.
And
to
the
extent
that
you
have
5
any
specific
information
you
can
offer
us
about
the
6
communities
and
the
kinds
of
health,
the
things
you
7
were
talking
about
that
you
could
submit
in
your
8
written
testimony,
­­
9
MR.
HAMILTON:
Sure.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
that
would
be
11
helpful.
12
MR.
HAMILTON:
Absolutely.
Thank
you.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
14
Any
other
questions?
Okay.
15
Jesse
Marquez
and
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen.
Have
16
I
got
that
right?
17
Is
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen
here?
18
MR.
MARQUEZ:
She
is,
but
she's
in
the
19
other
room
downstairs.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
21
MR.
MARQUEZ:
There's
a
press
conference
22
going
on.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I'm
sorry?
24
MS.
[
SPEAKER]:
She's
coming.
25
71
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
She's
coming?
Okay,
1
great.
Thank
you.
2
Mr.
Marquez.
3
MR.
MARQUEZ:
My
name
is
Jesse
Marquez.
4
I'm
Executive
Director
of
the
Coalition
for
a
Safe
5
Environment.
We
are
headquartered
in
the
community
6
of
Wilmington
in
the
City
of
Los
Angeles.
The
City
7
of
Los
Angeles
is
very
large
and
in
fact
there
is
8
actually
over
30
different
individual
communities.
9
We
have
membership
in
21
cities
in
Los
10
Angeles
County
and
five
additional
cities
throughout
11
the
state
of
California.
12
The
Coalition
for
a
Safe
Environment
is
13
primarily
involved
in
addressing
air
pollution
14
impacts
on
the
environment
and
public
health.
15
Wilmington
is
87
percent
Hispanic
and
over
95
percent
16
minority,
low­
income
people
of
color.
17
Wilmington
is
only
four
miles
square.
The
18
Los
Angeles
and
Long
Beach
Harbor
communities
are
19
over
70
percent
people
of
color.
In
the
community
of
20
Wilmington
and
near
the
community
of
Wilmington
are
21
located
the
following
industries.
Many
people
do
not
22
realize
that
Wilmington
may
not
be
a
well
known
name,
23
but
what
people
don't
realize
is
that
sometimes
24
communities
bear
other
responsibilities
and
other
25
72
industries.
1
And
to
give
you
an
example,
the
Port
of
Los
2
Angeles
is
located
in
Wilmington.
Seventy
percent
of
3
the
Port
of
L.
A.
is
in
Wilmington,
30
percent
is
in
4
our
neighboring
community
of
San
Pedro.
5
What
most
people
do
not
know
is
that
the
6
Port
of
L.
A.
is
the
number
one
stationary
source
of
7
air
pollution
in
Southern
California.
Not
L.
A.,
not
8
the
region,
but
the
other
entire
Southern
California.
9
The
Port
of
Long
Beach
is
the
second
10
largest
stationary
source
of
air
pollution
in
11
Southern
California
and
borders
Wilmington
on
the
12
southeast.
There
are
over
45,000
diesel
truck
trips
13
a
day
in
and
out
of
the
two
ports
that
border
my
14
community.
And
this
is
increasing
every
year
at
the
15
rate
of
10
percent.
By
the
year
2020
it
is
estimated
16
there
will
be
121,000
diesel
truck
trips
a
day
going
17
out
through
the
Ports.
18
A
Shell
oil
refinery,
a
ConocoPhillips
oil
19
refinery,
and
a
Valero
oil
refinery
are
located
in
20
Wilmington.
A
BP
Arco
oil
refinery
borders
21
Wilmington
to
the
north
in
the
City
of
Carson.
22
Within
five
miles
of
Wilmington
is
a
23
Chevron
oil
refinery
in
Torrance.
And
within
10
24
miles
is
a
Chevron
oil
refinery
in
the
City
of
El
25
73
Segundo.
Kinder
Morgan
fuel
storage
tank
facility
1
borders
Wilmington
to
the
north
in
the
City
of
2
Carson.
3
These
seven
petroleum
industry
companies
4
are
the
third
largest
air
pollution
source
in
5
Southern
California.
In
an
inventory
taken
in
2004,
6
I
have
some
of
the
data
on
that.
Now
I
know
today
we
7
are
here
to
discuss
PM,
so
I
am
going
to
mention
the
8
PM
data.
But
when
we're
talking
about
our
community
9
we're
talking
about
an
Environmental
Justice
10
community.
And
you
have
to
look
at
the
cumulative
11
impact:
What
is
the
particulate
matter
impact
in
12
addition
to
some
of
the
other
toxics
that
we
are
also
13
exposed
to.
14
So
in
the
case
of
the
seven
refineries
we
15
are
faced
with
over
1,361
tons
per
year
of
PM
alone;
16
7,974
tons
of
CO2;
5,100
tons
of
SOx;
4,400
tons
of
17
NOx;
and
over
2,800
tons
of
your
reactive
organic
18
compounds
or
your
VOCs.
19
The
Alameda
Quarter
Project
is
in
20
Wilmington.
There
is
an
off
Port
of
Los
Angeles
21
fumigation
facility
in
Wilmington.
There
are
over
30
22
off­
Port
container
storage
tank
facilities
in
23
Wilmington.
There
is
an
B&
SF
Railroad
Watson
24
railyard
in
Wilmington.
25
74
The
ICTF
Intermodal
facility
that
borders
1
Wilmington
and
Long
Beach.
There
are
two
oil
2
refinery
asphalt
companies
in
Wilmington.
There
is
3
one
asphalt
roofing
company
in
Wilmington.
There
is
4
a
cement
company
in
Wilmington.
5
There
is
an
incinerator
at
the
Port
of
Long
6
Beach
that
borders
Wilmington.
There
are
over
600
7
operating
and
abandoned
oil
wells
in
Wilmington.
The
8
Los
Angeles
I­
110
freeway
borders
Wilmington
on
the
9
west,
the
Long
Beach
710
to
the
east,
the
San
Diego
10
Freeway
to
the
north.
11
There
are
three
landfill
Superfund
sites.
12
And
there
are
at
least
another
30
toxic
air
pollution
13
sources
in
my
community.
14
So
not
only
does
it
affect
my
community
of
15
Wilmington,
it
spreads
throughout
the
region.
And
16
these
are
the
things
that
we
have
to
realize.
17
So
what
do
you
think
is
the
health
status
18
of
our
community?
We
have
never
had
a
good
day,
a
19
good
week,
a
good
month,
or
a
good
year
in
the
past
20
25
years
because
there
has
been
continual,
nonstop
21
industrial
growth.
22
Port
and
the
goods­
movement,
a
growth
23
industry,
is
predicted
to
triple
in
the
next
15
to
20
24
years.
So
if
it's
tripling
in
the
next
15
to
20
25
75
years
when
are
we
going
to
have
a
good
clean
day?
We
1
never
will,
and
we
never
have.
2
According
to
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
3
Management
District
May
2
study,
Wilmington,
San
4
Pedro,
and
West
Long
Beach
are
rated
number
one
for
5
the
highest
rate
of
cancer
due
to
diesel
fuel
6
emissions.
Our
local
San
Pedro
Medical
Doctor
John
7
Miller
calls
our
communities
the
"
diesel
death
zone."
8
According
to
a
recently­
released
report
by
9
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
over
750
people
10
are
dying
every
year
right
now.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Mr.
Marquez,
your
12
time
is
up.
13
MR.
MARQUEZ:
Okay.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Do
you
want
to
try
to
15
wrap
up?
16
MR.
MARQUEZ:
Yes.
I
just
want
to
thank
17
you
for
this
opportunity.
What
I
have
attached
to
18
your
paperwork
are
actually
color
photos.
So
I
would
19
like
you
to
take
your
time
with
this.
There
are
two
20
photos
of
the
ConocoPhillips
refinery,
two
of
the
21
Shell,
and
two
of
the
Valero
as
examples
of
the
PM,
22
particulate
matter
that
we
are
exposed
to
every
week,
23
every
month.
Thank
you.
24
MR.
HANNON:
Thank
you.
25
76
MS.
STONE:
Thank
you.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
2
Ms.
Holmes­
Gen.
That
mic,
yeah.
And
if
3
you
can,
actually
both
of
them.
One's
for
the
court
4
reporter.
5
MS.
HOLMES­
GEN:
Okay.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
7
MS.
HOLMES­
GEN:
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen,
8
American
Lung
Association
of
California.
9
For
many
years
the
American
Lung
10
Association
has
taken
a
very
strong
interest
in
the
11
development
of
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
12
because
of
our
concern
over
the
respiratory
health
of
13
individuals
with
asthma
and
other
lung
diseases.
14
In
our
experience
this
has
been
a
very
15
comprehensive
review
of
data,
but
the
results
are
16
extremely
disappointing.
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
17
that
EPA
pick
a
new
particulate
matter
standard
that
18
protects
public
health,
that
fully
protects
public
19
health,
including
vulnerable
groups.
20
The
only
thing
that
EPA
is
allowed
to
21
consider
when
setting
a
standard
is
how
it
protects
22
public
health.
Despite
this
extremely
clear
23
direction
from
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act,
despite
a
24
thorough
review
process,
and
despite
strong
25
77
recommendations
from
the
Independent
Scientific
1
Panel,
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
2
and
its
own
staff,
the
EPA
Administrator
proposed
a
3
standard
that's
much
higher
than
the
standard
4
recommended
by
these
scientists
and
leaves
millions
5
of
Americans
unprotected.
6
It
is
unprecedented
for
an
Administration
7
to
reject
the
recommendations
of
its
own
independent
8
Clean
Air
Science
advisors
to
strengthen
both
the
9
Annual
and
Daily
Standards.
And
this
aspect
is
10
extremely
troubling.
11
The
federal
EPA
has
never
before
picked
a
12
standard
that
allowed
more
pollution
than
the
Clean
13
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
recommended.
14
Our
view
is
that
the
Proposed
Standard
is
a
15
token
reduction,
that
increases
the
number
of
people
16
protected
by
only
15
percent,
from
56
million
to
65
17
million,
when
three
times
as
many
individuals
live
in
18
areas
with
particulate
matter
at
levels
that
19
adversely
affect
public
health,
that
result
in
asthma
20
attacks,
hospital
visits,
emergency
room
visits,
21
premature
deaths
and
other
adverse
effects.
22
The
California
Air
Resources
Board
has
23
already
led
the
way
in
adopting
a
particulate
matter
24
standard
at
the
health­
protective
level
of
12
25
78
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
This
was
in
2002.
And
1
this
is
the
standard
level
that
we
advocated
for
and
2
that
hundreds
of
scientists
and
leading
scientists
3
and
medical
professionals
around
the
country
4
advocated
for
before
the
Environmental
Protection
5
Agency.
And
we
strongly
believe
that
the
EPA
should
6
follow
California's
lead.
7
It's
very
hard
to
understand
how
the
EPA
8
could
ignore
the
groundbreaking
work
that
was
done
in
9
California
in
developing
our
state
standards.
And
10
this
work
was
done
four
years
ago,
and
the
standards
11
were
developed
in
2002.
And
I
think
you've
heard
12
some
testimony
from
our
Office
of
Environmental
13
Health
Hazard
Assessment
on
many
of
the
studies
that
14
formed
the
basis
of
our
California
standard.
15
It's
hard
to
understand
how
EPA
could
come
16
to
a
different
conclusion
than
California
scientists,
17
since
there's
been
even
more
studies
confirming
the
18
danger
of
particle
pollution
and
the
unique
19
vulnerability
of
children,
whose
lungs
are
still
20
growing
and
developing.
21
The
more
we
learn
about
particle
pollution
22
the
more
we
understand
how
dangerous
it
is.
New
23
studies
are
coming
out
every
day.
In
fact
there
is
a
24
new
study
published
in
the
March
8th
issue
of
the
25
79
Journal
of
the
American
Medical
Association
that
1
compares
­­
and
this
study
compared
air
pollution
2
levels
to
hospitalizations
occurring
at
the
same
3
time.
Very,
very
strong
evidence
in
this
new
study
4
just
published
today
that
daily
hospital
admission
5
rates
for
cardiovascular
disease
and
respiratory
6
diseases
are
much
higher
when
the
fine
particle
7
levels
are
increased
from
one
day
to
the
next.
8
This
is
a
very
significant
study
because
9
it's
a
very
large
study
that
reviewed
records
of
more
10
than
11
and
a
half
million
Americans
who
are
65
years
11
and
older.
And
again
confirms
the
tremendous
threat
12
that
particle
pollution
poses
to
everyone
but
13
especially
to
elderly
individuals
and
those
that
are
14
especially
sensitive.
15
The
statute,
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act
is
16
very
clear.
It
tells
us
that
the
EPA
shall
adopt
a
17
standard
for
particle
pollution
that
is
fully
18
protective
of
public
health
with
an
adequate
margin
19
of
safety.
Incredibly,
the
federal
EPA
proposal
for
20
new
standards
fails
this
requirement.
21
The
level
proposed
is
not
fully
protective
22
of
public
health,
does
not
fully
protect
children
and
23
other
individuals
that
are
especially
sensitive,
and
24
there
is
no
margin
of
safety.
25
80
The
American
Lung
Association
strong
1
supports
the
most
protective
standards
considered
by
2
the
EPA
staff
and
scientific
advisors.
We
support
an
3
annual
standard
no
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
4
cubic
meter
and
a
24­
hour
standard
of
25
micrograms
5
per
cubic
meter.
Furthermore,
EPA
should
change
the
6
form
of
the
standard
to
the
ninety­
ninth
percentile.
7
In
closing,
­­
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
9
MS.
HOLMES­
GEN:
­­
we
implore
you
to
set
10
standards
that
truly
protect
public
health,
11
especially
the
most
vulnerable
like
our
children.
12
And
we
are
leaving
you
with
some
charts
that
show
13
that
if
you
adopted
standards
according
to
our
14
recommendation,
there
would
be
86
percent
fewer
15
deaths
across
the
country.
And
that
millions
more
16
Americans
would
be
protected
if
you
adopted
the
17
standards
according
to
our
recommendations.
18
And
we're
also
leaving
you
with
a
petition:
19
99
doctors,
nurses,
health
professionals,
20
respiratory
therapists,
other
medical
professionals
21
from
around
classify
have
signed
this
petition
saying
22
the
science
is
overwhelmingly
clear
that
your
23
proposal
does
not
protect
public
health.
And
we
will
24
leave
that
with
you.
25
81
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you
very
1
much.
If
you
would
please
leave
that
with
our
2
registration
desk.
3
Thank
you,
Mr.
Marquez,
for
taking
the
time
4
to
come.
5
And
thank
you,
Ms.
Holmes­
Gen.
6
Dr.
John
Balmes
and
Tom
Politeo.
Did
I
get
7
that
right?
Sorry.
8
Good
morning.
9
DR.
BALMES:
Do
you
want
me
to
go
ahead?
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
when
you're
11
ready.
12
DR.
BALMES:
I
am
John
Balmes,
M.
D.
I'm
a
13
Professor
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of
California
14
San
Francisco
and
Professor
of
Environmental
Sciences
15
at
the
University
of
California
Berkeley
School
of
16
Public
Health.
17
I'm
an
attending
physician
in
pulmonary
and
18
critical
care
medicine
at
San
Francisco
General
19
Hospital
and
I
conduct
research
on
the
health
effects
20
of
air
pollution.
21
I'm
here
today
presenting
comments
on
22
behalf
of
the
American
Thoracic
Society.
23
The
American
Thoracic
Society
is
a
medical
24
professional
society
with
over
13,000
members
who
are
25
82
dedicated
to
the
prevention,
diagnosis,
treatment,
1
and
research
of
respiratory
illnesses.
The
American
2
Thoracic
Society
is
deeply
concerned
about
air
3
pollution,
both
as
underlying
cause
of
respiratory
4
illness
and
its
ability
to
cause
exacerbations
of
5
preexisting
respiratory
illness.
6
The
American
Thoracic
Society
will
submit
7
extensive
formal
comments
on
several
issues
in
the
8
EPA
Proposed
Rule.
However,
today
I
will
limit
my
9
comments
to
issues
surrounding
the
Proposed
Standard
10
for
Course
Thoracic
Particles.
11
This
standard
is
precedent­
setting
because
12
by
focusing
on
urban
areas
only
it
assumes
that
13
sources
of
particles
outside
of
urban
areas
do
not
14
convey
any
increased
risk
to
health.
The
ATS
is
15
extremely
disappointed
that
EPA
has
proposed
that
the
16
Course
Thoracic
Particle
Standard
apply
to
urban
17
areas
only.
We
see
this
as
a
major
flaw
in
the
18
proposed
rule.
19
It
is
true
that
there
is
less
research
on
20
the
health
effects
of
exposure
to
Course
Thoracic
21
Particles
than
on
those
of
fine
particles.
However,
22
there
is
no
research
that
shows
rural
particles
are
23
safe.
I
repeat:
There
is
no
research
showing
that
24
rural
particles
are
safe.
25
83
In
fact
the
limited
available
evidence
1
seems
to
show
adverse
health
effects
from
exposure
to
2
course
particles
found
in
more
rural
areas.
For
3
example,
work
done
here
in
California
by
Cal
EPA
4
investigators
using
data
for
a
10­
year
period
from
5
the
rural
Coachella
Valley
showed
a
greater
6
cardiovascular
mortality
risk
for
course
particles
7
than
for
fine
particles.
8
In
addition,
a
series
of
toxicologic
9
studies
by
Becker
and
colleagues,
some
of
which
have
10
been
supported
by
the
U.
S.
EPA,
have
demonstrated
11
greater
cytotoxicity
­­
that's
damage
to
cells
­­
and
12
proinflammatory
effects
of
course
particles
than
fine
13
particles.
14
We
also
note
that
PM10
in
rural
areas
will
15
contain
particles
from
urban
type
sources:
Diesel
16
engines,
highways,
power
plants,
and
other
industrial
17
facilities.
Limited
application
of
the
Daily
Course
18
Particle
Standard
based
on
geographic
population
19
areas
is
not
supported
by
the
available
scientific
20
data
and
will
not
protect
public
health.
21
Recommendation:
The
EPA
Daily
Course
22
Thoracic
Particle
Standard
should
apply
to
both
urban
23
and
rural
areas.
24
The
ATS
is
also
deeply
concerned
about
the
25
84
EPA
proposal
to
stop
monitoring
course
thoracic
1
particles
in
rural
areas.
The
EPA
is
correct
in
2
recognizing
there
are
limited
data
on
the
health
3
effects
of
course
particles
in
rural
areas.
However,
4
the
appropriate
response
to
limited
data
is
not
to
5
stop
monitoring
all
together.
Rather
than
addressing
6
the
need
for
more
data,
suspending
monitoring
of
7
course
particles
would
ensure
that
there
will
be
8
continuing
lack
of
data
on
the
health
effects
of
9
exposure
to
course
particles
in
rural
areas.
10
EPA's
proposal
to
suspend
monitoring
in
11
rural
areas
is
the
equivalent
of
the
ostrich
burying
12
its
head
in
the
sand.
13
Recommendation:
EPA
should
continue
14
monitoring
of
course
particle
exposures
in
rural
15
areas.
16
The
ATS
is
equally
concerned
about
the
17
proposed
exemptions
of
particles
emitted
from
mining
18
and
agricultural
facilities.
Again
there
is
no
19
scientific
basis
for
saying
these
particles
are
safe
20
to
breathe.
In
fact,
mine­
generated
dust
would
be
21
expected
to
contain
relatively
high
concentrations
of
22
silica
and
metals
that
are
known
to
be
toxic.
23
In
addition,
mines
and
agriculture
both
use
24
diesel
equipment
that
generates
toxic
particles.
25
85
Excluding
mining
and
agricultural
source
particles
1
may
be
good
for
business,
but
is
not
good
for
public
2
health.
3
Recommendation:
EPA
should
regulate
all
4
course
thoracic
particles
regardless
of
source.
5
The
American
Thoracic
Society
strongly
6
believes
that
federal
air
quality
standards
must
be
7
based
on
a
careful
review
of
the
available
scientific
8
knowledge.
The
role
of
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
9
Advisory
Committee
and
the
Air
Quality
Standard­
10
Setting
process
is
critical
to
ensure
such
a
careful
11
review.
12
In
the
case
of
the
proposed
PM
standard,
13
the
EPA
Administrator
has
chosen
to
reject
the
14
recommendations
of
CASAC
on
the
basis
that
the
15
committee
did
not
adequately
review
the
available
16
scientific
data.
17
While
the
ATS
respects
the
authority
of
the
18
Administrator,
to
reject
the
advice
of
CASAC
for
19
policy
reasons,
it
is
a
dangerous
precedent
to
do
so
20
by
impugning
the
integrity
of
the
committee's
21
scientific
review.
22
The
review
of
scientific
knowledge
23
conducted
through
the
Clean
Air
Act
process
that
24
leads
to
a
CASAC
recommendation
is
the
most
careful
25
86
and
deliberative
review
conducted
in
the
field
of
1
environmental
health.
CASAC
members
are
highly­
2
qualified
scientists
who
are
thoroughly
vetted.
They
3
are
the
best
people
that
judge
the
state
of
4
scientific
knowledge
on
the
health
effects
of
a
5
criteria
pollutant.
6
For
an
EPA
Administrator
to
cast
aspersions
7
on
the
quality
of
CASAC's
scientific
judgment
is
akin
8
to
stating
that
there
is
insufficient
scientific
9
evidence
of
global
warming.
10
Recommendation:
EPA
should
accept
the
11
recommendations
of
its
own
highly
qualified
12
Scientific
Advisory
Committee.
13
On
behalf
of
the
entire
membership
of
the
14
American
Thoracic
Society
I
would
like
to
thank
the
15
EPA
staff
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
16
important
rule.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much,
18
Dr.
Balmes.
19
Any
questions?
20
MR.
HANNON:
Dr.
Balmes,
you
mentioned
21
toxicology
studies?
22
DR.
BALMES:
Yes.
23
MR.
HANNON:
And
are
those
in
the
record?
24
Have
those
been
identified?
Were
they
part
of
the
25
87
CASAC
Review
already?
Are
they
­­
is
it
additional
1
or
new
studies
or
­­
2
DR.
BALMES:
I'd
have
to
check
to
see
if
3
they're
in
the
CASAC
Review.
I'd
be
amazed
if
they
4
weren't.
5
MR.
HANNON:
I
assume
they
may
be
as
well.
6
I
just
didn't
know.
The
Coachella
Valley
clearly
7
is,
but
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear.
It's
very
helpful
8
for
us
to
have
identified
any
studies
that
you're
9
referring
to
­­
10
DR.
BALMES:
I
can
supply
a
specific
list
11
of
those
references
and
will
be
happy
to
do
so.
12
MR.
HANNON:
You
mentioned
diesel
emissions
13
a
couple
of
times.
Are
you
talking
about
course
PM
14
from
diesel?
15
DR.
BALMES:
Well,
the
course
PM
in
a
rural
16
area
where
there's
mining
or
agriculture
will
contain
17
constituents
for
diesel
exhaust.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Understood.
19
I
will
not
attempt
to
mangle
your
name
20
again,
so
I
will
let
you
introduce
yourself.
21
MR.
POLITEO:
That's
okay.
My
name
is
Tom
22
Politeo.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Politeo.
Thank
you.
24
MR.
POLITEO:
Okay.
I
live
in
San
Pedro
25
88
near
the
L.
A.
Harbor
and
I
am
Co­
Chair
of
the
Sierra
1
Club
Harbor
Vision
Task
Force
which
is
an
entity
of
2
the
Angeles
Chapter
of
the
Sierra
Club.
3
Sometimes
when
it
comes
to
controlling
air
4
pollution
we
hear
about
how
much
it
may
cost.
And
5
one
of
the
questions
we
need
to
ask
ourselves
of
6
course
is
how
much
it
costs
not
to.
7
And
you've
been
hearing
a
lot
of
testimony
8
here
today
about
some
of
the
health
impacts.
There
9
are
also
cultural
impacts
and
impacts
in
terms
of
10
human
hope
if
you
live
in
a
community
which
doesn't
11
seem
to
have
any
opportunity
to
have
its
air
cleaned
12
up
for
at
least
another
generation,
and
a
community
13
which
also
suffering
other
issues
of
blight.
14
And
that
would
describe
communities
in
and
15
near
all
the
goods­
movement
quarters
in
the
state
of
16
California
and
in
many
other
parts
of
the
nation.
17
In
roughly
2000
the
Port
of
Los
Angeles
18
published
a
study
indicating
that
they
estimated
the
19
economic
benefit
to
the
region
per
container
moved
20
through
the
Port
was
about
$
100.
21
Based
on
Meets
2
data
(
phonetic)
from
that
22
same
time
and
subsequent
estimates
of
how
much
air
23
pollution
in
Southern
California
may
cost,
the
air
24
pollution
cost
per
container
in
terms
of
public
25
89
health,
lost
work
and
productivity.
Now
those
1
estimates
range
very
widely
because
nobody's
really
2
sat
down
and
done
a
very
thorough
study,
but
they
3
range
in
the
50
to
$
500
area.
And
they've
gone
up
as
4
new
studies
have
shown
that
there
may
be
even
further
5
effects
that
were
not
known
before.
6
Now
that's
not
enough
to
say
that
the
Port
7
is
operating
in
a
negative
cost­
benefit
ratio
to
the
8
region,
but
it
is
enough
to
suggest
that
there
ought
9
to
be
more
careful
study
done
of
what
this
equation
10
is
and
what
it
really
means
and
more
serious
11
attention
paid
to
finding
adequate
solutions.
12
Some
people
here
have
talked
about
how
air
13
particles
travel
and
various
studies.
If
you
live
in
14
Southern
California
all
you
need
to
do
is
wait
for
a
15
forest
fire
to
find
out
how
they
travel
and
then
look
16
at
some
of
the
satellite
photos
that
come
out
that
17
show
how
the
particular
plumes
travel
across
the
L.
A.
18
Basin
from
the
mountains
that
ring
it
to
the
north
19
and
east.
20
And
you
can
also
see
how
fickle
those
21
plumes
are.
If
you
look
at
the
satellite
photos
you
22
can,
for
example,
during
some
of
the
recent
fires
we
23
had
heavy
smoke
in
San
Pedro
and
Wilmington,
which
24
was
sufficient
to
obscure
visibility.
But
if
you
25
90
move
over
to
El
Segundo,
which
is
not
far
away
at
1
all,
it'd
be
perfectly
clear.
Then
you
move
a
little
2
further
on,
and
it
may
be
smokey
again.
3
And
this
suggests
that
as
we're
looking
at
4
particulate
pollution
we
need
to
be
considering
a
5
variety
of
atmospheric
conditions
and
where
are
6
monitoring
stations
are
placed,
because
we
could
be
7
in
a
position
of
monitoring
for
air
pollution
and
not
8
know
that
a
couple
miles
over
there's
a
serious
9
problem,
but
because
of
atmospheric
quirks
they're
10
not
showing
up
in
another
location
not
far
by.
11
It's
ironic
that
the
largest
polluting
12
sources
in
Southern
California,
which
are
the
Ports
13
of
L.
A.
and
Long
Beach,
don't
have
an
official
U.
S.
14
Government
Air
Quality
Monitoring
Site
in
or
adjacent
15
to
them
monitoring
the
particulate
pollution
and
16
other
forms
of
pollution
that
are
affecting
the
17
nearby
communities.
The
nearest
monitoring
site
is
18
about
seven
miles
outside
of
the
Ports
and
a
couple
19
of
miles
from
the
Long
Beach
Freeway,
which
can
be
20
far
enough
way
with
respect
to
wind
patterns
to
miss
21
significant
events.
22
One
of
the
other
things
to
consider
as
23
you're
looking
at
these
studies
and
one
of
the
24
reasons
we
recommend
and
hope
that
you
will
do
the
25
91
most
stringent
standards
you
possibly
can
is
that
1
there
are
known
to
be
concentrations
of
particulate
2
matter
particularly
close
to
sources.
It
doesn't
3
matter
whether
it's
a
dry
lakebed
in
the
Owens
Valley
4
or
a
warehousing
district
in
the
Inland
Empire
or
5
facilities
down
in
the
Port
of
Los
Angeles,
those
6
areas
tend
to
concentrate
particulate
pollution
and
7
it
tends
to
drop
off
very
quickly
as
you
move
away
8
from
those
areas.
9
The
way
it
subsequently
scatters
from
10
atmospheric
effects
can
bedevil
you,
but
we
need
to
11
make
sure
that
in
these
areas,
and
some
of
these
are
12
Environmental
Justice
communities,
that
the
way
we're
13
approaching
monitoring
and
measuring
and
setting
14
standards
can
ensure
that
all
people,
particularly
in
15
areas
that
are
most
likely
to
be
seriously
affected,
16
have
the
opportunity,
in
fact
their
right
exercised
17
to
be
able
to
breathe
clean
area.
18
Now
I'd
like
to
conclude
here
­­
I
see
my
19
time
is
running
up
­­
with
an
invitation.
Everything
20
that
we're
talking
about
here
is
pretty
abstract.
21
And
if
you
were
to
come
down
­­
being
glad
to
invite
22
you
all
in
some
fashion
­­
and
arrange
it
with
local
23
officials,
like
the
AQMD,
for
you
to
come
down
and
24
visit
our
area
and
to
visit
some
of
the
people
who
25
92
are
affected
by
the
air
pollution
and
these
issues,
1
the
visit
some
of
the
doctors
down
in
that
area
and
2
see
what
happens.
With
a
little
luck
you'll
actually
3
come
on
a
clean
air
day
and
see
just
how
nice
our
4
region
can
be
and
just
have
to
listen
to
the
stories
5
of
how
bad
it
can
be
at
other
times.
6
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much,
8
Mr.
Politeo.
9
Any
questions?
10
MR.
HANLEY:
I
know
you
brought
up
some
11
really
good,
interesting
points
regarding
the
use
of,
12
I
guess,
satellite
data
and
so
forth.
And
then
you
13
discussed
the
idea
of
monitoring
locations.
14
And
I'm
wondering
it
would
be
interesting
15
to
know,
it's
hard
to
tell
from
your
comments
whether
16
you
were
suggesting
that
it's
inappropriate
to
use
17
the
remote
satellite
information
as
a
replacement
for
18
a
local
monitoring
station
or
you
were
suggesting
19
that
they
do
needed
complement
them,
and
I
just
want
20
to
understand
that.
21
MR.
POLITEO:
Yeah.
I
don't
know
that
22
satellite
­­
I
don't
know
that
there's
technology
to
23
use
satellite
information
to
be
able
to
do
24
monitoring.
The
satellite
images
I
talk
about
are
25
93
from
the
smoke
plumes
from
fires
which
are
rare
1
events.
And
they
provide
the
opportunity
to
have
2
some
very
good
markers
that
show
how
a
particulate
or
3
a
material
can
travel
in
a
medium,
almost
as
if
you
4
had
the
opportunity
to
have
red
dye
put
into
a
5
loquacious
liquid
to
see
how
it
disburses.
6
So
that
can
show
you
some
of
the
quirks.
7
And
understanding
and
realizing
those
would
give
you
8
impetus
to
saying
that
on
the
ground
we
need
to
make
9
sure
that
our
monitoring
network
is
capable
of
10
detecting
the
kinds
of
quirks
that
we
would
have
seen
11
illustrated
by
these
satellite
images.
12
So
a
point
source,
for
example,
that
might
13
be
near
where
the
fires
are
may
have
a
particulate
14
plume
that
follows
the
course
of
these
fires,
15
depending
on
the
way
the
wind
is
blowing,
that
would
16
parallel
a
course
of
fire
and
impact
a
particular
17
community
that
might
not
be
anywhere
near
a
18
monitoring
area.
Whereas
a
monitoring
station
might
19
just
happen
to
be
a
few
miles
over
in
a
community
20
that
because
of
prevailing
wind
patterns
is
not
so
21
frequently
affected
and
we
may
be
missing
the
effects
22
of
it.
So
that's
how
I
would
suggest
that
those
23
would
interplay.
24
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
25
94
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
just
one
more
1
question
for
Dr.
Balmes,
a
request.
You
talked
about
2
the
fact
that
rural
particles
are
contaminated
by
3
other
sources
that
make
them
unhealthy.
Any
4
information
you
have
that
you
can
provide
and
then
5
any
specifics,
any
studies,
anything
that
can
support
6
those
statements
would
be
helpful
for
the
record.
7
DR.
BALMES:
Okay.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Thank
you
9
very
much.
10
Dr.
Anthony
Gerber
and
Jonah
Ramirez.
11
Welcome.
You're
John,
right?
Thanks
for
coming.
12
We'll
start
with
Dr.
Gerber.
13
DR.
GERBER:
Okay.
My
name
is
Anthony
14
Gerber.
I'm
a
pulmonoligst
and
I'm
an
Assistant
15
Professor
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of
California
16
San
Francisco.
And
I'm
representing
the
California
17
Thoracic
Society,
also
known
as
CTS,
and
the
American
18
Lung
Association
of
California,
which
I'll
refer
to
19
as
ALAC.
20
In
my
clinical
practice
at
the
San
21
Francisco
VA
Medical
Center
I
was
privileged
to
22
provide
pulmonary
care
for
veterans
from
a
number
of
23
eras
ranging
from
World
War
II
to
the
First
Gulf
War.
24
Many
of
these
veterans
with
chronic
lung
disease
25
95
noticed
worsening
of
their
symptoms
coincide
with
1
higher
levels
of
particulate
pollution.
On
bad
days
2
these
patients
are
often
unable
to
leave
their
home.
3
Physicians
approach
clinical
problems
by
4
developing
a
differential
diagnosis
that
explains
a
5
certain
condition.
I've
tried
to
apply
the
same
6
principle
to
understand
why
the
EPA
has
recommended
7
only
marginally
higher
standards
for
particulate
8
matter
pollution.
9
Assuming
that
the
process
to
define
clean
10
air
standards
occurs
in
a
fashion
consistent
with
11
faithful
stewardship
of
the
general
welfare
there
are
12
only
two
possible
explanations
for
why
the
EPA
has
13
proposed
the
inadequate
standards
that
we
are
14
discussing
today.
15
The
first
explanation
is
that
there
are
16
doubts
about
the
science.
However
the
17
Administration's
own
independent
science
advisors
on
18
clean
air
issues
and
the
EPA
Staff
Scientists
19
concluded
that
adverse
health
effects
occur
at
levels
20
way
below
the
current
Fine
Particle
Standards.
21
Epidemiologic
study
after
study
has
reached
22
the
conclusion
that
both
fine
and
course
particulate
23
matter
pollution
causes
disease.
Unfortunately
there
24
is
a
long
traditional
of
specious
criticism
of
25
96
epidemiologic
proof
of
cause
and
effect
in
regards
to
1
human
disease.
Indeed
tobacco
companies
argued
for
2
years
that
the
epidemiology
showing
that
cigarettes
3
cause
cancer
was
inadequate.
4
In
the
case
of
particulate
matter
5
pollution,
as
is
also
the
case
with
tobacco,
6
additional
molecular
mechanistic
evidence
buttresses
7
the
conclusion
that
particulate
matter
pollution
8
causes
human
disease.
For
example,
numerous
studies
9
have
shown
that
particulate
matter
can
induce
the
10
synthesis
of
interluekin­
8,
a
key
lung
inflammatory
11
protein.
12
The
key
inflammatory
mediator
NF
kappa
B
is
13
also
induced
by
particulate
matter.
Toll­
like
14
receptor
4,
a
central
mediator
of
the
innate
immune
15
response,
is
activated
by
particulate
matter.
Heat
16
shock
protein
70,
a
marker
of
cellular
stress,
can
be
17
activated
by
particulate
matter.
18
Indeed
the
mechanistic
evidence
is
clear:
19
particulate
matter
induces
the
molecular
players
that
20
cause
lung
inflammation.
Therefore
a
molecular
21
mechanism
has
been
established
that
explains
the
22
clear
epidemiologic
association
between
particulate
23
matter
and
human
disease.
24
In
the
face
of
this
overwhelming
data
the
25
97
CTS
and
ALAC
support
more
stringent
air
standards
1
than
those
currently
proposed
and
we
urge
that
the
2
EPA
does
the
same.
3
The
other
explanation
for
why
only
marginal
4
strengthen
of
the
current
standards
has
been
proposed
5
despite
strong
scientific
evidence
supporting
more
6
stringent
standards
is
that
a
cost­
benefit
analysis
7
has
guided
Clean
Air
decision
making.
8
We
reject
the
notion
that
a
price
can
be
9
placed
on
the
health
and
life
of
vulnerable
patients
10
with
lung
disease.
Indeed,
what
metric
can
be
used
11
to
assign
cost
and
benefit
to
an
individual
patient
12
who
cannot
leave
his
or
her
home
due
to
ambient
13
pollution?
How
is
cost
assigned
to
a
patient
who
14
dies
from
an
exacerbation
of
chronic
obstructive
15
pulmonary
disease
that
was
caused
by
particulate
16
matter?
How
is
it
decided
that
a
veteran
should
be
17
the
de
facto
payer
of
the
cost
of
weak
air
standards?
18
There
are
165
million
people
living
in
19
areas
with
particle
pollution
at
levels
that
20
adversely
affect
public
health.
The
EPA's
proposed
21
standards,
even
though
higher
than
before,
protect
22
only
65
million,
leaving
100
million
exposed.
23
The
CTS
and
ALAC
believe
that
the
cost
of
24
not
protecting
100
million
Americans
is
incalculable.
25
98
It
is
not
negotiable.
1
Patients
with
chronic
and
incurable
lung
2
disease
are
already
faced
with
enormous
difficulties
3
in
performing
even
the
most
basic
activities
of
daily
4
living:
Walking
to
the
bathroom,
getting
groceries,
5
going
to
the
mailbox.
6
The
CTS
and
ALAC
advocate
for
air
standards
7
that
protect
these
vulnerable
patients.
To
that
end,
8
the
EPA
should
follow
the
recommendations
of
ATS
and
9
the
American
Lung
Association
and
adopt
the
10
following:
11
An
Annual
Standard
for
fine
particle
12
pollution
no
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
13
meter
and
a
Daily
Standard
no
higher
than
25
14
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
strong
course
15
particle
standard
and
Monitoring
requirement
that
16
protects
all
Americans
in
both
urban
and
rural
17
communities.
18
On
behalf
of
the
CTS
I
thank
you
for
your
19
time
and
attention.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Dr.
Gerber,
I
assume
21
that
all
studies
you
mention
are
in
fact
in
our
22
record,
but
if
there
are
any
of
them,
molecular
23
studies
that
you
mentioned
that
are
not,
we'd
24
appreciate
having
them.
25
99
DR.
GERBER:
Okay.
I
will.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
2
Any
other
questions
of
Dr.
Gerber?
3
Jonah,
and
thanks
for
coming.
We're
4
looking
forward
to
hearing
from
you.
Can
you
reach
5
that
okay?
6
MR.
RAMIREZ:
I'm
Jonah
with
the
American
7
Lung
Association.
I
am
Jonah.
I
am
10
years
old.
I
8
have
asthma.
I
wasn't
born
with
it.
I
developed
it.
9
Why,
you
ask?
Because
I
am
forced
to
breathe
dirty,
10
polluted
air.
11
I
have
asthma
because
from
the
time
I
12
learned
to
walk
I
have
wanted
to
be
outside.
I
have
13
always
enjoyed
playing
outside:
Running,
skating,
14
just
playing
like
every
other
kid
on
the
block.
15
I
had
no
idea
that
playing
outside
would
be
16
in
a
sense
my
demise.
You
see,
kids
like
me
who
like
17
to
be
outside,
who
live
in
polluted
areas,
kids
who
18
run
around
and
breathe
the
dirty,
smoggy
air
are
19
three
times
more
likely
to
develop
asthma
than
the
20
kids
who
just
play
video
games
all
day.
Go
figure.
21
An
indoor
kid
is
actually
at
less
risk
of
22
developing
asthma
than
an
energetic,
enthusiastic,
23
crazy
outdoor
kid,
like
myself.
24
Strong
lungs
have
nothing
to
do
with
it,
25
100
not
in
my
case
anyway.
Dirty
air
made
me
sick.
1
When
I
was
asked
to
testify
at
this
hearing
2
I
knew
this
would
be
a
date
that
I
would
remember
3
forever.
Speaking
at
the
same
hearing
as
doctors,
4
executives,
clean
air
experts,
political
activists,
5
and
me.
Well,
you
get
the
picture.
6
But
then
I
realized
I
want
this
to
be
a
day
7
that
all
of
you
remember
forever.
8
I
want
you
to
remember
me
every
time
you
9
are
annoyed
sitting
in
traffic
because
it
is
going
to
10
make
you
late
or
if
your
windows
are
down,
annoyed
11
because
you
have
to
roll
them
up
so
your
suit
doesn't
12
small
of
exhaust.
13
I
want
you
to
remember
me
every
time
you
14
are
stopped
for
a
railroad
crossing,
irritated
about
15
how
slow
the
train
is
moving.
I
want
you
to
remember
16
me
every
time
you
notice
the
poppies
in
bloom
along
17
the
country
road
you
are
traveling
on.
18
I
want
you
to
remember
me
when
our
local
19
weather
issues
a
high­
wind
warning
or
makes
us
aware
20
of
a
fire
that
is
burning
in
our
local
community.
21
I
want
you
to
remember
me
when
you
decide
22
it
would
be
fun
to
look
at
model
homes
just
to
get
23
decorating
ideas
and
you
awe
at
the
wonderful
scents
24
that
are
running
through
the
air
ducts.
25
101
I
want
you
to
remember
me
when
you
decide
1
to
paint
your
house
or
get
new
carpet.
I
want
you
to
2
remember
me
the
next
time
you
mow
your
lawn
and
you
3
have
to
take
a
shower
afterward
due
to
the
smell
of
4
the
lawn
mower
exhaust.
5
I
want
you
to
remember
me
the
next
time
6
your
child's
class
goes
on
a
field
trip
to
a
7
horticultural
museum.
8
All
of
these
irritating,
wonderful,
simple
9
things
are
concerns
for
my
family:
Exhaust,
black
10
smoke
from
a
train,
pollen,
dust,
ash,
fragrance,
11
chemicals,
allergens.
These
things
that
alter
your
12
schedule
or
make
your
suit
smell
make
me
sick.
13
We
need
to
be
aware
of
these
annoyances
in
14
an
entirely
different
way
than
we
have
in
the
past,
15
because
these
little
annoyances
can
mean
the
16
difference
between
a
good
day
and
a
trip
to
the
17
emergency
room.
18
In
the
past
I
have
been
quoted
for
saying
19
that
I
am
a
victim
of
crime
because
I
am
forced
to
20
breathe
air
that
makes
me
sick
and
for
stating
that
21
we
needed
to
change
laws,
change
guidelines,
change
22
our
air.
23
Today
I
would
like
to
leave
you
with
this:
24
It
has
come
to
my
attention
that
it
has
been
10
25
102
years
since
a
change
has
been
made
regarding
1
particulate
matter.
And
the
Standards
are
supposed
2
to
be
reviewed
every
five
years.
I
am
10.
Huh,
3
makes
one
wonder.
4
If
the
EPA
would
have
kept
that
scheduled
5
hearing
back
when
I
was
five,
would
I
be
standing
6
here
in
front
of
you
testifying
as
a
child
asthmatic?
7
I
developed
asthma
when
I
was
seven.
8
Ponder
that
one.
9
Thank
you.
10
(
Applause.)
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
thank
you
very
12
much,
Jonah,
for
coming
and
reading
that
to
us
and
13
telling
us
about
your
life
story.
We
very
much
14
appreciate
it
and
we
will
definitely
take
it
into
15
account.
Thank
you
very
much.
16
MR.
RAMIREZ:
Welcome.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
thank
you,
Dr.
18
Gerber.
19
Richard
Bode
and
Rajiv
Bhatia.
20
MR.
BODE:
That's
going
to
be
a
tough
act
21
to
follow.
Good
morning.
I'm
Richard
Bode
with
the
22
Air
Resources
Board,
which
is
a
part
of
California's
23
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
the
state's
24
principal
air
pollution
control
agency.
25
103
And
I'm
pleased
that
we
can
continue
our
1
participation
in
the
U.
S.
EPA's
review
of
the
2
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
3
Particulate
Matter.
4
I'm
here
today
to
express
our
concerns
5
about
the
recently­
Proposed
National
Standards
for
6
both
Fine
Particulates
and
Course
Particulates.
7
First
let
me
state
that
the
Air
Resources
8
Board
is
a
public
health
agency
and
that
our
mission
9
is
to
improve
air
quality.
And
by
that
improve
and
10
reduce
the
health
impacts
of
air
pollutions
for
all
11
Californians.
Because
of
our
unique
role
and
12
authority
that
we
have,
the
Air
Resources
Board
also
13
sets
its
own
ambient
air
quality
standards
in
14
California.
15
Because
of
the
serious
nature
of
PM
16
exposures
in
California,
the
Air
Resources
Board
in
17
collaboration
with
the
Office
of
Environmental
Health
18
Hazard
Assessment
conducted
an
extensive
review
of
19
the
scientific
literature
back
in
2002.
The
20
conclusion
of
that
review
was
the
establishment
of
21
the
nation's
most
stringent
standards
for
particulate
22
matter.
Our
findings
were
that
the
health
effects
23
from
exposure
to
PM
are
significant
with
including
24
health
effects
such
as
premature
death,
25
104
cardiorespiratory
disease,
and
deficits
in
children's
1
lung
function
growth.
2
The
body
of
evidence
as
found
in
the
3
scientific
literature
is
substantial.
Vulnerable
4
groups
include:
Children,
asthmatics,
the
elderly,
5
and
particularly
those
with
preexisting
heart
and
6
lung
diseases.
Exposure
in
California
is
high,
7
particularly
high
considering
other
areas
of
the
8
nation.
And,
finally,
the
health
benefits
from
9
lowering
PM
are
substantial.
10
Since
the
time
of
the
Cal
EPA
review
many
11
new
studies
have
been
published
which
further
support
12
our
conclusion
and
also
indicate
that
some
of
the
13
health
effects
may
actually
be
two
to
three
times
14
greater
than
what
we
had
estimated
in
2002.
Because
15
of
this
strong
body
of
literature
we
believe
the
U.
S.
16
EPA
should
set
equally
stringent
standards
for
the
17
National
Air
Quality
Standards.
18
First
let
me
address
the
finer
PM2.5
19
particle
proposal.
We
believe
the
U.
S.
EPA
should
20
follow
the
advice
of
its
own
Scientific
Advisory
21
Committee,
CASAC,
and
choose
a
level
at
the
lowest
22
end
of
the
range
as
found
in
the
Staff
Report,
at
13
23
micrograms.
However,
we
also
believe
that
there
is
24
substantial
evidence
to
support
an
annual
average
25
105
standard
of
12
micrograms,
as
the
Air
Resources
Board
1
has
established.
2
And
this
issue
is
really
significant
for
3
Californians.
For
every
additional
microgram
of
4
particulate
matter
that's
reduced
we
estimated
a
5
thousand
additional
premature
deaths
could
be
avoided
6
annually
in
California.
7
We're
also
concerned
about
the
Proposed
8
Shortterm
Course
Particulate
Matter
Standard.
We
do
9
not
agree
that
the
available
evidence
is
adequate
to
10
conclude
there
are
no
or
few
adverse
health
effects
11
associated
with
course
particles
originating
from
12
rural
areas.
13
Overall
the
scientific
literature
suggest
14
that
both
shortterm
and
longterm
exposures
to
course
15
particles
are
associated
with
adverse
health
effects,
16
including
premature
death.
And
I
believe
Dr.
Ostro
17
earlier
today
pointed
out
some
of
the
new
studies
18
that
have
actually
been
conducted
out
in
California.
19
While
the
available
epidemiologic
studies
20
that
support
the
Course
Particle
Standard
were
mostly
21
performed
in
urbanized
areas,
we
don't
believe
that
22
the
absence
of
data,
specifically
implicating
rural
23
course
particles,
leads
one
to
the
conclusion
that
24
there's
no
adverse
effects
from
rural
particles.
25
106
Therefore
we
believe
that
this
distinction
1
between
particle
source
is
not
adequately
supported
2
and
we
caution
against
EPA's
Proposal.
3
We'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
4
historically
particulate
matter
has
been
regulated
on
5
a
mass
basis
without
regard
for
its
specific
6
components.
This
course
has
been
taken
because
7
there's
considerable
evidence
for
both
PM2.5
and
PM10
8
in
its
role
in
inducing
adverse
health
effects,
but
9
it
also
recognizes
that
there's
insufficient
evidence
10
to
target
specific
subspecies.
We
believe
this
11
longstanding
practice
should
be
continued
for
course
12
particles
and
that
the
U.
S.
EPA
should
not
set
this
13
differentiation
between
the
rural
and
urban
origin
of
14
particles.
15
Now
we're
also
concerned
about
the
16
implication
of
your
Course
Particle
Standard
and
how
17
it
applies
to
different
levels
of
protection,
18
depending
on
where
someone
lives.
19
Air
quality
management
agencies
are
20
responsible
for
protecting
all
residents
in
their
21
area
of
jurisdiction,
regardless
of
the
size
of
their
22
communities.
If
EPA
differentiates
between
urban
and
23
rural
course
PM,
large
rural
areas
of
California
24
where
a
significant
fraction
of
the
state's
25
107
population
still
resides,
would
be
exempt
from
1
federal
requirements
to
reduce
course
particles
even
2
though
their
monitored
values
could
exceed
the
3
Proposed
Standards.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Mr.
Bode,
you're
out
5
of
time
so
if
you
could
try
to
wrap
up,
I'd
6
appreciate
it.
7
MR.
BODE:
Okay.
Let
me
conclude
by
saying
8
that
we
also
are
concerned
about
your
proposal
to
9
eliminate
monitoring,
as
some
of
the
previous
10
speakers
said.
By
doing
so,
it
eliminates
the
11
ability
for
future
scientists
to
perform
new
studies
12
on
the
health
effects
of
course
particles.
And
we
13
greatly
advise
U.
S.
EPA
to
adopt
standards
of
12
14
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
our
annual
average
15
standards
and
remove
the
course
versus
rural
16
designation.
Thank
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
18
As
I've
said
to
others,
if
you
do
have
any
19
additional
evidence
that
you
want
to
have
us
include
20
in
the
record
as
far
as
studies,
anything
more
on
the
21
urban­
rural
split,
that
would
be
helpful.
22
MR.
BODE:
Great.
Thank
you.
I
think
Dr.
23
Ostro
presented
quite
a
few
of
those
new
studies
in
24
his
testimony.
25
108
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
He
did.
He
did,
and
1
I've
already
asked
him
to
please
make
sure
they're
in
2
our
record,
so.
3
MR.
BODE:
Great.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
5
I
need
to
step
out
for
a
minute,
so
if
one
6
of
you
would
take
over.
Thank
you.
7
DR.
BHATIA:
Are
you
ready?
8
MR.
HANNON:
Yeah,
go
ahead.
9
DR.
BHATIA:
Okay.
Hi.
My
name
is
Rajiv
10
Bhatia.
I
have
a
medical
degree
from
Stanford
and
11
subsequently
completed
postgraduate
training
in
12
occupational
and
environmental
health
and
13
epidemiology.
I
currently
serve
as
the
Director
of
14
Environmental
Health
for
the
City
of
San
Francisco.
15
Every
day
we're
asked
by
community
members,
16
by
residents
to
deal
with
air
quality
problems,
and
17
the
health
consequences
of
those
problems.
So
I
18
wanted
to
try
to
bring
to
you
a
little
bit
more
local
19
perspective
and
also
an
Environmental
Justice
20
perspective.
21
I
know
regulatory
standards
are
intended
to
22
establish
levels
that
protect
health,
but
the
23
standards
are
actually
compared
against
averages.
24
And
the
averages
represent
a
range
and
distribution,
25
109
and
there's
a
pretty
wide
range
when
we're
talking
1
about
particulate
matter.
And
I
want
to
point
that
2
out,
that
when
you're
changing
the
standards
you're
3
actually
changing
the
range,
the
whole
range.
And
­­
4
and
when
you're
thinking
about
the
health
studies,
5
you
need
to
look
at
the
number
of
people
who
are
6
actually
exposed
to
quite
high
levels
within
that
7
range.
8
I'm
going
to
show
you
this
little
study.
I
9
don't
think
this
is
­­
this
is
a
sort
of
a
low
10
tech/
high
tech
study.
We
put
an
air
quality
monitor
11
on
a
bicycle
and
attached
a
GPS
monitor
to
the
12
person.
And
we
plotted
air
quality,
particulate
13
matter
levels
along
a
street.
14
And
San
Francisco's
a
relatively
clean
air
15
place,
but
we
can
see
that
the
range
is
from
31
16
micrograms
to
272
micrograms.
So
when
you're
talking
17
about
a
50­
microgram
current
National
Standard
for
18
particulates
you
need
to
look
at
how
wide
that
range
19
is.
20
And
that
where
you're
seeing
this
little
21
red
highlight
at
the
bottom,
what
we
have
there
are
a
22
Post
Office
distribution
center,
a
waste
recycling
23
processing,
a
lot
of
truck
traffic,
and
we
have
24
residents
there.
So
I
think
it's
an
important
thing
25
110
to
keep
in
mind
as
you're
setting
standards
and
where
1
you're
locating
monitors.
2
I
want
to
make
this
point
a
little
bit
more
3
generally
and
I
think
this
issue
is
very
similar
to
4
other
cites,
other
urban
areas
across
the
country,
5
even
though
I'm
using
San
Francisco
as
an
example.
6
Here's
San
Francisco's
distribution
of
7
vehicle
trips.
And
we
know
that
vehicle
volume
is
8
closely
related
to
air
quality.
What
you
see
is
in
9
the
central
areas
of
the
city
a
tremendous
variation
10
in
the
number
of
vehicle
trips.
This
is
probably
11
pretty
consistent.
12
What's
important
here
is
that
the
people
13
who
live
in
that
central
city,
generally
lower
14
income,
many
ethnic
minorities,
they
don't
drive
15
cars.
They
don't
own
cars.
They
walk.
They
take
16
transit.
They
are
not
consumers
of
the
environment
17
as
are
the
people
who
are
driving
into
these
places.
18
And
that's
going
to
come
up
later.
19
The
California
Air
Resources
Board
has
done
20
a
lot
of
studies
about
the
relationship
between
21
particulate
matter
and
distance
from
roadways.
This
22
is
an
example
of
how
quickly
particulate
matter
drops
23
off
away
from
freeways
from
Southern
California,
but
24
the
point
has
been
made
by
international
studies
that
25
111
particulate
matter
is
higher
around
roadways.
1
Another
important
point.
If
we
take
the
2
California
Air
Resources
Board
recent
guidance
to
3
around
where
air
quality
might
be
harmful
around
4
roadways,
we
can
look
at
this
area,
this
is
sort
of
5
the
central
area
of
San
Francisco.
There's
a
big
6
freeway
running
through.
You
see
many
areas
with
7
high,
with
intolerably
high
air
pollution
levels
8
where
we
know
respiratory
disease
is
going
to
be
9
caused
by
living
near
those
levels.
10
Now
what's
important
here
about
this
study
11
is
San
Francisco's
trying
to
be
a
smart
growth
city.
12
It's
trying
to
build
housing
in
these
areas
so
we
13
can
limit
the
further
growth
of
vehicle
miles
14
traveled,
but
the
central
city's
­­
but
one
of
the
15
limiting
factors
here
is
that
air
quality
is
poor
in
16
the
areas
we'd
like
to
build
housing.
So
when
we're
17
thinking
longterm,
another
point
for
you
to
take
into
18
account.
19
We
can
look
at
where
asthma
rates
are
high
20
in
San
Francisco
and
we
can
see
it
fairly
well
21
mirrors
the
distribution
of
where
the
traffic
is.
22
Most
of
San
Francisco
has
asthma
hospitalization
23
rates
below
national
standards,
while
the
whole
24
southeast
quadrant
where
we
have
both
industry
and
a
25
112
lot
of
traffic,
has
higher
rates.
1
So
I
want
to
make
a
final,
a
couple
of
2
overarching
points.
I
know
you're
not
supposed
to
be
3
influenced
by
economic
factors,
but
let's
face
it,
4
you
know
the
economy
of
the
country
is
sort
of
based
5
on
producing
things
which
means
energy
which
means
6
pollution.
And
it
is
going
to
be
a
factor
whether
7
stated
or
unstated
I
think
in
your
decision
making.
8
The
point
I
want
to
make
here
is
that
the
9
health
costs
and
the
regulatory
costs
are
borne
by
10
different
people.
We
can
see
the
health
costs
of
11
environmental
pollution
are
often
borne
by
people
who
12
are
not
the
users
of
the
causes
of
those
pollution.
13
And
the
people
who
are
the
causers
of
those
14
pollutions
are
not
necessarily
bearing
­­
they
might
15
be
bearing
economic
costs
of
regulation,
but
not
the
16
actual
health
costs.
17
Regulatorialy
you
have
Environmental
18
Justice
Standards,
and
I
would
urge
you
to
look
at
19
Environmental
Justice
law
and
regulations
to
make
20
sure
these
standards
are
not
causing
disparate
21
impacts
before
you
publish
any
final
regulations.
22
Ethical
and
legal
issues
aside,
I
strongly
23
concur
with
the
points
that
your
regulations
need
to
24
be
health
protective.
The
country
needs
a
direction.
25
113
And
the
standards
that
you
set
may
not
be
1
immediately­
feasible
standards,
but
we
need
a
2
direction.
We
need
to
know
where
to
go,
and
strong
3
regulations,
health­
protective
regulations
drive
4
feasibility.
They
enable
technological
innovation
5
that
make
those
standards
feasible.
Don't
lose
that
6
point,
and
please
provide
the
most
health­
protective
7
regulations
you
can.
8
Thank
you.
9
MR.
HANNON:
Thank
you.
10
Questions?
11
MS.
STONE:
You
will
submit
the
study
in
12
your
comments?
13
DR.
BHATIA:
I
will
leave
the
file
on
this
14
computer.
Will
that
work?
Thanks.
15
MR.
HANNON:
Dr.
Bhatia,
one
question.
You
16
were
commenting
on
where
people
live
and
where
17
activities
occur
that
lead
to
higher
levels
of
18
pollution.
One
of
our
proposals
involves
where
19
monitors
will
be
sited.
And
I
don't
remember
the
20
size,
where
San
Francisco
would
fit,
but
at
least
for
21
larger
areas
there
are
minimum
monitoring
22
requirements,
but
for
larger
areas
monitors
would
be
23
located
in
different
­­
have
different
criteria.
I
24
think
one
would
be
at
a
generally
representative
of
a
25
114
broad
population.
One
of
the
monitors,
at
least
one
1
monitor
would
be
at
a
higher
level
of
air
pollution,
2
but
still
represented
a
population.
3
It
might
be
useful
to
know
where
that
4
monitoring
­­
given
our
monitoring
guidance
that
5
we're
proposing,
how
that
would
fit
with
the
maps
6
that
you've
presented.
7
DR.
BHATIA:
I
would
have
a
recommendation.
8
And
I
think
it's
important
to
have,
as
you're
9
saying,
the
monitors
to
represent
the
range
of
10
exposures
actually
being
suffered
by
people.
So
I
11
think
you
need
to
take
into
­­
I
think
the
first
12
thing
is
that
before
we're
setting
up
monitors
EPA
13
needs
to
have
some
data
about
the
variation
and
the
14
factors
that
cause
the
variation
in
that
particular
15
city
or
locale.
16
So
San
Francisco,
the
air
is
relatively
17
clean
in
the
west.
But
it
would
take
air
quality
18
monitoring
at
the
street
level
and
looking
at
the
19
variation
to
look
to
see
where
exactly
those
monitors
20
should
be
set.
21
The
second
page
is
you
can
use
the
relative
22
sort
of
burden
of
exposure,
where
are
population
23
centers
and
where
are
vulnerable
population
centers
24
located
in
setting
the
location
of
those
monitors.
I
25
115
think
the
monitors
need
to
be
representative
of
the
1
high
range
of
exposures
and
vulnerable
populations
in
2
population
centers.
3
MR.
HANNON:
Well,
my
question
is:
We
have
4
proposed
certain
monitoring
requirements.
It
would
5
be
useful
to
know
whether
our
requirements
as
applied
6
to
San
Francisco
meet
the
goals
that
you've
just
7
identified.
8
DR.
BHATIA:
Yeah.
I
guess
the
point
I'm
9
trying
to
make,
I
will
review
those
and
I
would
10
provide
those
comments,
but
I
would
say
that
EPA
has
11
probably
insufficient
local
data
about
the
variation
12
in
exposure
in
order
to
be
making
any
siting
13
decisions
on
existing
data.
14
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
15
Is
Dr.
Michael
Lipsett
here?
16
And
John
Sakamoto?
17
Great.
Dr.
Lipsett.
18
DR.
LIPSETT:
Thank
you.
My
name
is
19
Michael
Lipsett.
I
am
a
physician
epidemiologist
and
20
have
spent
much
of
my
career
developing
the
Medical
21
and
Public
Health
Foundations
for
California's
Air
22
Quality
Standards,
including
the
Particulate
Matter
23
Standard
in
2002.
24
I'm
an
Associate
Clinical
Professor
at
UCSF
25
116
School
of
Medicine
and
also
work
for
the
State
of
1
California.
However,
I
am
here
representing
only
2
myself
and
not
any
institution.
3
I'm
going
to
focus
mainly
on
the
Course
4
Particle
Recommendations
from
EPA,
but
I
first
wanted
5
to
mention
that
there
are
a
couple
of
omitted
6
studies,
omitted
relevant
studies
with
respect
to
7
course
particles.
8
And
on
page
2657
of
the
Federal
Register
9
Notice,
the
EPA
cites
three
new
U.
S.
and
Canadian
10
epidemiologic
studies
representing
associations
11
between
shortterm
exposure
to
course
particles
and
12
emissions
for
respiratory
disease.
This
overlooks
13
two
relevant
studies.
One
in
Canada
in
Toronto
by
14
Lynn
et
al.
published
in
2002
­­
and
I
have
the
full
15
citations
I
have
submitted
with
written
comments
­­
16
in
which
the
investigators
identified
strong
17
associations
of
asthma
hospitalizations
with
course
18
PM.
19
And
there's
another
study
from
the
20
University
of
Washington
in
Seattle
published
in
1999
21
in
which
the
investigators
observed
statistically
22
significant
risk
estimates
of
comparable
magnitude
23
with
course
and
fine
particles
for
asthma
24
hospitalizations.
25
117
Now
throughout
the
Federal
Register
Notice
1
the
EPA
downplays
the
toxicity
of
rural
relative
to
2
urban
particles,
at
the
same
time
indicating
that
3
there
are
few
data
on
which
to
base
such
a
4
conclusion.
If
the
EPA
actually
believed
that
its
5
mission
were
to
protect
public
health,
the
6
appropriate
course
of
action
would
be
to
treat
these
7
categories
of
particles
the
same
unless
and
until
8
there
are
data
to
support
making
a
principled
9
distinction
between
them.
Instead
the
EPA
repeatedly
10
prisons
misleading
generalizations
in
support
of
the
11
notion
that
rural
particles
are
not
worth
regulating.
12
For
instance,
the
Federal
Register
Notice
13
cites
the
relative
lack
of
toxicity
of
volcanic
ash
14
from
Mt.
St.
Helens
a
couple
of
times.
Most
people
15
understand
that
this
is
not
characteristic
of
course
16
particles
throughout
the
rest
of
the
country.
17
This
bias
is
also
present
when
EPA
18
categorizes
nonurban
particles
as
"
natural
crustal
19
dust
of
geologic
origin,"
completely
ignoring
not
20
only
the
biologic
constituents
of
course
particles
21
such
as
endotoxin,
but
also
human
contamination
of
22
these
natural
particles
by
burning
crop
residues,
23
applying
pesticides
or
herbicides,
and
by
driving
24
tens
of
thousands
of
vehicles
a
day
on
major
highways
25
118
through
otherwise
rural
factors.
1
In
light
of
these
factors
it
is
2
disingenuous
to
characterize
particles
in
these
areas
3
as
­­
4
(
Microphone
interference.)
5
DR.
LIPSETT:
Sorry.
Can
I
have
an
extra
6
time?
7
MR.
HANLEY:
Yes,
you
can.
8
(
Comments
off
the
record.)
9
DR.
LIPSETT:
The
mic,
is
it
working
right
10
now?
11
MR.
HANLEY:
Why
don't
you
test
it,
Doctor?
12
DR.
LIPSETT:
Okay.
13
MR.
HANLEY:
Can
you
hear
him
in
the
back?
14
[
SPEAKERS]:
Yeah.
15
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay.
Continue.
16
DR.
LIPSETT:
Okay.
Thank
you.
17
I
think
I
had
just
said,
and
I'll
repeat,
18
it's
disingenuous
to
characterize
particles
­­
19
(
Microphone
interference.)
20
DR.
LIPSETT:
I'm
sorry.
Am
I
being
too
21
harsh;
is
that
what
it
is?
22
(
Laughter.)
23
MR.
HANLEY:
Try
to
keep
working
through
it
24
and
I'm
keeping
note
of
the
time.
Thank
you.
25
119
DR.
LIPSETT:
All
right.
So,
okay,
1
moreover,
there
is
evidence
that
nonurban
particles
2
are
assisted
with
mortality.
While
the
EPA
states
on
3
page
2666
of
the
Notice
that
all
the
relevant
4
epidemiologic
studies
of
mortality
were
conducted
in
5
urban
areas,
this
is
simply
wrong.
6
I
think
Dr.
Ostro
testified
earlier
today
7
about
a
study
in
which
he
and
I
are
co­
authors
of
8
looking
at
mortality
in
the
Coachella
Valley,
a
9
desert
resort
and
retirement
area
east
of
L.
A.
which
10
is
also
partially
agricultural.
Anyone
who
has
ever
11
visited
there
knows
that
it
is
not
urban,
yet
we
12
identified
statistical­
significant
associations
13
between
course
particles
and
cardiovascular
14
mortality.
15
Finally,
there
are
no
data
cited
in
the
16
Federal
Register
Notice
that
justify
excluding
17
agriculture
and
mining.
The
EPA
notes
on
page
2667
18
that
the
limited
evidence
does
not
support
either
the
19
existence
or
the
lack
of
causative
associations
for
20
community
exposures
to
thoracic
course
particles
from
21
agricultural
or
mining
industries.
22
Again
the
dearth
of
evidence
should
not
23
mean
that
inhabitants
of
mining
or
agricultural
24
regions
should
be
deprived
of
regulatory
protection.
25
120
In
addition
to
the
human
contributions
to
1
particle
toxicity
in
agricultural
areas,
soils
2
throughout
the
world
contain
large
quantities
of
3
endotoxins
and
other
microbial
products.
The
EPA's
4
own
research
laboratory
has
convincingly
demonstrated
5
that
endotoxin
is
found
preferentially
in
the
course
6
for
action
and
causes
pro
and
inflammatory
effects
in
7
experimental
systems.
8
Moreover,
it
is
well
known
that
endotoxin
9
causes
pulmonary
inflammation
and
exacerbates
asthma.
10
Agricultural
­­
okay,
I'm
going
to
skip
11
now.
I
think
I
probably
have
about
a
minute
left
12
here.
That
EPA
adduces
no
evidence
whatsoever
to
13
justify
excluding
areas
near
mines
from
coverage
of
a
14
course
particle
standard.
In
fact
there
is
no
15
discussion
at
all
about
different
mining
activities,
16
nor
are
any
distinctions
made
among
different
types
17
of
mining,
whether
it's
coal,
copper,
gold,
iron,
and
18
so
forth.
19
And
the
EPA
even
states
on
page
2665
that
20
urban
particles
are
likely
to
be
more
toxic
because
21
of
larger
relative
amounts
of
iron,
nickel,
cadmium,
22
and
chromium.
Well,
all
of
these
metals
come
from
23
mines
or
quarries.
While
urban
aerosols
may
be
24
enriched
with
some
of
these
metals,
it
is
not
obvious
25
121
why
mine
tailings
and
particles
generated
in
the
1
vicinities
of
mine
would
not.
Absent
compelling
2
supporting
evidence,
this
exclusion,
like
that
for
3
agriculture,
appears
arbitrary
and
capricious.
4
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
5
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you,
Doctor,
and
I
6
apologize
for
the
audio
problems.
7
Do
we
have
any
questions?
8
Thank
you.
Appreciate
you
offering
those
9
extra
studies.
And
you
did
say
those
are
and
you
10
will
have
those
in
the
record
or
submit
those
for
the
11
­­
12
DR.
LIPSETT:
Well,
I
have
the
citations
13
here
that
were
submitted
and
they're
easy
to
14
retrieve.
15
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay.
Appreciate
that.
16
MR.
SAKAMOTO:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
17
John
Sakamoto.
I
am
Senior
Vice
President
of
18
Eichleay
Engineers
of
California.
19
As
an
engineering
firm
we
are
often
asked
20
to
design
and
construct
projects
that
are
driven
by
21
environmental­
compliance
needs.
I
applaud
many
of
22
the
projects
and
have
helped
to
­­
that
have
helped
23
to
attend
clean
air
standards
and
protect
public
24
health.
25
122
I
have
designed,
managed,
and
built
many
of
1
these
projects
that
I
can
say
was
honestly
worth
2
every
penny
of
the
cost
of
their
installation.
3
However,
new
environmental
standards
must
4
balance
the
need
for
improved
air
quality
against
the
5
cost
of
compliance.
It
is
too
simple
to
state
that
a
6
regulation
will
make
things
better
without
7
understanding
the
physical
science,
the
health
8
science,
and
the
proposed
implementation
costs
and
9
cost­
effectiveness
of
the
new
regulation.
10
This
new
standard
will
impact
businesses
in
11
California.
It
would
mean
additional
controls
and
12
capital
spending
which
will
increase
the
cost
of
13
doing
business
in
California.
No
doubt
consumers
and
14
the
public
will
pay
for
this
increased
cost
of
15
business.
16
The
new
standard
will
also
result
in
17
significant
portions
of
California
being
classified
18
as
a
nonattainment
area,
despite
the
fact
that
19
California
already
has
the
most
stringent
industrial
20
and
auto
emissions
standards
in
the
nation
and
has
21
led
the
nation
in
reducing
PM
for
decades.
22
Clearly
human
health
must
be
protected.
23
Regulations
to
accomplish
this
will
carry
certain
24
economic
costs,
many
of
which
will
be
borne
by
the
25
123
same
persons
whose
health
is
being
protected.
1
The
EPA
in
adopting
this
new
standard
2
should
consider
the
costs
of
compliance.
I
ask
you
3
to
weigh
the
benefit
of
the
public
against
the
4
expense
of
these
very
costly
measures,
especially
5
when
balanced
against
other
pressing
needs
of
U.
S.
6
society.
Taken
to
an
extreme
there
would
be
an
7
infinite
cost
to
place
the
public
in
a
sterile
8
bubble.
9
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
10
MR.
HANNON:
Mr.
Sakamoto,
I'm
sure
you're
11
aware
that
we're
not
allowed
under
the
statute
to
12
take
costs
into
consideration,
implementation
costs
13
in
setting
the
level.
At
the
same
time
the
Agency
of
14
course
recognizes
that
there
are
costs
associated
15
with
rules.
We
did
a
regulatory­
impact
analysis
that
16
was
not
part
of
the
rulemaking.
It
was
not
part
of
17
justifying
the
proposal,
but
just
for
informational
18
purposes.
19
MR.
SAKAMOTO:
I
understand.
20
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
And
did
you
have
any
21
comments
on
the
costs
analysis
in
that
RAA
or
the
22
comparison
to
potential
benefits?
23
MR.
SAKAMOTO:
In
going
through
the
24
analysis
I
did
not
see
the
final
cost
of
the
25
124
regulation
as
opposed
to
the
implementation
of
1
putting
the
regulation
in
effect
as
opposed
to
what
2
industry,
what
businesses,
and
what
the
public
will
3
ultimately
pay
to
attain
each
level
of
the
standard.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
will
be
doing
a
5
final
regulatory­
impact
analysis
when
we
issue
the
6
final
rule
that
will
address
that
more
fully.
7
MR.
SAKAMOTO:
Thank
you
very
much.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
9
Laura
Fultz
and
Marcie
Keever.
10
MS.
KEEVER:
I'm
Marcie.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay,
Marcie.
12
Is
Laura
Fultz
here?
13
Okay.
Is
Linda
Weiner
here?
Okay.
14
MS.
KEEVER:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
15
Marcie
Keever
and
I'm
a
Staff
Attorney
and
Equal
16
Justice
Works
Fellow
at
Our
Children's
Earth
17
Foundation.
OCE
is
a
nonprofit
organization
18
dedicated
to
protecting
the
public
from
the
harmful
19
effects
of
air
and
water
pollution.
20
EPA's
proposal
to
make
provisions
to
the
21
Primary
and
Secondary
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
22
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
causes
grave
concern
23
to
our
organization
and
OCE's
members
throughout
the
24
country.
25
125
EPA's
standards
as
proposed
fail
to
1
adequately
protect
public
health
as
mandated
by
the
2
Clean
Air
Act.
This
would
be
a
complete
roll
back
of
3
more
than
30
years
of
environmental
and
public
health
4
protection.
5
Particulate
matter
exposure
is
linked
to
a
6
series
of
significant
health
problems,
including
7
aggravated
asthma,
chronic
bronchitis,
reduced
lung
8
function,
irregular
heartbeat,
heart
attack,
9
premature
death
in
people
with
heart
or
lung
disease.
10
Children
are
people
susceptible
to
particle
11
pollution
because
of
their
developing
lungs,
because
12
they
spend
more
time
out
of
doors
they
are
often
more
13
physically
active
and
breathe
more
rapidly,
inhaling
14
more
pollutants
in
proportion
to
their
body
weight.
15
The
elderly
are
also
at
special
risk
and
16
constitute
most
of
the
premature
deaths
from
particle
17
pollution
because
in
general
they
are
less
able
to
18
ward
off
disease.
19
Particulate
matter
is
also
the
main
cause
20
of
visibility
impairment
in
the
nation's
cities
and
21
national
parks;
13
of
these
national
parks
which
22
suffer
from
poor
air
quality
on
a
regular
basis,
as
23
determined
by
the
National
Parks
Conservation
24
Association.
More
2,000
studies
confirm
the
25
126
relationship
between
particles
and
illness,
1
hospitalization,
and
premature
death;
and
that
these
2
deaths
occur
at
levels
well
below
the
current
PM
3
standards.
4
EPA's
failure
to
propose
a
health­
5
protective
standard
is
inconsistent
with
its
mandate
6
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
under
7
the
Clean
Air
Act.
8
Federal
law
is
clear:
Air
quality
9
standards
must
be
set
at
levels
that
protect
public
10
health
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety,
including
11
vulnerable
populations:
Children,
the
elderly,
12
people
with
lung
and
heart
disease,
and
diabetes.
13
While
EPA's
proposal
lowers
the
24­
Hour
14
Fine
Particle
Standard,
it
sets
a
new
24­
Hour
15
Standard
for
Course
Particles.
Neither
of
these
16
standards
are
set
at
a
health­
protective
level.
17
EPA
also
proposes
to
retain
the
Current
18
Annual
Fine
Particle
Standard
which
again
fails
to
19
protect
public
health.
Scientific
studies
and
a
20
significant
number
of
scientists,
public
health
21
advocates,
and
medical
professionals
concur
that
22
these
proposed
standards
are
not
low
enough
to
23
adequately
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
24
More
than
100
leading
air
quality
25
127
scientists
and
physicians
called
on
EPA
to
propose
1
substantially
more
protective
air
quality
standards
2
for
particulates.
The
scientists
urged
EPA
to
adopt
3
an
Annual
Average
Fine
Particle
Standard
of
12
4
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
a
24­
Hour
Average
Fine
5
Particle
Standard
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
at
6
the
ninety­
ninth
percentile,
and
a
stringent
24­
Hour
7
Average
Course
Particle
Standard
applied
equally
to
8
all
areas
of
the
country.
9
EPA's
proposal
to
limit
monitoring
for
10
course
particles
to
communities
with
populations
11
greater
than
100,000
people
is
irresponsible
and
12
violates
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Any
PM
standard
must
be
13
set
to
protect
all
Americans,
as
the
Clean
Air
Act
14
mandates.
15
EPA
hasn't
demonstrated
that
urban
course
16
PM
isn't
present
in
many
communities
with
populations
17
less
than
100,000.
And
since
the
same
sources
and
18
processes,
for
example,
traffic,
road
dust,
and
19
industrial
sources
can
affect
communities
of
all
20
sizes,
a
protective
standard
must
be
established
and
21
applied
across
the
country.
22
EPA's
proposal
which
grants
a
blanket
23
exception
to
agriculture
and
mining
industries
from
24
regulation
under
the
proposed
course
particle
25
128
standard
is
also
unprecedented
and
illegal.
1
Again
EPA
has
not
provided
evidence
that
2
course
particles
somehow
are
not
emitted
by
3
agriculture
and
mining
operations,
and
in
turn
should
4
not
be
regulated.
5
OCE
joins
public
health
and
environmental
6
groups
across
the
country
in
urging
EPA
to
adopt
the
7
most
health­
protective
and
stringent
NAAQ
Standards
8
for
course
and
fine
particulate
matter.
EPA
should
9
set
a
12­
microgram
per
cubic
meter
annual
standard,
a
10
25­
microgram
per
cubic
meter
daily
standard
for
fine
11
particulates,
and
the
most
stringent
standard
for
12
course
particulates
for
all
areas
of
the
country.
13
OCE
asks
EPA
to
err
on
the
side
of
14
protecting
public
health
and
the
environment
for
all
15
Americans
and
adopt
the
most
stringent
particulate
16
matter
standards
recommended
in
its
final
rule.
17
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
18
comments.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
And
I
20
just
want
to
say
if
you
are
going
to
provide
any
21
additional
written
comments,
anything
that
you
want
22
to
offer
us
concerning
health
effects
in
rural
areas
23
or
studies
in
rural
areas,
if
you
are
aware
of
any,
24
would
be
helpful
to
help
us
further
understand
your
25
129
testimony.
Thank
you.
1
Linda
Weiner.
2
MS.
WEINER:
My
name
is
Linda
Weiner.
And
3
I
represent
the
American
Lung
Association
of
4
California.
I
also
represent
the
San
Francisco
Bay
5
Area
Clean
Air
Task
Force.
This
is
an
organization
6
of
over
25
environmental
public
health
and
7
transportation
groups
working
collaboratively
to
8
shape
regional
air
quality
policy
with
a
focus
on
9
Environmental
Justice.
10
Many
of
the
groups
represented
in
the
Task
11
Force
have
also
spoken
today
as
individual
12
organizations:
The
Sierra
Club,
the
Natural
13
Resources
Defense
Council,
Union
of
Concerned
14
Scientists,
Our
Children's
Earth,
many
others
and
a
15
lot
of
community
groups.
16
I
may
repeating
some
of
the
things
you've
17
heard
today
but
perhaps
in
a
different
way.
18
The
science
is
clear
seems
to
be
a
theme,
19
and
I
would
like
to
reiterate
that.
There
has
been
20
some
indication
that
part
of
the
reason
the
EPA
21
proposed
such
weak
standards
is
because
there
was
22
some
thinking
that
the
science
was
biased,
that
it
23
was
political.
24
Considering
there
are
more
than
2,000
peer­
25
130
review
studies
linking
the
dangerous
connection
1
between
particle
pollution
and
lung
disease
this
2
seems
to
be,
on
the
face
of
it,
unacceptable.
If
3
there
were
five
studies,
maybe
10.
But
a
body
of
4
2,000
studies
from
reputable
scientists
all
pointing
5
in
the
same
direction
seem
to
indicate
that,
yes,
the
6
science
is
clear,
indeed
even
clearer
since
the
7
recent
article
appeared
in
Epidemiology
highlighting
8
that
new
research
indicates
the
chronic
effects
of
9
fine
particles
may
be
two
to
three
times
greater
than
10
previously
believed.
11
The
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
12
Committee,
not
exactly
a
wild­
eyed
radical
bunch,
is
13
comprised
a
wide
range
of
reputable
scientists
of
14
different
political
persuasion,
conservative,
15
liberal.
And
they
have
all
agreed
that
the
science
16
supports
strengthening
the
proposed
standards,
so
the
17
science
seems
to
be
clear.
18
I
remember
well
and
not
long
ago,
having
19
been
involved
in
public
health
for
a
number
of
years,
20
when
research
on
tobacco
was
called
junk
science
by
21
the
industry
and
by
front
groups
for
the
industry.
22
And
this
was
after
reams
of
scientific
studies
had
23
clearly
shown
tobacco
was
harmful.
24
History
has
proved
them
wrong.
And,
as
25
131
history
will
do,
I'm
guessing,
as
many
others,
with
1
these
proposed
standards,
because
it
appears
the
2
science
is
clear,
the
law
is
clear.
As
you
are
well
3
aware,
as
others
have
said,
the
Clean
Air
Act
states
4
that
air
quality
standards
must
be
set
at
levels
that
5
protect
public
health
with
an
adequate
margin
of
6
safety,
including
vulnerable
populations.
7
The
only
thing
EPA
is
allowed
to
consider
8
when
setting
a
standard
is
how
it
protects
public
9
health.
It
takes
political
will,
but
the
bottom
line
10
is
that
the
goal
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
to
ensure
11
the
air
is
healthy,
period.
So
it
seems
the
law
is
12
clear.
13
These
Proposed
Standards
impact
real
people
14
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis.
Policies
at
every
level
of
15
government
obviously
impact
hundreds
of
thousands
of
16
people.
In
this
case
it's
been
estimated
that
there
17
are
165
million
people
living
in
areas
with
particle
18
pollution
at
levels
that
adversely
affect
public
19
health.
But
it's
been
estimated
that
EPA's
Proposed
20
Standards,
even
though
higher
than
before,
protect
21
only
65
million,
leaving
100
million
exposed.
22
This
is
particularly
troubling
for
those
23
communities
already
impacted
by
multiple
sources
of
24
pollution.
I
don't
live
in
an
Environmental
Justice
25
132
community,
but
I
have
taken
toxic
tours.
And
when
1
you
see
the
pollution
from
diesel
bus
yards,
from
2
sewage
plants,
industrial
factories,
cement
3
factories,
power
plants,
ports,
refineries,
4
construction
sites,
and
railroad
yards
all
in
one
5
small
geographic
area
spewing
particle
pollution,
you
6
can
understand
why
these
communities
are
concerned
7
and
why
we
all
are
about
these
weak
standards.
8
And
most
of
these
communities
are
low­
9
income
communities
and
communities
of
color,
which
10
already
have
a
higher
proportion
of
lung
disease
and
11
particularly
asthma.
So
the
point
is
these
Proposed
12
Standards
affect
real
people
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis.
13
No
person
should
be
excluded
from
these
14
laws
and
no
industry
should
be
exempted.
There
is
no
15
precedent
for
EPA's
proposal
to
limit
standards
for
16
course
particle
pollution
to
urban
areas
and
exclude
17
populations
under
100,000.
18
Additionally,
to
provide
a
blanket
amnesty
19
for
pollution
from
the
mining
and
agricultural
20
industries
is
unacceptable.
As
we
understand
it,
air
21
quality
standards
are
set
to
protect
all
Americans
22
and
not
selected
areas
or
selected
industries.
23
The
science
shows
that
course
particles,
24
like
fine
particles,
do
penetrate
into
the
lung
and
25
133
pose
serious
health
risks.
The
Administration's
1
proposal
to
eliminate
pollution
monitoring
in
small
2
and
mid­
size
communities
and
to
categorically
exempt
3
agriculture
and
mining
from
control
requirements
is
4
unprecedented
and
unjustified.
No
person
should
be
5
excluded
from
these
laws
and
no
industry
should
be
6
excluded.
7
And,
finally,
this
may
be
the
only
chance
8
in
a
decade
to
change
these
standards.
Even
though
9
EPA
is
required
every
five
years
to
review
the
10
standard,
it
has
never
kept
to
that
schedule.
Often
11
a
lawsuit
forces
the
government
to
the
table,
12
followed
by
the
review
process,
followed
by
more
13
lawsuits
from
industry.
So
this
is
our
chance
now
14
and
may
be
the
only
chance
we
have
in
a
decade
to
15
ensure
standards
protective
of
public
health.
16
And,
finally,
I
will
reiterate
what
I
my
17
colleagues
have
said,
that
EPA
should
follow
the
18
recommendations
of
the
American
Thoracic
Society,
the
19
American
Lung
Association,
and
other
respected
20
medical
and
scientific
leaders
from
across
the
21
country
and
adopt
the
following:
An
Annual
Standard
22
for
Fine
Particle
Pollution
no
higher
than
12
23
micrograms
per
cubic
meter;
a
Daily
Standard
no
24
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter;
and
a
25
134
strong
Course
Particle
Standard
and
monitoring
1
requirement
that
protects
all
Americans
in
urban
and
2
rural
communities.
3
And
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
4
speak.
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
6
Any
questions?
7
MS.
STONE:
You
will
include
the
citation
8
of
the
Epidemiology
study?
9
MS.
WEINER:
Thank
you.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
please.
11
MS.
WEINER:
Thanks
very
much.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Is
Linda
Fultz
here?
13
MS.
FULTZ:
Laura.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Laura.
I'm
sorry.
I
15
misread
that.
Laura
Fultz
and
Kent
Bransford.
16
MS.
FULTZ:
Good
morning.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Ms.
Fultz,
good
18
morning.
19
MS.
FULTZ:
Or
good
afternoon.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I
think
we're
still
21
morning
here.
22
MS.
FULTZ:
Okay.
I'm
Laura
Fultz
and
I'm
23
from
Fresno,
California.
I've
lived
there
for
over
24
25
years.
I
am
a
member
of
the
Central
Valley
Air
25
135
Quality
Coalition
and
a
Contracted
Field
Organizer
1
with
Environmental
Defense,
but
I
am
here
speaking
2
for
myself
as
a
private
citizen.
3
Why
I'm
here
is
because
I
live
in
a
severe
4
nonattainment
PM10
and
PM2.5
area,
aka
the
Central,
5
San
Joaquin
Valley.
I
suffer
from
breathing
problems
6
along
with
my
twin
sister,
my
mom,
dad,
niece,
and
7
nephews.
These
I
was
not
born
with,
nor
were
my
8
family
members.
They
have
developed
by
living
in
9
this
­­
the
poor
air
basin
and
the
air
quality
there.
10
I
have
longtime
friends
who
have
moved
from
11
the
Valley
due
to
their
children
having
asthma.
Of
12
course
they're
the
lucky
ones
who
can
move
away.
13
Many
people
are
not
able
to
because
their
work
is
14
there
and
they
can't
move,
or
their
family.
15
Also
doctors
are
encouraging
anyone
who
can
16
move
away
who
have
breathing
problems
to
do
so.
17
These
young
professionals
who
are
moving
18
away
or
those
who
consider
moving
to
the
Valley
but
19
don't
because
of
our
poor
air
quality
has
increased
20
our
brain
drain.
We
have
a
limited
number
of
people
21
with
bachelor's
degrees
in
the
Valley.
This
puts
a
22
strain
­­
it
affects
our
culture.
It
affects
our
23
economy
in
the
Valley.
24
And
I
just
want
to
urge
you
and
other
25
136
Valley
citizens
urge
you
to
strengthen
the
PM10
1
standards,
not
keep
the
status
quo,
or
wipe
out
2
totally
in
the
mining
and
farming
areas,
which
we
3
have
both
of
in
the
Valley,
this
wipe
those
out
in
4
these
areas.
We
need
the
standards
strengthened
now.
5
And
the
Central
Valley
cannot
afford
losing
their
6
young
professionals
nor
the
cost
it
has
on
our
7
healthcare
system
and
those
who
have
to
stay
in
the
8
Valley.
9
Thank
you.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
11
I'm
sorry.
Go
ahead.
12
MR.
HANLEY:
I
have
a
question.
I
just
13
want
to
clarify.
You
did
say
do
not
keep
the
status
14
quo.
And
you
might
know
that
in
the
proposal
we
15
actually
offer
the
idea
of
keeping
the
existing
PM10
16
standard,
if
that's
even
possible
legally
due
to
the
17
court
challenges
earlier,
but
is
that
what
you
were
18
referring
to,
is
don't
keep
the
existing
PM10,
that
19
you
do
support
­­
20
MS.
FULTZ:
To
strengthen
it.
21
MR.
HANLEY:
To
strengthen
it,
okay.
22
MS.
FULTZ:
Yes.
Yes.
23
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
24
MS.
FULTZ:
Um­
hum.
25
137
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Mr.
Bransford.
1
DR.
BRANSFORD:
Thank
you.
Appreciate
the
2
opportunity
speaking
with
you
this
morning.
Do
I
3
need
to
have
the
mic
here?
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
you
do.
5
DR.
BRANSFORD:
Okay.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
need
to
have
both
7
mics.
8
DR.
BRANSFORD:
My
name
is
Kent
Bransford.
9
And
I
am
here
today
because
I
have
patients
that
are
10
dying
and
some
of
them
are
dying
unnecessarily.
I'm
11
a
medical
oncologist,
hematologist,
cancer
and
blood
12
specialist.
13
And
in
addition
to
practicing
medicine
I
14
also
serve
as
the
National
President
for
Physicians
15
for
Social
Responsibility,
which
is
a
group
of
about
16
26,000
members
nationwide
representing
doctors,
17
nurses,
public
health
officials,
concerned
citizens,
18
the
business
community.
We
shared
the
Nobel
Peace
19
Price
in
1985
and
our
work
really
tries
to
use
a
20
medical
perspective
and
expertise
to
address
threats
21
to
public
health.
22
So
I'm
here
today
because
we
have
a
23
definite
threat
to
public
health,
as
you
have
heard
24
from
the
folks
who
have
come
before
me,
a
threat
from
25
138
particulate
matter,
soot,
air
pollution.
I
have
come
1
over
100
miles
and
devoted
this
day
at
my
expense
2
because
of
the
importance
of
this
issue
to
my
3
patients.
And
I'm
heartened
to
see
other
doctors
4
across
the
country,
Philadelphia
and
Chicago,
at
5
these
hearings
today
doing
the
same
thing.
6
So
we're
taking
our
time
away
from
buys
7
hospitals
and
our
practices
because
it's
crucial
that
8
the
EPA
enact
and
enforce
regulations
that
are
9
protective
of
public
health.
We're
here
because
the
10
proposed
standards
for
fine
particulate
matter,
in
11
particular,
will
lead
to
up
to
tens
of
thousands
of
12
excess
deaths
compared
to
a
more
health­
protective
13
standard.
14
It's
EPA's
responsibility,
as
you
know,
to
15
protect
the
public's
health
using
sound
scientific
16
and
medical
evidence.
And
in
the
case
of
particulate
17
matter
the
evidence
is
overwhelming,
as
you
have
18
heard
this
morning.
And
the
Clean
Air
Act
mandates
a
19
health­
protective
standard.
20
Many
sources
for
fine
PM,
including
burning
21
wood,
diesel
engines,
generating
electricity
at
power
22
plants,
we
have
the
technology
to
adequately
control
23
these
emissions.
And
adequate
standards
and
timely
24
enforcement
of
those
standards
are
really
crucial
to
25
139
protect
the
nation's
health.
1
I'd
just
like
to
tell
you
about
one
patient
2
of
mine
with
lung
cancer.
I'll
call
him
Steve.
3
That's
not
his
real
name.
And,
as
you
know,
4
breathing
elevated
levels
of
particulate
matter
can
5
increase
the
risk
of
developing
and
dying
from
lung
6
cancer.
7
Steve
went
to
an
emergency
room
because
of
8
chest
pain
and
coughing
up
blood
in
his
sputum.
He
9
had
a
host
of
tests
and
was
subsequently
found
to
10
have
cancer
that
had
spread
to
his
bones
and
liver.
11
Now
lung
cancer
at
this
advanced
stage
is
12
almost
always
fatal.
Typical
life
expectancy
without
13
treatment
is
less
than
a
year.
Recent
advances
have
14
extended
quality
of
life
and
length
of
life
a
few
15
months,
maybe
a
couple
of
years
at
best,
definitely
16
not
a
cure.
17
Well,
Steve
was
56
when
he
was
diagnosed
18
with
lung
cancer.
He
survived
for
19
more
months,
19
which
was
long
enough
to
see
his
daughter
graduate
20
from
high
school,
long
enough
to
play
golf
for
an
21
extra
year,
most
of
that
time
on
treatment.
Not
bad
22
for
someone
who
otherwise
wouldn't
have
lived
a
year,
23
but
terrible
when
you're
56
and
you
think
your
best
24
years
are
ahead
of
you.
25
140
Now
contrast
Steve's
struggle
for
those
few
1
extra
months
with
the
effect
of
particulate
matter,
2
those
that
are
unfortunate
enough
to
live
in
areas
3
where
they're
breathing
high
levels
of
particulate
4
matter
may
have
their
life
shortened
by
one
to
three
5
years,
depending
upon
the
length
of
time
and
the
6
degree
of
pollution
they're
exposed
to.
7
So
what
does
my
patient
have
to
do
with
EPA
8
standards?
As
I
mentioned,
PM,
particularly
fine
9
particulate
matter
increases
the
risk
of
developing
10
lung
cancer
as
well
as
dying
from
heart
and
other
11
lung
conditions.
And
in
fact
many
Americans
live
in
12
cities
with
high
PM
levels
where
their
risk
of
dying
13
from
cancer
is
at
least
eight
percent
above
what
it
14
would
be
if
they
were
breathing
cleaner
air.
15
All
the
EPA
must
do
is
to
enact
a
health­
16
protective
standard
for
PM
to
lower
the
lung
cancer
17
risk
of
by
eight
percent
or
more
for
everyone
exposed
18
to
those
elevated
levels.
19
So,
as
you've
heard,
we're
really
talking
20
about
a
standard
that
was
recommended
by
the
Clean
21
Air
Advisory
Scientific
Committee
that
advises
EPA
a
22
standard
that's
been
endorsed
by
the
American
Lung
23
Association,
the
American
Thoracic
Society,
American
24
Academy
of
Pediatrics,
American
Association
­­
it
25
141
goes
on
and
on,
College
of
Preventive
Medicine,
a
1
standard
that
would
lower
not
only
the
risk
of
dying
2
from
lung
cancer,
my
specialty,
but
also
a
standard
3
that
would
reduce
the
risks
of
dying
from
heart
4
disease,
developing
and
suffering
heart
attacks,
5
asthma
attacks,
and
hospitalizations
in
children,
and
6
the
risk
of
premature
birth,
as
well
as
reduced
lung
7
development
in
adolescents.
8
So
we're
talking
about
a
health­
protective
9
standard
that
could
save
tens
of
thousands
of
lives
10
and
reduce
the
risk
of
heart
attacks,
up
to
40,000,
11
every
year.
So
it's
unprecedented
that
the
EPA
would
12
ignore
the
recommendations
of
its
own
scientists
in
13
the
advisory
panel.
14
And
I
would
like
to,
with
the
other
15
speakers,
urge
the
EPA
to
adopt
a
health­
protective
16
standard
of
a
maximum
of
12
mics
per
cubic
meter
and
17
a
maximum
of
25
­­
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Dr.
Bransford,
your
19
time
is
up,
so
if
you
could
just
wrap
up
please.
20
DR.
BRANSFORD:
Thank
you.
21
And
the
only
thing
I
was
going
to
add,
22
because
I
was
wrapping
up
there,
was
on
the
way
here
23
this
morning,
and
I
have
not
read
it
in
detail,
but
24
in
the
Journal
of
American
Medical
Association
today
25
142
is
a
new
article
basically
addressing
the
MediCare
1
population
and
the
effects
of
PM
and
why
the
proposed
2
standard
is
not
health
protective.
3
Appreciate
your
time.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
We
5
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you
both
very
much.
6
MS.
FULTZ:
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Brian
Linde
and
Mary
8
Cranley.
9
Mr.
Linde,
do
you
want
to...
10
DR.
LINDE:
Yeah.
The
good
news
is
I
won't
11
need
five
minutes
to
say
what
I
have
to
say.
12
My
name
is
Brian
Linde.
I'm
a
pediatric,
13
hospital­
based
specialist,
and
I
work
at
Kaiser
14
Hospital
in
Oakland.
I'm
a
Board
Member
of
the
15
Northern
California
Chapter
of
the
American
Academy
16
of
Pediatrics,
on
which
I
have
served
for
the
past
17
six
years.
18
Today
I
speak
on
behalf
of
this
group
which
19
is
formally
known
as
the
American
Academy
of
20
Pediatrics,
California
Chapter
1.
The
American
21
Academy
of
Pediatrics
is
the
largest
and
most
22
respected
nonprofit
organization
in
our
country
to
23
advocate
for
the
health
and
well
being
of
all
24
children.
25
143
The
AAP
is
judicious
and
even
conservative
1
in
the
creation
of
its
recommendations
and
policies.
2
Every
policy
is
carefully
reviewed
and
almost
all
3
are
created
with
the
input
and
collaboration
and
4
approval
of
representatives
from
other
respected
5
organizations.
6
So
the
AAP
Policy
Statement
on
Ambient
Air
7
Pollution
published
15
months
ago
had
such
8
collaboration
from
representatives
from
the
CDC
and
9
NIH.
Why
is
the
AAP
so
cautious
in
the
development
10
of
its
policies?
11
To
answer
that
I
would
say
I
have
worked
as
12
a
pediatrician
for
the
last
13
years
at
a
variety
of
13
private
and
public
hospitals,
children's
hospitals,
14
private
community
hospitals,
a
county
hospital,
and
15
now
at
a
large
HMO.
And
I
can
tell
you
that
each
of
16
these
hospitals
and
clinics
and
every
pediatric
17
office
I
have
been
associated
with
that
provides
care
18
for
children
will
set
its
own
policy
based
on
the
19
recommendations
of
the
American
Academy
of
20
Pediatrics.
21
If
you
have
children
or
grandchildren
or
22
nieces
or
nephews
I
say
this
on
behalf
of
the
23
professionals
in
whom
their
health
is
entrusted.
As
24
you've
heard
from
so
many
other
presenters,
this
25
144
issue
has
significant
implications
for
the
health
and
1
well
being
of
children.
So
the
American
Academy
of
2
Pediatrics,
in
line
with
the
above­
mentioned
policy,
3
endorses
fully
the
U.
S.
EPA
Staff
Scientists'
4
Proposal
for
stronger
health
standards
for
PM2.5
and
5
the
establishment
of
standards
for
PM10
to
2.5
in
6
order
to
protect
the
health
of
infants
and
children.
7
Specifically,
the
AAP
supports
the
8
establishment
of
tighter
Annual
Average
and
24­
Hour
9
Standards
for
PM2.5
and
stringent
new
Standards
for
10
PM10
to
2.5.
11
Given
the
many
studies
indicating
health
12
effects
at
the
lower
ends
of
the
ranges
proposed,
we
13
urge
EPA
to
adopt
an
Annual
Average
PM2.5
Standard
of
14
12
micrograms
per
meter
squared
combined
with
a
24­
15
Hour
PM2.5
Standard
of
25
micrograms
per
meter
16
squared.
17
Would
you
want
anything
else
for
your
18
children?
19
Thank
you
for
your
time.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Linde.
21
Ms.
Cranley.
22
MS.
CRANLEY:
Hello.
My
name's
Mary
23
Cranley.
I've
been
a
Nurse
Practitioner
for
the
last
24
13
years.
And
before
that
I
was
an
Oncology
Nurse,
25
145
working
with
cancer
patients
for
four
years
in
a
1
hospital
setting.
2
I
am
currently
working
in
an
outpatient
3
adult
medical
clinic
about
25
miles
south
from
San
4
Francisco.
5
In
the
medical
clinic
where
I
work
seeing
6
20
to
25
patients
per
day
I
have
noticed
that
I've
7
had
to
prescribe
an
increasing
amount
of
asthma
8
medications
to
help
my
patients
breathe
better.
9
I've
come
to
learn
that
California
has
one
10
of
the
highest
concentrations
of
fine
particulate
11
matter.
This
most
certainly
explains
the
12
exacerbation
of
asthma
in
my
patient
population.
13
That
is
the
bad
news.
14
The
good
news
is
that
scientists
have
15
discovered
a
means
to
help
my
patients.
Through
16
numerous
studies
we
now
know
that
exposure
to
17
particulate
pollution
has
an
associated
increased
18
risk
of
death
from
all
cause
mortality,
19
cardiovascular
disease,
respiratory
disease,
lung
20
cancer,
diabetes,
and
among
persons
over
65.
21
We
also
know
that
diabetes
has
become
an
22
epidemic,
and
the
population
is
aging.
Both
of
these
23
will
contribute
further
to
associated
deaths
from
24
particulate
matter
exposure.
25
146
Data
from
the
American
Cancer
Society
1
Cohort
estimated
that
for
each
10
micrograms
per
2
cubic
meter
increase
an
average
exposure
to
fine
3
particulate
matter,
longterm
cause
mortality
4
increased
by
four
percent,
cardiopulmonary
mortality
5
increased
by
six
percent,
and
lung
cancer
mortality
6
increased
by
eight
percent.
Premature
death
from
7
exposure
to
particulate
matter
pollution
is
estimated
8
to
shorten
lives
by
one
to
three
years
on
average.
9
A
study
was
released
today,
as
you've
10
heard,
in
the
Journal
of
American
Medical
Association
11
showing
a
shortterm
increase
in
hospital
admission
12
rates
associated
with
fine
particulate
matter.
13
The
healthcare
industry
is
already
in
14
crisis.
We
do
not
need
to
exacerbate
it
with
higher
15
hospital
costs
by
ignoring
recommendations
to
reduce
16
exposure
to
particulate
matter.
17
On
behalf
of
the
Physicians
for
Social
18
Responsibility
I'm
asking
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
Annual
19
Average
Fine
Particulate
Matter
of
12
micrograms
per
20
cubic
meter
and
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
21
24­
Hour
Standard.
These
actions
will
reduce
22
particulate
matter
related
mortality
by
86
percent.
23
That
is
the
good
news.
24
Additionally,
I'm
asking
the
EPA
to
adopt
a
25
147
Daily
Average
Course
Particulate
Matter
Standard
in
1
the
range
of
25
to
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
2
that
it
applies
this
standard
uniformly
across
both
3
urban
and
rural
areas
and
that
it
does
not
exempt
4
agriculture
and
mining
from
controls
aimed
at
meeting
5
this
standard.
6
As
I
prescribed
stronger
and
stronger
7
asthma
medications
for
my
suffering
patients,
I
don't
8
tell
them
that
this
will
help
only
so
much.
I
don't
9
tell
them
that
their
government,
who
is
legally
10
required
to
protect
their
lives
and
health
as
11
outlined
in
the
Clean
Air
Act,
is
ignoring
the
good
12
news
evidence
that
we
know
will
help
them
breathe
13
better.
14
Today
I
ask
you,
I
am
doing
all
that
I
can
15
to
reduce
my
patients'
risk
of
dying.
Are
you?
16
I
would
like
to
give
them
that
good
news.
17
Thank
you
for
listening.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Ms.
19
Cranley.
20
Thank
you,
Dr.
Linde.
21
Any
questions
anyone
has?
22
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
23
Gordon
Fung
and
Teri
Shore.
24
DR.
FUNG:
Hi.
My
name
is
Gordon
Fung
and
25
148
I'm
President
of
the
San
Francisco
Medical
Society.
1
And
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
over
1,000
2
physicians
in
San
Francisco.
I'm
also
Associate
3
Clinical
Professor
of
Medicine
in
Cardiology
at
UCSF
4
Medical
Center
here.
And
I
want
to
discuss
a
few
of
5
my
own
personal
experiences
as
a
cardiologist
and
6
urge
that
the
EPA
strengthen
its
standards
to
be
in
7
line
with
the
American
Lung
Association
8
recommendations,
to
reduce
the
morbidity
and
9
mortality
of
problems
presented
by
the
current
10
standards.
11
In
my
practice
as
a
cardiologist
over
the
12
past
several
years
I've
seen
marked
improvements
in
13
the
reduction
of
cardiovascular
disease
as
we
manage
14
critical
cardiac
risk
factors:
Diabetes,
15
hypertension,
sedentary
lifestyle,
and
smoking.
16
And
then
as
we
do
a
better
job
and
we
see
17
that
the
mortality
is
decreasing,
there
is
now
an
18
emerging
group
of
patients
who
are
having
heart
19
disease
without
any
of
these
risk
factors
apparent.
20
And
a
read
of
the
literature
suggests
that
the
air
21
quality
is
contributing
to
this
problem.
22
I've
had
very
difficult
times
explaining
to
23
patients
and
their
families
why
they
might
be
24
suffering
a
heart
attack
or
a
stroke,
and
they
have
25
149
absolutely
no
other
cardiac
risk
factors
to
explain
1
it.
And
even
then
things
that
we
can
do
to
manage
2
their
risk
factors
better,
it
would
be
difficult
in
3
the
face
of
this
literature
to
have
them
go
out
and
4
exercise
and
get
a
good
slug
of
clean
air
when
we
5
know
that
the
air
is
having
a
problem.
6
And
we
know
at
least
in
emergency
rooms,
7
and
I'm
constantly
asked
to
evaluate
patients
who
are
8
having
exacerbations
of
their
asthma,
to
9
differentiate
it
from
an
exacerbation
of
congestive
10
heart
failure.
And
so
we
spend
a
fair
amount
of
time
11
in
that.
12
The
data
from
the
medical
literature
13
certainly
suggests
that
if
we
can
improve
the
air
14
quality
standards
that
we
would
see
a
reduction
in
15
death.
And
I
think
that
we
need
to
work
together,
16
the
medical
care
community
with
the
EPA,
to
optimize
17
the
health
of
the
public.
Certainly
the
public
18
health,
society
has
considered
cardiovascular
disease
19
one
of
the
major
crises
of
the
current­
day
society
20
and
it
remains
the
number
one
killer
of
adult
21
Americans.
And
I
think
that
we're
going
to
be
ending
22
up
fighting
a
losing
battle
if
we
don't
work
together
23
to
help
out
the
public
in
this
manner.
And
I
urge
24
your
support
for
the
changes.
25
150
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
1
Ms.
Shore.
2
MS.
SHORE:
Yes.
Good
morning.
My
name's
3
Teri
Shore.
I'm
representing
Bluewater
Network
and
4
Friends
of
the
Earth,
an
international
environmental
5
advocacy
­­
advocacy
organization.
Sorry
about
that.
6
I
guess
I'm
a
little
nervous.
7
Anyway,
I'm
here
to
urge
the
U.
S.
EPA
to
8
adopt
the
strongest
and
most
health­
protective
9
standards
for
particulate
matter
and
air
quality.
10
And
this
should
apply
to
all
communities,
all
sizes,
11
and
all
people.
12
And
we
very
much
support
the
comments
13
previously
today
that
we've
heard
from
the
public
14
health
community
and
the
medical
community.
They're
15
really
the
experts
on
this.
And
it's
pretty
clear
16
that
the
science
is
in
and
the
law
is
clear,
that
the
17
EPA
and
the
Bush
Administration
need
to
act
to
18
protect
people's
health
and
to
put
people
before
the
19
profits
of
industry,
specifically.
20
In
terms
of
the
actual
standards,
we
do
21
support
the
12
micrograms
Standard
for
Fine
22
Particulate
matter,
the
Annual
Standard
and
25
for
23
Annual,
and
to
go
lower
than
that,
if
at
all
24
possible.
25
151
I
experienced
the
results
of
weak
1
regulations
and
poor
air
quality
both
professionally
2
and
personally.
Professionally
I
advocate
for
3
cleaner
emissions
from
particularly
ships,
ports,
and
4
marine
vessels.
And
we
are
disappointed
that
the
5
U.
S.
EPA
so
far
has
failed
to
regulate
foreign
6
flagship
engines,
which
contribute
significantly
to
7
diesel
exhaust
and
PM
emissions
in
our
country.
8
And
here
in
the
Bay
Area
where
I'm
based
I
9
hear
a
lot
of
stories
from
people
who
live
close
to
10
ports
and
close
to
the
goods­
movement
corridors
who
11
are
suffering
from
asthma
or
suffering
from
cancer.
12
Recently
at
an
Oakland
hearing
we
heard
from
a
woman
13
who
said
there
was
a
railroad
engine
that
was
idling
14
behind
her
home
for
five
days.
There
was
another
15
woman
there
who
was
experiencing
cancer
from
lifelong
16
exposure
to
diesel
exhaust.
17
So
I
see
that
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis
and
18
it's
very
urgent
that
you
adopt
the
strongest
19
standards,
otherwise
it
sends
a
message
to
industry
20
that
they
can
maintain
the
status
quo.
Business
as
21
usual.
And
for
the
shipping
and
maritime
industries,
22
that
basically
means
that
they
do
as
little
as
23
possible,
they
don't
want
to
do
much.
And
if
you
24
don't
adopt
stronger
standards
they're
not
going
to
25
152
be
prompted
to
do
anything
more
than
they're
doing
1
now.
2
For
example,
the
Port
of
Oakland
has
huge
3
shipping
emissions
and
absolutely
no
plan
at
all
to
4
try
to
reduce
those
at
any
level.
So
it's
very
5
critical,
and
EPA
definitely
does
set
the
example
for
6
the
country
and
lead
the
way,
as
someone
else
7
mentioned.
8
On
a
personal
level
I
like
to
get
out
into
9
the
out
of
doors
myself
and
backpacking
is
one
of
my
10
passions.
I
get
out
there
as
much
as
I
can.
I
go
to
11
the
national
parks.
And
I
think
that's
probably
one
12
of
the
healthiest
things
that
I
can
do
for
myself.
13
But
I'm
very
shocked
to
learn
that
the
air
pollution
14
and
the
air
quality
in
some
of
these
parks
like
15
Sequoia
Kings
Canyon
are
degraded
by
the
air
quality
16
that's
coming
in
from
industry
that's
being
blown
in
17
from
the
Los
Angeles
Basin.
18
So
the
thing
that
I'm
doing
that
I
think
is
19
the
most
healthy
for
me
could
actually
be
20
compromising
my
health
by
breathing
unhealthy
air.
21
And
I
recall
on
at
least
one
occasion
being
in
22
Sequoia
Kings
Canyon
being
up
on
the
Silliman
Bench
23
and
looking
down
into
the
Central
Valley
and
it
was
a
24
beautiful
orange­
and­
brown
sunset,
but
it
was
very
25
153
disheartening
because
the
orange
and
the
brown
is
1
coming
from
the
bad
air
quality
and
the
smog
and
the
2
air
pollution.
3
So,
once
again,
we
urge
you
to
please
adopt
4
the
strongest,
most
health­
protective
standards
that
5
you
can,
and
implement
them
as
soon
as
possible.
6
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
8
I
just
want
to
check,
are
there
any
9
questions.
Just
one
for
Dr.
Fung,
if
there
are
any
10
studies
of
cardiovascular
effects
associated
with
air
11
pollution
that
are
not
in
our
record
already,
any
12
other
literature
you're
aware
of
we
would
appreciate
13
knowing
about
that.
14
DR.
FUNG:
Sure
thing.
Thank
you.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
16
MS.
SHORE:
Okay.
Thank
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Dawn
Sanders­
Koepke,
18
I
no
doubt
mispronounced,
and
Dr.
Anthony
Hansen.
19
MS.
SANDERS­
KOEPKE:
Good
morning.
My
name
20
is
Dawn
Sanders­
Koepke.
I'm
with
McHugh
&
Associates
21
on
behalf
of
California
Manufacturers
and
Technology
22
Association,
also
known
by
their
acronym
of
CMTA.
23
CMTA
understands
the
importance
of
clean
24
air
and
protecting
public
health,
however
they
25
154
strongly
encourage
the
essential
notion
that
EPA
1
balance
the
need
for
air
quality
protection
and
the
2
economy.
3
New
costs
of
regulations
will
drive
4
businesses
out
of
business
for
little
or
no
5
environmental
benefit.
Further
reducing
emissions
to
6
achieve
the
proposed
PM2.5
Standards
in
California
7
will
impose
substantial
costs
on
California
8
businesses
and
residents,
preventing
economic
growth
9
in
California
while
effectively
providing
incentives
10
for
economic
activity
to
expand
in
or
relocate
to
11
other
states.
12
This
is
of
particular
concern
when
the
13
implementation
of
the
current
standard
is
just
14
beginning
and
despite
the
fact
that
CMTA
believes
15
that
key
uncertainties
remain
regarding
underlying
16
science.
17
Complex
federal
new
source
review
18
requirements
for
new
and
modified
PM2.5
standards
19
emissions
sources
will
add
delay
and
costs
to
the
20
permits
needed
for
businesses
to
locate
or
expand
in
21
nonattainment
areas
by
increasing
the
stringency
of
22
required
controls
and
requiring
that
emission
offsets
23
be
provided.
24
The
existing
shortage
of
PM10
and
PM2.5
25
155
offsets
in
California
could
then
block
some
proposed
1
projects
if
the
required
offsets
are
not
available.
2
Lastly,
CMTA
would
like
to
note
that
EPA's
3
own
cost­
benefit
analysis
shows
that
the
proposed
4
change
to
the
PM2.5
standard
has
more
cost
than
5
benefit
in
certain
areas.
6
Lastly,
on
behalf
of
CMTA,
I
ask
that
you
7
seriously
reconsider
adopting
this
more
stringent
8
standard.
With
that,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
9
to
present
on
behalf
of
the
California
Manufacturers
10
and
Technology
Association.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
12
One
quick
question.
Well,
first,
as
you
13
know,
we
don't
consider
costs
in
setting
these
14
standards.
But
I
just
wondered,
you
said
the
15
Proposed
Standard
had
more
cost
than
benefits.
And
16
what
were
you
­­
what
document
or
literature
were
you
17
referring
to?
18
MS.
SANDERS­
KOEPKE:
I'd
be
happy
to
have
19
that
provided
to
U.
S.
EPA.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
21
MS.
SANDERS­
KOEPKE:
Absolutely.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Dr.
Hansen.
23
DR.
HANSEN:
Do
I
need
both
of
these?
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
One
is
for
the
25
156
court
reporter.
1
DR.
HANSEN:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Tony
2
Hansen.
I
just
recently
retired
as
a
Staff
Scientist
3
from
the
Lawrence
Berkeley
Laboratory
of
the
4
University
of
California,
where
I
spent
my
entire
5
career
developing
instruments
and
making
measurements
6
of
black
carbon
particles,
otherwise
known
as
diesel
7
exhaust.
8
What
I'd
like
to
say
today
is
a
commentary,
9
as
some
scientific
commentary.
I
am
not
an
expert
on
10
health
effects.
My
expertise
lies
in
the
global
11
disbursal
of
black
carbon
and
its
possible
climatic
12
consequences.
13
The
more
famous
Professor
James
Hansen,
who
14
shares
a
last
name
with
me
but
is
also
Director
of
15
NASA
Goddard,
has
estimated
that
black
carbon
16
particles
could
have
a
climate­
forcing
effect
as
17
large
as
50
percent
of
that
due
to
increased
CO2.
In
18
other
words,
black
carbon
particles
in
the
atmosphere
19
are
important.
20
The
direct
solar
absorption,
brown
air,
21
absorbs
sunlight.
Less
sunlight
reaches
the
ground,
22
the
atmosphere
heats
up.
The
deposition
of
black
23
particles
to
snow
and
ice
leads
to
premature
melting.
24
Dirty
snow
melts
quicker.
25
157
And
the
presence
of
particles
in
the
1
atmosphere
can
subdivide
the
available
water
in
2
clouds
that
are
trying
to
condense
into
raindrops
and
3
inhibit
the
formation
of
drops
large
enough
to
fall
4
as
rain.
5
In
other
words,
the
presence
of
these
6
particles
in
the
atmosphere
can
have
quite
serious,
7
direct,
and
indirect
climatic
consequences.
8
Black
carbon
particles
don't
disappear
in
9
the
atmosphere.
Once
they're
released
from
the
10
diesel
engine,
they
don't
go
away,
they're
not
11
consumed
by
reactions
in
the
atmosphere.
Some
of
my
12
instruments,
for
example,
are
on
the
West
Coast
of
13
Ireland,
sampling
air
that's
coming
across
the
14
Atlantic
Ocean.
When
the
wind
comes
directly
from
15
the
East
Coast
of
the
U.
S.,
the
black
carbon
numbers
16
increase.
17
Right
now,
today,
March
the
7th,
the
18
concentration
of
black
carbon
particles
over
the
19
atmosphere
of
Greenland
is
between
three
and
ten
20
times
higher
than
the
concentration
of
black
carbon
21
right
here
in
San
Francisco.
If
you
descend
in
a
22
plane
over
Barrow,
Alaska
and
look
out
the
windows
23
you
see
brown
bands
in
the
sky.
All
of
that
brown
24
stuff
ends
up
on
the
snow
and
ice.
When
the
sun
25
158
comes
up
in
the
spring,
it
melts.
1
If
you
draw
enough
air
through
a
filter
at
2
the
South
Pole
you
can
make
a
black
spot.
I
was
3
there
a
month
ago,
one
of
my
instruments
is
there.
4
That
black
stuff
doesn't
come
out
of
the
snow.
5
So
the
possible
effects
of
these
particles
6
on
global
climate
is
undisputable.
As
I
say,
7
Professor
James
Hansen
has
published
by
far
the
8
largest
body
of
work
on
this.
Although
that
doesn't
9
fall
within
a
public
health
perspective,
if
you're
10
killed
by
a
hurricane
you're
still
dead.
11
And
so
that's
all
I
would
like
to
say,
is
12
that
for
the
sake
of
protecting
the
health
of
the
13
climate,
I
urge
the
adoption
of
the
strongest
14
possible
standards.
Thank
you.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much,
16
Dr.
Hansen.
17
Thank
you,
Ms.
Koepke.
18
I'm
sorry.
I
apologize.
One
of
my
19
colleagues
has
a
question.
20
MR.
HANNON:
A
question
for
Dr.
Hansen.
21
There
hasn't
been
much
attention
today
to
22
our
Secondary
Standards.
There's
been
some
mention
23
of
visibility,
but
climate
is
one
issue
that
was
24
discussed
both
in
a
criteria
document,
and
I
think
25
159
black
carbon
is
discussed
there
as
well
as
climate
1
effects
of
other
kinds
of
PM.
And
our
proposal
was
2
to
not
base
the
Secondary
Standard
on
climate
effects
3
as
well
as
a
variety
of
other
secondary
effects,
4
based
on
an
inability
to
quantify
it,
et
cetera.
5
So
any
comments
you
have
that
are
6
specifically
aimed
at
the
discussion
in
the
proposed
7
rulemaking
about
Secondary
Standards
would
be
useful.
8
I
guess
I
would
suggest
you
focus
your
comments
on
9
the
rulemaking,
on
­­
10
DR.
HANSEN:
Yes.
11
MR.
HANNON:
­­
what
we've
specifically
12
said
about
climate
change
and
particulate
matter.
13
DR.
HANSEN:
Okay.
Thank
you.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
15
Francisco
Da
Costa
and
Isaac
Bloom.
16
Mr.
Da
Costa,
do
you
want
to
go
first?
17
MR.
DA
COSTA:
My
name
is
Francisco
Da
18
Costa.
I'm
the
Director
of
Environmental
Justice
19
Advocacy,
but
more
importantly
I
represent
the
First
20
People
of
this
area,
the
Muwek
Maohlone,
M­
u­
w­
e­
k
21
M­
a­
o­
h­
l­
o­
n­
e,
the
Muwek
Maohlone.
22
I've
been
paying
attention
to
the
experts
23
and
what
I
do
not
see
addressed
here
are
the
experts
24
thinking
outside
the
box.
And,
secondly,
what
I
see
25
160
missing
in
this
rather
meaningfully
deliberations
is
1
a
holistic
approach
to
this
Earth.
2
We
are
placed
on
this
Earth
as
caretakers.
3
And
if
we
came
here
to
San
Francisco
300
years
ago
4
we
would
see
pristine
rivers,
the
air
would
be
clean,
5
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
today
we
see
a
lot
of
6
pollution.
And
in
order
to
address
the
health
of
the
7
human
beings
and
also
to
address
the
lifespan
of
the
8
frogs,
insects,
birds,
and
fish,
we
have
a
tendency
9
in
our
own
guilty
way
to
have
some
standards.
And
so
10
we
have
state
and
federal
agencies
that
are
supposed
11
to
protect
us.
12
And
again
and
again
we
see
that
it
takes
a
13
lot
of
time
for
these
state
and
federal
agencies
to
14
really
work
and
preserve,
protect
and
defend
the
15
rights
of
the
constituents
not
only
of
the
United
16
States
of
America,
but
all
over
the
world.
17
I
have
relatives
all
of
the
world,
some
of
18
them
very
educations,
some
of
them
scientists,
and
19
they
will
always
ask
me
why
is
it
that
this
very
so­
20
called
powerful
nation
contributes
so
much
to
global
21
warming.
22
You've
heard
many
experts
here
in
their
own
23
way
try
to
convince
all
of
us
that
there
are
many
24
factors
that
adversely
impact
all
of
us.
It's
a
fact
25
161
that
global
warming
is
going
to
impact
us,
and
we
see
1
the
rise
in
the
oceans.
But
I
haven't
heard
it
2
discussed
today
that
global
warming
will
melt
huge,
3
huge
areas
of
ice
blocks
in
which
are
trapped
very
4
dangerous
gases.
5
So
in
the
future
this
air
that
we
breath
6
will
be
a
commodity.
Thirty
years
ago
most
people
7
did
not
drink
bottled
water,
but
in
the
future
it's
a
8
possibility
that
we
will
have
to
buy
clean
air
to
9
survive.
10
You've
heard
a
young
child
today
or
a
young
11
boy
testify.
And
I
deal
with
children
daily,
daily
12
in
San
Francisco,
and
they
ask
me,
"
Why
is
it
that
we
13
suffer
from
asthma?
Why
is
it
that
our
mothers
14
suffer
from
cancer?"
And
I
have
no
answer.
15
Daily
you
have
heard
cite
officials
like
16
Dr.
Bhatia,
for
example,
come
here
and
make
some
very
17
general
statements
about
what
they
are
doing
in
San
18
Francisco.
We
call
ourselves
a
green
city,
but
yet
19
very
recently
we
clearcut
over
a
thousand
trees,
20
4,000
trees
in
Parcel
A.
21
Some
experts
say
one
tree
is
worth
a
22
$
162,000
because
of
the
role
it
plays
in
producing
23
oxygen,
in
neutralizing
carbon
dioxide
and
creating
24
nitrates.
25
162
I
thank
you
very
much
for
giving
this
1
opportunity
on
behalf
of
the
youth
to
express
some
of
2
the
very
many
ideas
and
sentiments
that
I
could
have
3
if
I
was
given
more
time.
Thank
you
very
much.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
5
for
taking
the
time
to
share
your
views
with
us.
6
MR.
BLOOM:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
7
Isaac
Bloom.
I
am
the
Lead
Citizen
Outreach
Director
8
with
Environment
California
for
Northern
California.
9
I
am
here
both
in
my
official
capacity
and
as
an
10
individual.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
talk
11
with
us.
12
I'm
originally
from
Cleveland,
Ohio.
We
13
have
some
of
the
worst
air
quality
in
the
country.
I
14
was
not
born
with
asthma,
but
by
my
fifth
grade
year
15
I
missed
35
days
of
school
due
to
lung­
related
16
illnesses.
17
In
terms
of
what
I
do
professionally
what
I
18
do
professionally
is
organize
a
staff
of
people
to
go
19
out
and
talk
to
people
door
to
door
about
issues
just
20
like
these.
I've
been
doing
it
for
about
four
years
21
now.
There
is
no
equivocation
among
the
people
of
22
this
country
that
clean
air
needs
to
be
a
priority.
23
California
has
some
of
the
worst
air
24
pollution
in
the
country
and
that
is
a
fact
that
is
25
163
on
record.
And
the
Clean
Air
Act
clearly
states
that
1
air
quality
standards
must
protect
public
health.
2
The
EPA
needs
to
strengthen,
not
weaken
3
clean
air
standards
for
particulate
pollution.
It
is
4
the
job
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
put
5
the
health
and
welfare
of
our
nation's
most
6
vulnerable,
our
sick,
our
youth,
and
our
elderly
over
7
the
bottom
line
of
the
Bush
Administration
corporate
8
campaign
contributors.
9
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
11
Any
questions?
Okay,
thank
you
both
very
12
much.
13
Anthony
Myers
and
Carolina
Simunovic.
I'm
14
sorry.
Simunovic?
Thank
you.
15
Well,
at
last
we
get
to
meet
her
there.
16
Would
you
like
to
go
first?
What's
best
17
for
you?
Yeah.
18
MR.
MYERS:
Okay.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Mr.
Myers.
20
MR.
MYERS:
Yes.
My
name's
Anthony
Myers.
21
I'm
the
Lead
Field
Manager
for
Environment
22
California
here
in
San
Francisco.
And
my
capacity
is
23
much
like
Mr.
Bloom's,
go
out
door
to
door
and
talk
24
to
people
about
issues
like
this.
And
I
think
he's
25
164
definitely
right:
People
unequivocally
agree
that
1
clean
air
is
a
priority.
2
I'd
just
like
to
say
that,
you
know,
I
am
3
here
both
professionally
and
as
a
person
who
lives
4
here
in
the
Bay
Area.
I
have
a
friend,
former
co­
5
worker
and
boss
who
both
had
asthma.
And
they
both
6
had
prescription
medicine
for
it.
They
both
had
7
inhalers.
One
of
them
had
prescription,
like
8
medication,
like
pills
that
he
had
to
take
for
his
9
asthma,
it
was
so
bad.
They
both
had
asthma
attacks
10
like
every
single
week.
You
know
I
would
hear
about
11
it.
12
They
don't
know
that
I'm
hear
today,
but
13
they
probably
don't
even
know
about
the
standards
14
that
exist
that
the
EPA
has
control
over,
but
they're
15
intimately
acquainted
with
particulate
pollution
in
16
the
atmosphere.
17
Particle
pollution
is
the
most
dangerous
18
air
pollutant
that
there
is.
And
even
at
levels
19
below
the
current
standards
the
damaging
health
20
effects
are
well
known
and
documented.
Here
in
21
California
it
causes
strokes,
lung
cancer,
asthma
22
attacks.
23
So
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
before
24
finalizing
the
Air
Quality
Standards
later
this
year,
25
165
the
Bush
Administration
must
strengthen
the
standards
1
and
help
protect
public
health
instead
of
maintaining
2
the
status
quo
and
rejecting
its
own
science
advisors
3
and
EPA
staff
and
issuing
blanket
exemptions
for
4
agriculture
and
mining
sectors.
5
That's
it.
Thank
you.
6
MS.
STONE:
I
have
a
question.
Mr.
Myers,
7
­­
8
MR.
MYERS:
Um­
hum.
9
MS.
STONE:
­­
does
Environment
California
10
have
specific
recommendations
about
the
levels
of
the
11
Standards,
the
Fine
Particle
or
Course
Particle
12
Standards?
13
MR.
MYERS:
Yeah.
We
want
to
endorse
the
14
American
Lung
Association's
recommendations.
15
MS.
STONE:
Yeah.
It's
helpful
if
you're
16
specific.
Thank
you.
17
MR.
MYERS:
Thank
you.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
19
Ms.
Simunovic.
20
MS.
CAROLINA
SIMUNOVIC:
Thank
you
very
21
much.
My
name
is
Carolina
Simunovic.
I'm
with
the
22
Fresno
Metro
Ministry.
This
is
Isabella
and
I
had
to
23
bring
her
for
logistical
feeding
reasons,
but
I
think
24
it's
important
actually
today
for
you
all
to
see
us,
25
166
see
her
because
what
makes
me
the
most
scared
right
1
now
as
a
mother
is
thinking
how
old
will
my
daughter
2
be
before
the
air
where
we
live
is
clean.
How
much
3
pollution
will
she
have
to
breathe?
How
much
can
her
4
little
lungs
take?
5
Those
are
the
fears
that
I
have
along
with
6
millions
of
other
mothers
that
are
living
in
rural
7
areas
across
the
country
and
especially
in
the
San
8
Joaquin
Valley,
which
is
where
we
call
home.
9
I
put
together
a
few
of
these
pictures
for
10
you
quickly.
And
usually
I'm
very
polite,
but
this
11
is
my
only
chance
to
talk
to
you
and
I
think
I
have
12
to
be
very
frank.
13
I
think
that's
what's
happening
here
is
a
14
crime
against
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
I
think
the
15
EPA
Proposals
are
irresponsible
and
unethical,
almost
16
designed
to
harm
the
people
that
you
need
to
protect
17
the
most,
people
living
in
poor
communities,
rural
18
communities
that
are
exposed
to
pollutants,
exposed
19
to
course
particulate
matter,
fine
particulate
matter
20
on
a
daily
basis
and
need
this
protection.
21
The
rural
definition
that
is
in
these
22
proposals
will
leave
almost
half
of
the
Valley's
3.2
23
million
people
without
these
important
air
quality
24
protections.
And
as
you
know,
we
are
one
of
the
25
167
dirtiest
and
largest
air
basins
in
the
country.
It
1
almost
seem
like
these
rules
either
forgot
about
the
2
San
Joaquin
Valley
or
were
designed
purposefully
to
3
make
getting
clean
air
there
more
difficult.
4
Big
cities
that
we
consider
like
Visalia,
5
Clovis,
Madera
are
considered
rural
here,
according
6
to
your
definitions.
And
contrary
to
what
is
assumed
7
in
the
proposals,
rural
dust
is
contaminated
dust
8
here.
As
you
can
see
here,
pesticide
use
in
the
San
9
Joaquin
Valley
is
the
highest
in
the
nation.
10
I
have
recently
learned
from
friends
we
11
have
hazardous
waste
dumps,
I
mean
I
have
known
that
12
before,
but
we
have
hazardous
waste
ash
that
is
13
coming
off
of
refineries
that
is
being
piled
up
in
14
our
agricultural
fields
near
where
people
live.
15
Hazardous
waste,
designated
hazardous
waste
put
there
16
illegally,
and
I
can
get
you
that
information.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good.
18
MS.
CAROLINA
SIMUNOVIC:
But
people
exposed
19
to
that
will
not
be
protected.
Hazardous
waste
20
permitted
in
Buttonwillow,
California.
I
mean
that
21
is
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
We
have
become
the
toilet
22
bowl
for
the
nation's
waste.
And
the
people
here
23
have
to
breathe
it.
24
This
is
what
happened
in
Westley
1999,
four
25
168
million
tires
burning
for
months.
That
is
in
a
rural
1
area.
The
people
had
to
use
windshield
wipers
to
2
clear
the
ash
from
their
cars.
3
These
are
the
faces
of
people
trying
to
4
breathe
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
Little
kids
have
5
to
use
medication
in
order
to
play.
Our
asthma
rates
6
are
on
the
rise.
7
These
are
our
rural
families.
This
is
near
8
Allensworth
State
Park.
These
are
our
athletes
that
9
need
to
use
inhalers
in
order
to
compete.
These
are
10
our
families
that
are
trying
to
take
action
to
clean
11
the
air
in
their
neighborhoods.
We're
at
the
12
footsteps
of
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Pollution
13
Control
District
there.
People
want
clean
air.
14
People
in
the
Valley
deserve
clean
air.
15
We
went
to
the
Capitol
again
and
again,
and
16
we
will
go
to
wherever
it
takes
to
demand
clean
air
17
for
the
people
where
we
live.
I
think
we're
scared.
18
we
need
the
strongest
protections
in
our
Valley.
19
We're
making
some
gains.
We've
been
working
with
the
20
Air
District
to
make
significant
gains,
but
this
21
would
be
a
major
setback.
22
What
we
need
are
stronger
standards,
like
23
those
adopted
by
California
for
particulate
matter,
24
those
that
are
endorsed
today
by
the
American
Lung
25
169
Association
and
many
others.
What
we
need
are
more
1
monitors,
not
less.
Please
do
not
remove
any
one
of
2
our
nine
monitors
that
we
have
in
the
San
Joaquin
3
Valley.
We
need
to
know
what
is
in
our
air.
If
you
4
take
those
away
it's
like
we
won't
know
what's
5
killing
us.
6
Please
help
us.
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
8
for
coming
and
for
bringing
Isabella.
9
MS.
CAROLINA
SIMUNOVIC:
Thank
you.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
thank
you,
Mr.
11
Myers.
12
Daniela
Simunovic
and
is
Leo
Pedretti
here?
13
MS.
DANIELA
SIMUNOVIC:
No.
He
was
unable
14
to
make
it
today
from
Fresno.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
Let
me
16
just
see.
17
Ray
Leon?
18
Great.
Thank
you.
19
MS.
DANIELA
SIMUNOVIC:
Hello.
My
name
is
20
Daniela
Simunovic
and
I
too
work
along
with
Carolina
21
at
Fresno
Metro
Ministry
with
the
Environmental
22
Health
Program
there.
And
I
am
also
a
15­
year
23
resident
of
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
of
Fresno
and
an
24
asthmatic.
25
170
And
my
daily
reality
is
that
if
I
don't
1
medicate
myself
twice
a
day
using
my
control
inhaler,
2
my
lungs
are
at
risk
for
inflammation.
That
puts
me
3
at
higher
risk
for
asthma
attacks
that
are
aggravated
4
by
the
pollution
that's
in
our
air,
in
particular
the
5
particulate
matter
pollution.
6
You
know
part
of
our
job
is
going
out
into
7
the
community
and
giving
a
presentation
that
we've
8
entitled
"
Pollution
101,"
explaining
the
problem
that
9
we
have
in
our
Valley.
And
I
go
out
there
and
I
talk
10
to
people
about
the
ozone
problem.
11
I
go
out
there
and
when
I
get
to
the
12
particulate
matter,
that's
when
people
get
scared
13
because
smog
is
something
people
have
been
familiar
14
with,
but
particulate
matter,
it's
kind
of
the
silent
15
killer.
In
the
Valley
there
have
been
studies
that
16
have
proved,
statistics
that
have
shown
longterm
17
exposure
to
PM2.5
to
fine
particulate
matter
has
led
18
to
an
estimated
of
1300
premature
deaths
in
our
19
Valley
in
the
eight
counties
that
comprise
the
San
20
Joaquin
Valley.
21
So
when
you
tell
people
the
statistic
and
22
people
become
aware
of
the
particulate
matter
that
23
we're
exposed
to,
people
get
scared.
And
so
my
24
concern
is
I'm
going
to
go
back
into
these
25
171
communities,
many
of
which
are
rural
communities,
we
1
travel
to
the
cities,
small
rural
cities
which
will
2
be
exempt
for
your
regulation,
like
here
or
even
the
3
communities
of
Clovis,
which
are
right
next
door
to
4
Fresno
which
for
us
are
considered
huge
cities,
large
5
cities
that
actually
­­
Clovis
and
Fresno,
I'm
not
6
sure
if
you're
familiar
with
the
Valley,
but
have
7
actually
kind
of
blended
and
can
often
be
confused
as
8
kind
of
one
large
city.
9
But
under
this
regulation
Clovis
with
its
10
population
of
80,000
people
will
be
exempt
from
these
11
regulations.
So
how
will
that
affect
Fresno?
12
But,
anyway,
my
point
is
when
I
go
out
to
13
these
small
communities,
that
will
be
exempt.
How
am
14
I
going
to
tell
them
that
this
Environmental
15
Protection
Agency,
who's
been
tasked
with
the
duty
of
16
passing
regulations
that
will
be
protective
of
public
17
health
of
everybody,
has
said
that:
Well,
here
in
18
this
rural
area
because
there's
not
enough
of
you,
19
you
don't
count
and
they're
not
regulating
for
these
20
pollutants.
21
And
I
don't
know
with
what
good
conscience
22
I
can
go
to
do
that.
And
I'm
here
today
asking
you
23
and
urging
you
to
not
create
a
second
class
24
citizenry.
25
172
Here
in
California
one
of
hugest
problems
1
is
that
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
was
long
forgotten
on
2
numerous
levels,
and
one
of
those
issues
was
air
3
quality.
In
the
recent
years
we've
been
fighting.
4
There's
been
a
growing
movement
of
Environmental
5
Justice
advocates,
regular
community
members
that
6
have
been
educated
on
the
problem
and
are
speaking
up
7
and
are
going
to
the
Air
District
meetings.
And
8
those
are
really
important
people.
Many
of
those
9
people
are
the
people
who
will
be
exempt
from
10
regulations
if
the
current
proposal
passes.
11
So
I'm
asking
you
when
you
go
­­
you're
12
tasked
as
EPA
to
create
regulations
that
are
13
protective
of
public
health
and
everybody,
and
to
14
take
into
account
those
voices.
Because
what
kind
of
15
public
accountability
will
this
Administration
have
16
with
those
people.
How
will
you
have
credibility
in
17
the
community?
So
I
urge
you
again.
18
One
of
the
other
issues
too
is
as
I
was
19
reading
one
of
the
fact
sheet
of
our
local
colleagues
20
I
realize
that
­­
I'm
a
former
resident
of
Douglas,
21
Arizona,
a
small
border
community
who
is
in
22
violation.
They're
nonattainment
for
PM10.
23
Douglas
was
also
a
rural,
small
community
24
on
the
border
with
many
social
justice
issues
in
25
173
economic
and
environmental
due
to
the
presence
of
the
1
mining
industry
there
years
back.
And
this
community
2
of
mainly
Latino,
low
social­
economic
people
will
be
3
exempt
from
your
regulation
as
well.
4
I'm
asking
you
to
take
into
account
that
5
because
these
hearings
were
held
in
Philadelphia,
in
6
Chicago,
and
in
San
Francisco,
not
really
rural
7
areas,
many
people
were
unable
to
be
here
to
give
8
voice
to
their
concerns
and
to
their
communities.
9
So
I'm
asking
you
next
time
that
maybe
the
10
hearings
like
this
are
taken
into
account
that
will
11
so
severely
affect
rural
areas,
that
maybe
you
12
consider
having
one
here
and
giving
those
people
13
opportunity.
14
But
as
somebody
who
was
able
to
come
here
15
and
to
talk
on
behalf
of
­­
here
speaking
on
behalf
16
of
my
friends
in
Douglas,
Arizona;
I'm
here
talking
17
on
behalf
of
my
family
in
Fresno,
California
and
my
18
nieces
and
my
own
lungs,
you
know
there's
a
myth
that
19
PM10,
course
particulate
matter
is
bigger
and
it's
20
not
affecting
our
lungs
and
it's
PM2.5
we
have
to
21
worry
about.
22
But
the
reality
is
the
PM10
is
still
23
smaller
than
the
width
of
a
human
hair.
And
our
24
lungs
are
kind
of
like
filters
and
the
PM10,
while
25
174
it's
not
getting
to
my
deepest
organs,
is
still
1
clogging
my
lungs.
As
an
asthmatic,
longterm
2
exposure
to
that
is
affecting
me.
3
One
in
six
children
in
our
Valley
have
4
asthma.
That's
not
just
me,
and
now
we're
seeing
5
this
medical
phenomenon
with
adult­
onset
asthma,
6
which
is
not
common.
And
which
is
something
that's
7
just
being
now
seen
in
studies
in
the
San
Joaquin
8
Valley.
9
These
are
important
health
issues
that
need
10
to
be
addressed
in
your
regulatory
policy,
and
I
urge
11
you
to
make
policy
based
on
conscience
and
not
just
12
conscience
but
science.
The
science
is
there
13
supporting.
14
You've
heard
numerous
people
come
here
and
15
talk
about
the
different
studies
that
support,
that
16
show
there
is
a
link
between
exposure
to
particulate
17
matter,
pollution,
and
health
risks.
And
we're
18
living
those
on
a
daily
basis
in
the
Valley.
We
19
don't
need
a
study
to
show
us
that.
20
So
I
urge
you
just
again
to
consider
these
21
people
and
to
not
let
voices
go
unheard.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
23
MR.
LEON:
Hello.
Good
afternoon.
Buenos
24
tardes.
My
name
is
Ray
Leon
with
the
Latino
Issues
25
175
Forum,
Senior
Policy
Analyst.
I'm
also
a
native
of
1
the
San
Joaquin
Valley,
born
in
Fresno,
raised
in
the
2
farmworker
community
of
Huron
which
is
on
the
west
3
side
of
the
Valley.
4
And
the
west
side
of
the
Valley,
just
in
5
respect
to
monitoring,
there
currently
aren't
any
6
monitors
that
have
­­
that
exist
on
the
west
side
to
7
monitor
PM10,
PM2.5,
or
any
of
the
gaseous
toxins
8
that
exact
and
on
daily
basis
harm
the
community.
9
And
if
I
may
share
a
little
bit
about
10
Huron,
Huron
is
a
population
of
6,000.
It's
an
11
incorporated
community,
farmwork,
98
percent
Latino.
12
It
is
one
of
ten
of
the
poorest
communities
in
the
13
state.
14
The
lettuce
season
comes
twice
a
year.
And
15
what
that
means
is
that
diesel
pollution,
diesel
16
trucks
come
in
which
are
NAFTA
trucks,
from
Canada,
17
from
down
south,
also
from
across
the
nation,
18
Florida.
I've
met
truck
drivers
from
all
over
the
19
country
and
the
continent.
20
But
what
that
means
is
diesel
pollution,
21
it's
a
big
issue.
I
mean
that
is
on
top
of
the
past
22
decades
in
respect
to
pesticide
drift,
pesticide­
23
laden
dust.
We
have
a
creek
nextdoor
up
the
way,
24
there
is
an
Acme
Rockery.
They
do
a
lot
of
25
176
excavation.
And
of
course
as
you
know,
asbestos
is
1
naturally
released
and
therefore
concentrated
in
the
2
soil.
So
there's
asbestos
all
around
the
country.
3
So
in
the
summer
you
can't
have
a
car
that
is
clean
4
for
more
than
two
days.
5
With
my
youth
group
in
Huron
we
take
heed
6
and
have
car
wash
fundraisers,
but
just
to
show
the
7
dust
with
asbestos,
with
pesticides,
and
the
diesel
8
toxins,
it's
harming
everybody.
9
I
always
hear
talk
in
the
community,
10
currently
we
have
a
leadership
institute
in
the
11
community
of
Huron
of
older
folks
talking
about
their
12
friends,
their
relatives
have
cancer.
Of
course
13
unfortunately
there
aren't
any
resources
that
are
put
14
in
to
really
identify
what
the
problems
are
in
these
15
communities,
to
effectively
assist
the
impact
of
16
asthma
or
other
respiratory
illnesses
on
children
or
17
adults
to
really
map
out
where
the
disease
are
18
prominent
or
the
cancer
clusters
exist.
Those
19
resources
don't
exist
for
us
and
that
is
a
huge
20
problem.
21
To
weaken
the
standards,
I
mean
if
I
was
22
coming
in
from
another
planet
I
would
see
all
of
this
23
taking
place
without
knowing
the
politics
and
the
24
economics
playing
into
and
I
would
say
that
there
was
25
177
a
low­
intensity
chemical
warfare
going
on
against
1
working
families.
2
It's
unfortunate
to
say
or
to
even
see
it
3
that
way
because,
I
mean,
there
are
people
suffering.
4
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
folks
up
in
D.
C.
that
are
5
doing
some
good
things,
but
then
there
are
some
folks
6
that
think
they're
doing
good
things
and
they're
7
really
harming
and
really
creating
a
hazard
for
the
8
public
health
of
folks,
especially
the
working
9
families.
10
In
California
40
percent
of
Latinos
do
not
11
have
health
insurance
­­
a
huge
problem.
If
you
have
12
a
children
with
asthma,
and
such
as
on
the
west
side
13
of
Fresno
we're
working
with
a
community,
the
Adams
14
community,
at
3:
00
p.
m.
today,
3:
00
to
5:
00,
they
15
will
be
having
a
rally
in
front
of
a
concrete
company
16
because
while
their
community
does
not
have
a
park,
17
does
not
have
a
youth
center,
does
not
have
a
clinic,
18
the
city
council
and
the
government
allows
a
concrete
19
company
to
come
in
across
the
street
from
the
Adams
20
Elementary
School,
which
is
third
highest
in
the
21
asthma
rates
where
one
out
of
seven
children
have
22
asthma,
and
they
allow
a
concrete
company
to
come
in
23
to
increase
diesel
traffic.
24
This
is
an
elementary
school
that
is
25
178
surrounded
by
two
distribution
centers,
Freeway
99,
1
and
the
railroad
track,
so
it
doesn't
make
sense.
2
The
cumulative
health
impacts
are
creating
chaos
with
3
the
lungs
and
the
health
of
our
communities
in
the
4
Valley
in
the
rural
parts
and
also
in
the
urban
parts
5
where
­­
I
mean
have
you
guys
heard
of
the
Brookings
6
Institute
Report?
Fresno
was
number
one
in
respect
7
to
the
highest
concentration
of
clusters
of
poverty.
8
Well,
rural
communities
in
the
Valley
are
as
bad
if
9
not
worse.
But
of
course
they're
never
researched
10
and
never
really
identified.
So
how
is
the
fact
that
11
their
health
access
is
not
as
accessible
as
it
should
12
be
in
this
great
nation
and
this
grand
democracy,
and
13
the
fact
that
industry
is
mega
industry.
14
Let
me
just
show
this
last
example.
Tulare
15
County,
number
one
in
terms
of
ag
revenue,
yet
it's
16
the
county
with
the
highest
rates
of
poverty
in
the
17
state
of
California.
Why
is
that
so?
Why
are
18
working
class
people,
low­
income
people
put
to
the
19
ends
of
our
focus
in
respect
to
public
health
and
20
human
rights?
21
There's
a
huge
problem
going
on.
We
need
22
you
to
help
us
to
strengthen
the
standards
and
not
23
weaken
them
because
it
will
further
just
compromise
24
our
health
and
our
community
stability
and
the
25
179
economic
development
of
our
Valley.
Thank
you
very
1
much.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
both
very
3
much
for
taking
the
time
to
talk
with
us
today.
4
Sarah
Janssen
and
Mark
Oldenkamp.
5
DR.
JANSSEN:
Mr.
Oldenkamp
first?
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I'm
sorry?
7
DR.
JANSSEN:
Is
Mr.
Oldenkamp
first?
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
No,
you.
9
DR.
JANSSEN:
Okay.
My
name
is
Sarah
10
Janssen.
I'm
a
physician
here
in
the
San
Francisco
11
Bay
Area
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
San
Francisco
12
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility.
13
In
addition
to
being
a
practicing
physician
14
in
Occupational
and
Environmental
Medicine,
I'm
also
15
an
asthma
patient.
And
I
was
the
first
in
my
family
16
to
be
diagnosed
with
asthma,
but
my
younger
two
17
sisters
were
also
diagnosed
with
it.
18
And
although
genetics
might
play
a
small
19
role
in
it,
I
can't
also
help
but
wonder
if
the
fact
20
that
we
grew
up
in
the
middle
of
rural
Illinois
near
21
a
highway
that
had
a
lot
of
stop­
and­
go
diesel
truck
22
traffic,
near
the
farm
fields
with
a
lot
of
blowing
23
dust,
and
near
a
lot
of
industries
that
produce
soot
24
might
have
also
played
a
role
in
us
developing
25
180
asthma.
1
So
I'm
here
speaking
on
behalf
of
myself
2
and
my
sisters
and
also
my
patients
who
I
take
care
3
of
who
have
asthma,
other
chronic
lung
disease
and
4
heart
disease
who
are
affected
by
the
Particulate
5
Matter
Standard.
6
So
beyond
my
own
personal
experience
with
7
asthma
I
see
many
patients
who
have
asthma
and
we're
8
the
sensitive
and
the
vulnerable
populations
who
the
9
Clean
Air
Act
Standard
is
supposed
to
be
protecting.
10
I
have
to
carry
my
inhaler
with
me
wherever
11
I
go
just
in
case
I
need
it.
I
have
a
very
mild
form
12
of
asthma
so
I
don't
need
it
very
often.
I
think
I'm
13
lucky,
but
a
lot
of
my
patients
aren't
able
to
work.
14
They're
not
able
to
go
outside
and
enjoy
the
15
beautiful
surroundings
of
the
Bay
Area
because
of
16
their
asthma.
They
have
to
use
an
inhaler
or
an
17
Nebulizer
machine
every
day
to
help
them
breathe
and
18
they
often
end
up
in
our
local
emergency
rooms
and
in
19
our
hospitals.
20
I'm
concerned
that
those
of
us
with
asthma
21
are
not
going
to
be
protected
by
this
new
standard.
22
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
the
EPA
has
to
set
Air
23
Quality
Standards
that
protect
the
public
health
and
24
update
them
as
needed.
And
I
think
all
of
the
new
25
181
evidence
that's
come
out
in
the
last
10
years,
1
there's
a
good
consensus
amongst
the
medical
2
community,
the
scientific
community,
and
the
public
3
health
community
that
the
Current,
Daily,
and
Annual
4
Average
Standards
for
Fine
Particles
are
not
5
protective
of
public
health,
especially
those
of
us
6
who
are
in
the
sensitive
and
vulnerable
populations.
7
And
we
also
need
a
new
standard
for
course
8
particles.
9
The
Current
Standard
puts
myself
and
my
10
patients
at
a
higher
risk
for
more
asthma
attacks,
11
requiring
more
medication,
and
possibly
more
12
hospitalizations.
It
also
puts
young
children
at
a
13
risk
for
developing
lifelong
asthma.
A
more
14
stringent
standard
would
protect
these
vulnerable
15
populations.
16
There's
an
overwhelming
amount
of
peer­
17
reviewed
scientific
evidence
that
a
stricter
standard
18
would
be
more
protective
and
EPA
is
ignoring
the
19
calls
of
its
own
Staff
Scientists
and
the
Clean
Air
20
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
to
strengthen
the
PM
21
Standards.
22
The
proposed
revision
would
leave
the
23
Annual
Standard
unchanged
and
would
reduce
the
Daily
24
Standard
by
only
a
token
amount
and
will
have
little
25
182
impact
on
public
health.
1
I
think
that
it's
a
very
dangerous
2
precedent,
to
disregard
the
recommendations
of
your
3
own
science
advisors
and
to
not
improve
our
nation's
4
air
quality.
So
therefore
I
concur
with
the
5
consensus
in
the
medical
and
scientific
community
6
that
the
standards
should
be
set
at
the
most
7
protective
levels,
specifically
the
Administration
8
should
adopt
a
Annual
Standard
no
higher
than
12
9
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
Daily
Standard
no
10
higher
than
25
grams
[
sic]
per
cubic
meter
when
you
11
finalize
the
standards
in
September.
12
In
addition,
the
Administration
should
13
issue
standards
and
monitoring
requirements
for
14
course
particles
that
protect
all
Americans.
There
15
should
be
no
exemptions
for
communities
less
than
16
100,000.
And
the
24­
Hour
Course
Particulate
17
Standards
should
be
25
micrograms
per
meter
cubed.
18
19
The
Administration's
proposal
to
eliminate
20
monitoring
in
small
and
mid­
size
communities
and
to
21
categorically
exempt
agriculture
and
mining
from
22
control
requirements
is
unjustified
and
it's
not
23
protective
of
public
health.
It's
not
protective
of
24
the
young
children
who
grow
up
in
rural
areas,
like
I
25
183
did.
And
it's
going
to
result
in
more
young
children
1
developing
asthma.
2
I
think
the
current
EPA
proposal
misses
the
3
opportunity
to
do
what's
necessary
to
prevent
disease
4
and
premature
death
and
I
urge
the
EPA
administration
5
to
follow
sound
science
and
strengthen
this
proposal
6
to
truly
public
health
and
vulnerable
populations.
7
Thank
you.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
9
Janssen.
10
Any
questions?
11
Mr.
Oldenkamp.
12
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
13
Mark
Oldenkamp.
I'm
here
today
representing
the
14
United
Egg
Producers,
a
trade
association
whose
15
members
represent
over
90
percent
of
U.
S.
egg
16
producers.
17
I
believe
we
have
representatives
speaking
18
at
the
other
two
hearings
today
also.
19
I
am
egg
producer
and
I
have
operations
20
that
I
am
involved
in
in
the
western
United
States.
21
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments.
22
I
want
to
first
say
that
United
Egg
23
Producers
is
proud
to
have
many
of
our
members
along
24
with
other
animal
species
representatives
who
already
25
184
subscribe
to
the
consent
agreements.
We
have
agreed
1
as
an
industry
to
fund
monitoring
studies
that
are
2
soon
to
start.
And
we
have
formed
a
scientific
panel
3
to
seek
science­
based
answers
to
the
unquantified
4
emissions
that
come
from
animal­
production
5
facilities,
in
the
belief
that
science
will
lead
us
6
to
the
answers
that
we
seek.
7
First
with
regard
to
PM
Course.
UEP
8
strongly
supports
your
position
not
to
establish
9
agricultural
dust
PM
Course
Health
Standards
under
10
the
rules
at
this
time.
We
do
that
because
science
11
is
not
currently
available
to
indicate
that
the
12
standard
is
needed.
Urban
PM
Course
Standards
should
13
be
questioned
to
whether
they
are
prudent
or
14
practical.
15
The
scientific
monitoring
that
is
about
to
16
begin
we
hope
will
provide
the
data
to
determine
17
whether
urban
PM
Course
Standards
are
really
needed.
18
We
must
do
this
research
first,
in
our
opinion,
and
19
great
care
should
be
taken
to
do
this
right
and
to
20
make
sure
before
determinations
are
made.
21
With
regard
to
PM
Fine.
UEP
has
previously
22
submitted
comments
regarding
the
proposed
rules
that
23
states
could
implement
their
own
rules,
and
some
24
states
are.
25
185
We
have
concerns
that
state­
by­
state
1
rulemaking
could
present
problems
in
particular
as
it
2
relates
to
regulating
ammonia
as
a
precursor
to
PM
3
fine.
4
EPA
must
review
each
of
those
proposals
5
state
by
state
and
case
by
case,
and
for
that
reason
6
we
object
to
state­
level
programs
because,
first,
the
7
sound
science
does
not
currently
exist
today
to
offer
8
states
clear
evidence
to
support
the
proposed
rules
9
as
it
relates
to
ammonia
as
a
precursor
PM
fine;
and
10
the
scientific
community
does
not
yet
understand
the
11
fate
and
transport
of
ammonia
or
VOCs
as
potential
PM
12
fine
formation
precursors.
Adequate
science
simply
13
does
not
exist
today.
14
Under
circumstances
commonly
found
in
field
15
conditions
fundamental
questions
remain
as
to
when,
16
how,
why,
and
generally
what
circumstances
emissions
17
of
these
substances
from
livestock
operations
do
in
18
fact
lead
to
PM
fine
formation.
19
We
believe
that
focus
on
this
science
will
20
lead
to
answers
on
how
to
reduce
ammonia
or
VOCs
that
21
will
reduce
PM
fine
emissions.
22
Secondly,
we
object
because
EPA
needs
to
23
first
propose
in
the
public
forum
standards
and
24
guidelines
that
they
will
use
to
review
specific
25
186
state­
level
plans.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
major
1
challenge
to
EPA
because
the
science
is
still
lacking
2
in
this
area.
And
we
are
concerned
that
without
a
3
predefined
credible
process
for
decisions
to
be
made
4
on
state­
level
plans
the
decisions
could
be
arbitrary
5
and
inconsistent.
6
In
a
separate
point,
UEP
expresses
concern
7
that
crustal
matter
is
being
considered
under
the
PM
8
fine
context.
At
this
time
we
believe
these
9
materials
probably
should
be
considered
under
PM
10
course,
and
we
plan
to
further
comment
on
this
with
11
our
staff
working
on
this.
12
We,
in
summary,
strongly
urge
the
time
to
13
be
allowed
to
let
the
science
tell
us
more
what
we
14
need
to
do.
We're
in
support
of
following
whatever
15
that
science
leads
us
to
as
an
industry.
UEP
16
believes
the
science
is
critical
and
that's
why
we've
17
supported
it.
18
We
thank
you
for
the
time
to
make
comments
19
here
today
and
UEP
plans
and
reserves
the
right
to
20
provide
further
comment
and
details.
21
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
23
Yeah,
questions?
24
MR.
HANNON:
I'm
wondering
with
regard
to
25
187
ammonia,
is
your
concern
on
behalf
of
your
1
association
or
is
the
concern
the
lack
of
the
2
connection
of
ammonia
in
the
chemistry
or
is
your
3
concern
that
at
the
end
of
the
day
if
states
were
to
4
include
in
these
their
SIPs,
ammonia
in
their
SIPs
5
regarding
emission
inventories
from
agricultural
6
sources
that
you
guys
might
be
inappropriately
7
impacted
when
your
contributions
are
not
significant?
8
I'm
wondering
if
it's
a
scientific
argument
9
or
an
argument
under
the
emission
inventory.
10
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
As
I
understand
it,
we
11
believe
that
animal
production
does
emit
ammonias
and
12
we
are
working
on
mitigation
measures
for
that.
13
That's
why
we
formed
a
scientific
panel,
so
we
do
14
believe
that
we
will
need
to
learn
how
much
is
there.
15
But
we
don't
know,
based
on
the
science
that
we've
16
seen
and
what
our
professionals
have
told
me,
whether
17
it
truly
is
a
precursor
that's
going
to
be
involved
18
in
PM
fine
at
the
levels
that
we
need
to
be
concerned
19
about
or
whether
the
mitigation
efforts
that
we're
20
working
on
will
take
care
of
the
problem.
21
MR.
HANNON:
Thank
you
for
answering
that.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
one
question.
23
You
talk
about
wanting
clarity
on
the
process
by
24
which
EPA
will
approve
state
plans
or
act
on
state
25
188
plans.
We
have
a
proposed
rule
on
PM
implementation
1
plans.
Are
you
familiar
with
that?
Because
­­
2
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
I
personally
am
not.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
4
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
But
I
will
certainly
refer
5
that
to
our
staff
and
­­
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah.
7
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
­­
to
see
if
they
need
that
8
information.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Yeah,
because
10
we
do
have
a
proposed
rule
and
I
just
wanted
to
11
clarify
if
you're
saying
that
rule
is
inadequate
or
12
­­
13
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
Yeah.
There
­­
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
something
else
is
15
intended.
16
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
The
concern
that
was
17
expressed
to
me
is
that
there
needs
to
be
clear
18
guideline
by
which
any
state
proposal
would
be
19
evaluated
and
approved.
And
apparently
our
staff
is
20
not
sure
that
that
exist
at
this
time,
but
if
it
does
21
we'd
like
to
see
that.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
My
counsel
23
here
is
just
reminding
me,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
24
intend
to
do
this,
but
we
do
have
this
proposed
rule
25
189
out
there
concerning
implementation
of
the
current
1
Particulate
Matter
Standard.
And
if
you
are
2
interesting
in
commenting
on
that
rule,
I
don't
know
3
if
your
comments
concerning
this
process
were
4
intended
to
be
on
that
rule
since
you
weren't
aware
5
of
that
rule.
6
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
It's
my
understanding
that
7
UEP,
who
I'm
just
a
member
of
and
was
asked
to
come
8
here
today,
plans
to
be
engaged
in
this
process
all
9
the
way
through,
including
the
volunteer
effort
on
10
behalf
of
members
to
participate
in
developing
the
11
science.
And
we
will
be
engaged
all
the
way.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
All
right.
13
Well,
you
might
just
check
about
this
­­
14
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
Yes.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
proposed
rule
in
16
case
they
did
want
to
comment
on
that.
Okay.
17
Thank
you
both
very
much.
18
MR.
OLDENKAMP:
Thank
you.
19
DR.
JANSSEN:
Thank
you.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
David
Schonbrunn
and
21
Molly
Martin.
22
MR.
SCHONBRUNN:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
David
23
Schonbrunn.
I'm
President
of
Transdef,
the
24
Transportation
Solutions
Defense
and
Education
Fund.
25
190
We're
a
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
environmental
1
advocacy
organization
focused
on
smart
growth
and
2
sustainable
transportation.
We
have
sued
EPA
three
3
or
four
times
on
air
quality
issues.
4
Since
you
have
heard
so
much
today
about
5
the
science
of
setting
Air
Quality
Standards
and
6
since
the
proposed
NAAQS
have
nothing
to
do
with
7
science,
I'm
going
to
speak
on
the
politics
of
the
8
proposal.
9
This
proposal
is
blatantly
political.
It
10
cannot
be
said
with
a
straight
face
that
the
proposal
11
is
derived
from
existing
science.
Like
so
many
other
12
policies
coming
out
of
this
Administration
it's
13
obvious
that
the
Proposed
Standard
was
written
by
14
industry
lobbyist.
It's
obvious
that
cost
had
a
lot
15
of
to
do
with
this
proposal,
despite
the
denials
that
16
we've
heard
here
today.
17
It's
also
obvious
that
those
same
lobbyists
18
would
object
vehemently
if
their
own
communities
were
19
subjected
to
PM
pollution
acceptable
under
the
20
proposed
NAAQS.
They
obviously
could
care
less
about
21
environmental
justice
and
the
health
of
minority
and
22
low­
income
communities
who
live
in
PM
hotspots.
23
Our
nation
is
facing
an
epidemic
of
asthma.
24
It
is
beyond
obvious
that
a
principal
intervention
25
191
needed
to
combat
this
epidemic
is
a
reduction
in
the
1
PM
NAAQS.
Your
Administrator
has
demonstrated
2
something
close
to
criminal
negligence
in
his
3
indifference
to
the
asthma
epidemic.
He
is
at
the
4
only
place
in
our
nation
that
there
can
be
a
very
5
substantial
impact
on
asthma
and
other
respiratory
6
illnesses.
And
this
proposal
is,
as
I
said,
close
to
7
criminal
negligence.
8
It's
his
job
to
protect
the
health
of
9
Americans.
Instead
he
is
protecting
the
status
quo
10
for
business.
The
Proposed
Standards
are
polluter
11
protective
rather
than
health
protective.
12
Numerous
of
your
colleagues
have
resigned
13
from
EPA
because
they
were
unwilling
to
allow
their
14
professional
skills
to
be
used
to
dismantle
15
environmental
protection.
I
ask
EPA
staff
here
today
16
if
you
are
comfortable
serving
an
Administration
that
17
is
asking
you,
in
effect,
to
sign
the
death
sentences
18
for
many
thousands
of
Americans.
19
Will
you
be
willing
to
look
back
in
30
20
years
and
acknowledge
your
personal
role
in
21
finalizing
this
proposal.
The
justification
that
I
22
was
just
following
orders
didn't
work
at
Nuremberg
23
and
won't
work
here
either.
These
are
real
lives
24
you're
dealing
with.
It's
not
a
video
game.
25
192
This
proposal
is
bad
policy
and
worse
1
science.
That
said,
should
this
policy
and
the
2
proposal
nonetheless
go
forward,
on
a
practical
level
3
I
need
to
tell
you
that
the
Inhalable
Course
Particle
4
Standard
is
completely
unworkable.
5
First
of
all,
the
name
is
unworkable.
Can
6
you
imagine
how
tedious
and
painful
it
would
be
the
7
type
out
the
term
"
PM10
to
2.5"
dozens
of
times
a
8
day?
It's
a
ridiculous
term.
9
The
very
definition
of
inhalable
course
10
particle
is
unworkable
as
written.
The
definition
11
depends
on
the
term
high­
density
traffic,
which
is
12
not
a
term
of
art
in
the
transportation
profession.
13
As
a
transportation
professional
myself,
I
14
can
tell
you
I
have
never
seen
the
term
"
high­
density
15
traffic."
What
average
daily
traffic
levels
are
16
expected
to
be
encompassed
by
that
phrase?
That's
17
the
term
that's
used
in
transportation,
"
average
18
daily
traffic,"
and
that
means
a
specific
number.
19
How
can
it
practically
be
determined
20
whether
the
majority
of
particles
has
come
from
busy
21
roads
rather
than
from
nonbusy
roads?
22
I
don't
think
it
will
be
possible
to
define
23
nonattainment
areas
for
this
Proposed
Standard
24
because
of
the
unworkability
of
the
definition.
EPA
25
193
needs
to
go
back
to
the
drawingboard
with
this
1
standard
and
eliminate
the
source
distinctions
and
2
exemptions.
Keep
it
simple
and
health
protective.
3
We
recommend
you
adopt
the
science­
based
4
standard
suggested
by
the
American
Lung
Association.
5
Thank
you
very
much.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
One
question
from
me
7
at
least.
On
the
average
daily
traffic,
if
you
could
8
in
your
­­
if
you
do
give
us
written
comments,
give
9
us
some
more
information
about
that
term
and
why
that
10
would
be
the
correct
term
assuming
we
do
go
forward
11
with
this
standard
as
proposed.
12
MR.
SCHONBRUNN:
What
I'm
suggesting
to
you
13
is
I
don't
see
how
you
can
differentiate
it,
because
14
your
language
says
"
Where
the
majority
of
particles
15
comes
from
these
high­
density
traffic
zones,"
so
how
16
can
you
tell
where
the
particle
came
from?
All
you
17
can
tell
is
what
its
species
is.
18
So,
again,
I
don't
see
how
you
get
there
19
from
here.
I
think
this
is
completely
something
you
20
can't
go
anywhere
with.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
22
Ms.
Martin.
23
MS.
MARTIN:
I'm
Molly
Martin
and
I'm
a
24
citizen
of
San
Francisco,
California
and
the
United
25
194
States
of
America
and
I
guess
I
should
also
say
the
1
world.
2
I
do
care
about
­­
I'm
here
because
I
care
3
about
air
quality
everywhere.
I'm
an
asthmatic
and
I
4
don't
have
any
studies,
but
I
do
have
some
anecdotal
5
evidence
about
what
you're
calling
large
particulates
6
in
rural
areas
causing
and
contributing
to
poor
7
respiratory
health.
8
I
grew
up
in
Yakima,
Washington.
It's
a
9
very
beautiful
place.
It's
a
small
agricultural
town
10
east
of
the
Cascade
Mountains.
And
if
I
had
to
think
11
of
what
it
reminds
me
of,
more
than
anything
it
12
reminds
me
of
the
Central
Valley.
I
think
they're
13
very
much
the
same.
14
Yakima,
oh,
gosh,
when
I
was
growing
up
it
15
might
have
been
30,000,
probably
even
less
people
16
than
that.
My
mother
lived
in
Yakima
all
her
life.
17
And
she
contracted
asthma
or
was
diagnosed
with
18
asthma
when
she
was
in
her
fifties.
19
She
had
gone
out
to
the
Yakima
Firing
20
Center
on
a
windy
day.
And
I
think
that
the
culprit
21
was
dust.
She
was
out
at
an
outdoor
event
for
a
22
World
War
II
buddy
of
hers.
And
she
came
back
and
23
had
an
asthma
attack.
And
that's
when
she
started
24
having
asthma.
25
195
Of
course
I
think
we
could
point
to
dust
1
that
day,
but
because
we
lived
in
a
rural
area,
we
2
lived
in
the
country,
many
things
triggered
her
3
asthma.
And
one
­­
I
remember
a
big
one
was
haying.
4
When
they
were
haying,
she
had
to
say
inside.
And
5
even
then
had
a
very
difficult
time
breathing.
6
Crop
dusting.
Crop
dusting
was
going
on
7
all
around
us
and
all
kinds
of,
who
even
knows
what
8
chemicals
were
sprayed
then.
I
don't
even
want
to
9
know,
but
that
made
her
very
allergic.
10
Tilling
the
soil.
I
think
smoke
from
wood­
11
burning
stoves,
which
is
the
way
we
heated
our
house,
12
was
a
big
problem.
And
I
can
add
the
dust,
the
ash
13
from
Mt.
St.
Helens
because
Yakima
was
right
in
the
14
path
of
Mt.
St.
Helens
when
it
blew
up.
15
Well,
it's
not
surprising
that
my
mother
16
when
she
learned
she
had
asthma
became
a
clean­
air
17
activist
and
an
anti­
smoking
activist,
because
that's
18
what
happens
to
us
when
we
start
getting
sick.
We
19
really,
really
appreciate,
start
to
appreciate
good
20
air
or
air
quality.
And
so
I
think
I
could
consider
21
myself
representing
her
today.
22
Her
health
began
to
deteriorate
immediately
23
and
she
finally
died
in
1983.
So
I
suppose
she
had
24
asthma
for
15
years.
In
the
midst
of
a
coughing
fit,
25
196
which
she
would
have
every
morning,
finally
she
just,
1
I
don't
know
what
caused
her
death,
maybe
it
was
a
2
heart
attack,
but
certainly
it
was
asthma.
It
was
3
respiratory
illness.
4
And
I
believe
that
her
life
was
cut
short
5
by
poor
air
quality.
That's
what
killed
her
and
I
6
think
­­
7
(
Microphone
interference.)
8
MS.
MARTIN:
­­
I
think
it
killed
her
long
9
before
she
should
have
died.
And
that
was
the
10
primary
reason
for
her
death.
11
So
now
I'm
also
an
asthmatic.
I've
been
12
diagnosed
with
asthma.
I
suppose
in
my
thirties
I
13
was
diagnosed.
You
know
I've
tried
to
do
what
I
14
could
to
­­
you
know
I
was
desperate
to
help
her
and
15
I
didn't
know
what
to
do
for
her.
And
I
was,
I
have
16
to
admit,
desperate
to
keep
from
finding
myself
in
17
the
same
situation
with
the
same
fate.
18
I've
done
things
like
I
moved
from
Yakima.
19
I
don't
live
there
anymore
and
I
think
the
air
is
20
better
in
San
Francisco,
honestly.
It's
kind
of
21
ironic
that
I
moved
from
this
rural
location
to
a
22
city
and
the
air
is
better.
I
stopped
driving
and
23
public
transportation
is
good
here.
You
don't
have
24
to
have
a
car.
Actually
it's
quite
pleasant.
25
197
I
tried
to
buy
an
electric
car,
but
they
1
were
smashed.
And
I
wish
we
had
that
option.
I
2
don't
feel
like
do
have
the
option
of
buying
the
kind
3
of
a
car
that
really
is
not
a
polluter.
4
I
think
when
we're
talking
about
needing
5
studies,
I
think
we
all
know
this
is
common
sense,
6
that
breathing
in
these
particles,
big
or
small,
7
makes
us
sick.
No
one
has
mentioned
this
today,
but
8
I've
known
about
farmer's
lung
for
my
entire
life
or
9
most
of
my
life
and
carpenter's
lung.
I
suppose
it's
10
the
same
thing,
but
that's
what
we
called
it,
11
farmer's
lung.
You
got
farmer's
lung
if
you
were
out
12
there
on
a
tractor.
I'm
sure
that's
been
true
for
a
13
century.
14
Anyhow,
all
I'm
saying
is
we
know
what
to
15
do.
We
know
what
to
do
to
make
our
air
cleaner
and
16
keep
from
being
ill
and
that
is
to
adopt
stronger
air
17
quality
standards.
18
I
think
my
mother
would
be
very
19
disappointed
that
things
haven't
improved
any
more
20
than
have.
She
would
expect
my
generation,
and
I'm
21
getting
a
lot
older,
to
help
improve
things.
So
I
22
hope
that
my
testimony
will
help.
Thank
you.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
24
to
both
of
you
for
taking
the
time.
Thank
you.
25
198
I
think
we
have
one
more
person,
Norah
1
Schwartz.
2
DR.
SCHWARTZ:
Thank
you.
Hi.
I'm
Norah
3
Schwartz,
Senior
Research
Scientist
at
El
Colegio
de
4
la
Frontera
Norte.
A
little
hard
to
pronounce,
but
5
it's
"
colegio."
I
am
testifying
as
an
individual.
6
I
want
to
start
off
by
saying
that
I'm
7
going
to
urge
you
to
listen
to
the
sound
science
that
8
is
being
presented
here
as
well
as
the
extremely
9
concerned
public.
10
I
am
not
asthmatic
myself,
however
I
do
11
work
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
I
want
to
say
that
12
the
air
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
is
unbreathable.
13
It
is
simply
unbreathable
and
no
one
should
be
14
submitted
to
breathe
it.
They
should
not
be
forced
15
to
breathe
that
air.
16
Professionally
I
am
a
medical
17
anthropologist.
I
conduct
open­
ended
interviews
is
18
Spanish­
speaking
families
in
rural
communities
in
19
both
Mexico
and
the
United
States,
families
whose
20
children
have
asthma.
21
Like
many
of
the
people
here
I
see
asthma
22
every
day.
One
of
the
first
questions
I
ask
these
23
families
is,
"
What
causes
asthma?
What
is
making
24
your
children
sick?"
25
199
I
spent
years
in
Mexico
asking
this
1
question
and
the
answer
I
come
up
with
down
there,
2
because
of
lack
of
education
or
whatever,
is
these
3
families
don't
know
what
causes
asthma.
4
When
I
started
doing
my
work
in
the
San
5
Joaquin
Valley
I
expected
the
same
answer.
That's
6
not
what
I
found.
Everyone
there
knows
that
the
air
7
is
causing
the
children
to
be
sick.
8
I
interview
physicians,
pharmacists,
and
9
families.
The
answer
is
in
consensus:
It's
the
10
quality
of
the
air
here.
This
is
rural
America.
11
It's
a
travesty
that
people
have
to
deal
with
this
on
12
a
daily
basis.
13
You've
already
heard
that
families
are
14
leaving
the
Valley
because
of
the
quality
of
the
air.
15
We
has
not
have
families
leaving
their
homes
because
16
their
children
cannot
breathe.
17
The
poor
families
that
I
work
with
do
not
18
necessarily
have
this
option.
They
are
stuck
there.
19
And
they
want
to
live
there.
We
live
in
a
bowl,
20
they
say.
The
air
just
stagnates.
We
live
in
a
bowl
21
and
we
cannot
breathe.
22
While
these
families
appreciate
the
23
benefits
that
they
receive,
many
of
them
are
seeing
24
their
children's
health
decrease.
One
of
the
25
200
questions
I
ask
is,
"
Does
asthma
run
in
your
family?"
1
In
Mexico
what
I
see
is
that
there's
a
genetic
2
component
here.
If
the
mother,
the
father,
or
the
3
brother,
the
sister
has
asthma,
oftentimes
the
child
4
has
asthma.
5
What
I'm
finding
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
6
is
that
this
is
the
first
generation
of
children
to
7
have
asthma.
What
is
causing
them
to
have
asthma
8
other
than
the
air?
It
has
to
be
the
air.
We
all
9
know
that.
10
As
I
myself
drive
into
the
Valley
to
11
conduct
my
research
I
have
decided
that
I
cannot
12
spend
more
than
two
or
three
days
in
that
place.
I
13
do
not
have
asthma.
I
cannot
breathe.
My
eyes
start
14
tearing
and
I
start
having
allergies.
I
cannot
15
determine
whether
I
see
the
air
first
or
I
smell
it
16
first.
17
Children
are
unable
to
play.
They're
18
unable
to
go
to
school
because
of
asthma.
19
I
urge
you
two
things.
I
urge
you
first
of
20
all
to
go
and
see
the
air
and
to
small
it
yourselves
21
and
see
if
you
disagree
with
me.
I
urge
you
to
adopt
22
the
strongest
possible
standards
so
that
all
of
our
23
children
can
breathe
whether
they
live
in
a
rural
24
area,
whether
they
live
in
an
urban
area,
whether
25
201
they're
rich,
whether
they're
poor,
whether
they're
1
immigrants,
whether
they're
born
here,
they
deserve
2
the
right
to
breathe.
3
The
last
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
I
work
4
closely
with
the
American
Lung
Association
and
I
5
strongly
support
you
to
adopt
their
recommendations.
6
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
8
We're
going
to
take
a
break
now
and
we
will
9
resume
the
Public
Hearing
at
about
2:
00
p.
m.
Thank
10
you.
11
(
Luncheon
recess
taken
at
1:
05
p.
m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
