202
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
203
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
204
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
205
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
206
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
207
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
208
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
209
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
210
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
211
AFTERNOON
SESSION
1
2:
08
p.
m.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
A
couple
of
things.
3
We
are
conducting
our
Public
Hearing
on
our
PM
4
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Proposal.
That's
our
5
proposal
for
our
Particulate
Matter
Standards
and
on
6
our
Air
Monitoring
Network
Proposal.
7
I
very
much
appreciate
everybody
taking
the
8
time
to
come
and
participate
in
this
Public
Hearing.
9
I
know
some
of
you
have
traveled
many
miles
and
I
10
very
much
appreciate
the
effort
made
on
everyone's
11
part
to
come
and
participate
in
this
hearing.
12
I
am
the
Chair
of
the
hearing
panel.
My
13
name
is
Lydia
Wegman.
Susan
Stone,
Tim
Hanley,
and
14
John
Hannon
are
also
on
the
panel
and
we're
all
with
15
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
16
One
favor
to
ask.
We
are
having
some
17
problem
with
the
audio
system
here
because
some
18
BlackBerries
and
cellphones
are
causing
frequency
19
problems
that
interfere
with
the
system.
So
if
you
20
have
a
BlackBerry
or
any
other
handheld
device,
21
please
turn
it
off
while
you
are
in
the
room
and
then
22
you
can
turn
it
on
when
you
leave.
Thank
you.
23
The
way
we
work
the
hearing
is
we
have
24
folks
come
forward
two
at
a
time
and
each
person
has
25
212
five
minutes
to
speak.
So
when
you
come
forward,
1
please
come
as
a
pair
and
then
wait
until
the
other
2
person
is
finished
speaking.
And
when
you're
both
3
done
then
we'll
move
onto
the
next
witnesses.
4
So
Brent
Newell
and
Sandy
Garcia
are
our
5
next
two
witnesses.
And
actually
those
mics
need
to
6
stay
together.
One
is
for
the
court
reporter,
so
if
7
you
can
just,
yeah,
take
turns
using
both
of
them.
8
Thank
you.
9
MR.
NEWELL:
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Brent
10
Newell.
I
am
an
attorney
at
the
Center
on
Race,
11
Poverty,
and
the
Environment.
I'm
also
the
Director
12
of
the
Center's
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
Quality
13
Project.
14
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
Association
of
15
Irritated
Residents,
which
is
an
unincorporated
16
association
of
Kern,
Tulare,
Fresno,
and
Stanislaus
17
County
residents.
The
term
"
Irritated"
in
their
name
18
has
two
meanings.
It
expresses
their
irritation
with
19
government
that
either
is
unwilling
or
unable
to
20
protect
them.
It
also
expresses
the
state
of
their
21
lungs
as
irritated
from
air
pollution.
22
The
proposal
to
establish
these
National
23
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
and
exempt
rural
areas
24
from
that
protection
would
violate
rural
Americans'
25
213
constitutional
right
to
due
process
of
law.
Since
1
EPA
is
a
federal
agency
the
Fifth
Amendment
guaranty
2
applies
to
your
action.
3
Substantive
due
process
under
the
Fifth
4
Amendment
embodies
the
principle
of
equal
protection
5
of
the
law.
Your
proposed
action
here
discriminates
6
against
rural
Americans
by
subjecting
them
to
no
7
protection
from
the
Course
Particle
Standard
and
no
8
monitoring
of
course
particle
pollution
in
their
9
communities.
Urban
residents
enjoy
this
protection.
10
EPA
has
no
rational
basis
for
11
distinguishing
and
discriminating
against
these
12
residents.
Rural
crustal
material
is
not
just
dirt,
13
as
you
would
think.
Dirt
emissions
from
agricultural
14
fields
treated
with
pesticides
contain
pesticide
15
residue.
16
Emissions
from
factory
farms
likewise
are
17
not
just
dirt.
Now
let
me
qualify
the
term
"
factory
18
farm"
as
a
concentrated
animal
feeding
operation,
19
stationary
source
within
the
term
of
the
Clean
Air
20
Act
than
the
meaning
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
That's
21
not
just
dirt,
as
the
National
Beef
Cattlemen's
22
Association
would
have
you
believe.
Emissions
from
23
feedlots
and
chicken
operations
and
dairies,
that's
24
compacted
and
pulverized
manure.
Breathing
manure
is
25
214
not
breathing
dirt.
1
Emissions
from
factory
farms
have
been
2
found
to
contain
antibiotic­
resistant
bacteria.
3
Having
an
antibiotic
staph
infection
is
not
a
4
pleasant
thing.
And
it's
not
just
breathing
dirt.
5
Constituents
of
animal
manure
contain
6
pathogens,
heavy
metals
like
arsenic
and
selenium.
7
That's
not
just
dirt.
You
have
no
basis
for
this
8
discrimination.
9
Likewise,
airborne
emissions
from
mining
10
waste
is
not
just
dirt.
11
That's
all
I
have
to
say.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
If
you
do
13
have
any
information,
Mr.
Newell,
supporting
the
­­
14
MR.
NEWELL:
We'll
be
submitting
full
15
written
comments
supported
­­
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay,
good.
17
MR.
NEWELL:
­­
by
evidence.
Thank
you.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
19
MR.
GARCIA
(
in
Spanish:)
(
Insert
Spanish
20
portion
here:)
21
22
23
24
25
215
THE
REPORTER:
Hearing
Officer,
we
will
not
1
be
able
to
transcribe
that.
If
they
had
a
translator
2
then
we
could
do
it.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Right,
I
understand.
4
And
you
don't
have
a
translator
with
you.
Do
you
5
know,
Mr.
Newell,
if
a
translator
is
available?
6
MR.
NEWELL:
I
would
ask
you
that
question.
7
why
isn't
there
a
translator
here
available
for
8
translating
someone
who
doesn't
speak
English?
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
As
far
­­
10
MR.
HANNON:
We
have
recorded
it,
though.
11
MR.
NEWELL:
I
would
­­
I
would
suggest
12
that
you
hire
a
certified
translator
to
transcribe
13
those
portions
of
the
transcript
to
which
she's
14
testified.
15
(
Applause.)
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
could
have
17
provided
a
translator
had
we
known
in
advance.
We
18
weren't
aware
that
we
were
going
to
have
other
folks
19
coming,
so
­­
20
MR.
NEWELL:
I
read
­­
I
read
your
notice
21
that
you
published
in
the
Federal
Register
in
22
English.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Um­
hum.
24
MR.
NEWELL:
And
it
didn't
say
anything
25
216
about
notifying
you
about
needs
for
a
translator.
So
1
in
the
future
where
you're
going
to
be
concocting
2
policy
that's
going
to
affect
rural
Americans,
you
3
know,
rural
Californians
aren't
just
English
4
speakers.
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Well,
thank
6
you.
I'm
sorry
we
don't
have
a
translator
available.
7
Thank
you.
Okay.
Our
next
speaker
is
8
Esther
Martinez
and
Rolio
Martinez.
9
MS.
MARTINEZ
(
in
Spanish):
(
Insert
Spanish
10
portion
here:)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
217
MR.
MARTINEZ
(
in
Spanish):
(
Insert
Spanish
1
portion
here:)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
218
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Gracias.
1
Santos
Valenzuela
and
David
Pepper.
2
MR.
VALENZUELA
(
in
Spanish):
(
Insert
Spanish
3
portion
here:)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
219
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Gracias.
1
DR.
PEPPER:
I
can
translate
a
little.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
3
DR.
PEPPER:
Basically
the
last
three
of
4
them
said
that
they
live
in
the
Valley.
He
has
lived
5
there
eight
years.
Concerns
about
tractors,
concerns
6
about
cows,
concerns
about
dairy.
The
caca
de
vaca
7
is
the
"
shit
of
the
cow."
And
they're
just
very
8
concerned
and
hope
you
can
do
everything
you
can.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
We
will
10
also
make
an
effort
to
get
a
translation.
We
are
11
tape­
recording
this
and
we
will
make
an
effort
to
get
12
a
translation
so
that
we
have
that
for
the
record.
13
DR.
PEPPER:
Good
afternoon.
Thank
you
for
14
having
me.
My
name
is
David
Pepper.
I'm
a
15
physician.
I
practiced
for
15
years
in
Fresno
with
16
the
University
of
California
San
Francisco
and
with
17
U.
C.
Davis.
I
was
part
of
the
founding
group
for
18
MAHA,
Medical
Advocate
for
Healthy
Air,
who
basically
19
brought
a
number
of
the
suits
against
EPA
trying
to
20
help
you
guys
do
your
job.
21
I
have
a
number
of
pictures.
They're
all
22
on
a
laptop,
and
I'm
going
to
whiz
through.
23
Basically
three
issues:
People;
24
particulates;
and
then
something
nobody's
mentioned,
25
220
the
precautionary
principle,
which
is
the
idea
that
1
we
should
take
the
tightest.
And
basically
I
would
2
support
the
12­
and
25­
microgram
as
well
as
probably
3
25
or
30
on
the
particulates
­­
because
we
have
to
4
protect
health.
And
a
lot
of
the
stories,
if
you
5
look
at
tobacco,
if
you
look
at
chemicals
we
have
not
6
done
that.
And
we
end
up
paying
for
it
in
the
end,
7
and
I
think
we're
starting
to
see
that
change.
8
The
Fresno
Unified
School
District
over
the
9
last
15
years,
we
have
reported
this
data
to
the
CDC,
10
basically
a
pretty
meteoric
rise.
The
top
red
line
11
is
asthma.
The
one­
in­
six
number
for
children
has
12
been
thrown
out.
We're
actually
about
one
in
five.
13
This
is
asthma
in
elementary
school
14
children
throughout
California.
You'll
see
the
20
15
percent
there
on
the
right.
In
fact
it's
not
just
16
poor
children.
Fresno,
which
is
the
big
spike
in
the
17
center,
actually
has
rich
children
having
much
higher
18
levels
of
asthma,
as
high
as
35
percent.
This
is
19
some
of
the
work
in
some
of
the
areas,
so
we're
20
really
looking
at
sort
of
crisis
levels.
21
I
think
the
Fresno
area,
I
had
the
22
privilege
to
work
there,
still
connected,
is
the
23
canary
in
the
cage.
And
a
lot
of
what
you're
doing
24
is
you're
protecting
the
future
of
not
only
them
but
25
221
of
everybody
in
our
country.
1
This
is
work
out
of
community
hospitals.
2
We
analyzed,
this
is
four
years.
The
black
lines
3
represent
each
winter.
And
the
pink
lines
are
ozone.
4
And
I
think
we
now
know,
in
fact
the
red
line
is
5
visits
for
respiratory
diseases
and
the
blue
line
is
6
carbon
monoxide.
And
the
yellow
line
is
particulate
7
matter.
So
basically
what
you've
been
here,
a
lot
of
8
carbonaceous
particles
in
all
forms,
which
is
really
9
what
we're
dealing
with.
10
I
actually
have
my
own
theory.
I
think
11
carbon
dioxide
is
one
of
the
major
causes
of
asthma,
12
but
I
have
yet
to
prove
that.
13
This
is
PM2.5
average
concentrations
across
14
the
United
States.
This
is
EPA
data.
Mean
15
concentrations.
You
will
note
that
the
farmer
in
16
Texas
or
Nebraska
or
the
middle
of
the
country
has
17
little
to
be
concerned
about
compared
with
the
18
Central
Valley
and
the
rest
of
California.
East
19
Coast
obviously
has
some
issues,
too.
20
So
we
now
know
and
I
think
the
plethora
21
data
shows
that
particulates
are
of
major
concern.
22
This
is
work
from
Tom
Cahill
on
the
bottom,
23
a
particle
scientist
a
U.
C.
Davis,
and
myself,
for
24
Fresno­
area
emissions.
We
see
again
November,
25
222
December,
January:
Large
increases
for
asthmatic
1
visits,
coincident
to
the
particulate
spikes.
And
2
these
are
not
­­
this
is
the
EPA
24­
Hour
Standard,
3
you
will
note
on
the
bottom,
is
not
always
exceeded.
4
So
even
at
levels
below
the
65
we're
seeing
rises
in
5
asthma.
And
asthma
is
one
in
five
children
now
in
6
Fresno.
7
As
you
well
know
the
small
particles,
the
8
ultrafine
particles
which
Tom
has
really
focused
on,
9
not
only
get
into
the
lung,
get
into
the
blood,
go
to
10
the
heart,
cause
strokes,
cause
cancer.
11
Mrs.
Reeves
died
this
morning.
Christopher
12
Reeves'
wife.
She
was
44.
She
had
a
heart
attack.
13
She
never
smoked.
I'm
curious
what
air
she
breathed.
14
This
is
diesel
fine
particle
health
15
impacts.
Premature
deaths,
lung
cancer,
emergency
16
visits,
nonfatal
heart
attacks,
bronchitis,
work
17
days,
loss
and
restricted­
activity
days.
And
I
think
18
people
talk
about
the
cost,
and
you've
heard
a
couple
19
people
from
industry
inappropriately
bring
that
20
issue.
We
need
to
think
about
paying
for
this,
21
because
we're
going
to
pay
for
it
in
the
end
if
we
22
don't
pay
for
it
now.
23
You
are
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
24
consider
public
health
and
the
precautionary
25
223
principle,
and
I
urge
you
to
take
that.
1
It's
not
just
the
Central
Valley.
This
is
2
hospitalizations,
OSHPD
data
for
the
east
part
of
the
3
Bay.
And
people
think,
oh,
there's
a
big
asthma
4
problem
because
all
these
kids
get
hospitalized
in
5
the
north
end
of
the
Bay.
Oh,
they're
all
poor
and
6
black.
7
In
fact
if
you
look
at
ER
visits
it's
8
pretty
distributed
and
if
you
look
at
use
of
9
maintenance
medications,
in
fact
you
get
the
rest
of
10
the
story
which
is
that
children,
this
is
all
11
children,
basically
the
richer
kids
get
put
on
drugs.
12
And
we
say
they
don't
have
asthma
problems
because
13
we
control
it.
So
the
same
companies,
in
a
way,
that
14
pollute
then,
you
know
Exxon
owns
pharmaceutical
15
companies
or
own
shares,
either
way
people
are
not
16
being
considered
in
the
decisions
we're
making.
17
Somebody
mentioned
the
smoke
plumes
18
earlier.
These
are
the
smoke
plumes,
I
brought
this
19
slide
in,
during
the
L.
A.
fires.
And
I
think
we
look
20
at
things
in
a
crisis
setting.
We
say,
oh,
my
21
goodness,
there's
a
fire
going
on.
We
have
a
low­
22
grade,
smoldering
fire
in
this
country,
particularly
23
in
the
Central
Valley
and
in
Southern
California.
24
And
we
have
the
opportunity
both
here
in
California
25
224
and
through
the
auspices
of
the
EPA
to
stop
that
fire
1
now.
2
Why
clean
air?
I
have
in
addition
to
the
3
3500
patients,
children
I've
taken
care
of
over
the
4
years,
I
have
a
son
who's
an
asthmatic.
We
recently
5
moved.
I
relocated
back
here
to
San
Francisco
where
6
I'm
from.
My
son
is
at
U.
C.
Santa
Cruz.
He's
off
7
his
medications.
He's
like,
"
I'm
not
going
back,
8
dad."
And
that
is
a
harboring.
You
saw
data
that
9
it's
not
just
­­
you
know,
it's
the
eastern
side
of
10
San
Francisco.
It's
everywhere
we
live.
11
So
the
Central
Valley,
where
I
had
the
12
privilege
to
practice,
I
say
was
the
canary
in
the
13
cage,
but
I
think
you'll
see
that
the
work
you're
14
doing,
I
certainly
hope
that
the
work
you're
doing
15
and
the
challenges
you
face,
and
I
honor
those
16
because
I
know
the
political
pressures
and
the
tough
17
job
you
have,
but
I
hope
you
treat
it
seriously
and
18
do
everything
you
can
for
us.
Thank
you.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much,
20
Dr.
Pepper.
21
Go
ahead.
22
MR.
HANNON:
Well,
two
things.
I
notice
23
one
of
your
slides
had
a
reference
to
it.
Could
you
24
just
make
sure
that
as
it's
submitted
it'll
have
­­
25
225
it
had
a
number
7.
1
The
others
in
your
intro,
you
mentioned
the
2
idea
of
a
precautionary
principle.
3
DR.
PEPPER:
Yes.
4
MR.
HANNON:
Did
you
want
to
comment
5
specifically
on
that?
6
DR.
PEPPER:
A
precautionary
principle
is
7
out
of
public
health
data.
And
what
it
basically
8
says
­­
and
a
lot
of
it,
if
you
think
about
tobacco,
9
there
were
multiple
concerns
waived
when
we
looked
at
10
tobacco.
We're
smoking
something,
it's
going
to
our
11
lungs.
People
started
questioning
it.
And
industry
12
said
there's
no
science
and
waited
and
waited
and
13
waited
until
the
science
was
overwhelming.
14
When
I
got
involved
in
this
in
1997­
98
15
there
wasn't
much
science,
but
people
alluded
to
the
16
paper
yesterday,
there
have
been
a
thousand
papers
17
out
in
the
last
really
four
to
five
years.
The
18
precautionary
principle
would
say
that
we
have
to
19
understand
that
we're
probably
just
seeing
the
tip
of
20
the
iceberg.
21
And
rather
than
wait
till
the
boat
hits
the
22
iceberg,
we
have
to
do
something
before
that.
Slow
23
the
boat
down,
expose
the
iceberg,
send
people
out
24
ahead
of
us,
but
don't
send
our
children
and
don't
25
226
sacrifice
public
health
waiting
for
all
of
the
1
science
to
be
in.
2
Does
that
answer
the
question?
3
MR.
HANNON:
Yes.
4
DR.
PEPPER:
Thank
you.
5
MR.
HANLEY:
And
my
question
with
regard
to
6
the
carbon
monoxide
data,
you
pulled
this
data
down
7
or
was
this
from
Tom
Cahill's
or
the
­­
8
DR.
PEPPER:
The
PM
data,
this
is
actually
9
fine
PM
data,
this
is
Tom
Cahill's
data.
10
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay.
11
DR.
PEPPER:
The
carbon
monoxide
data
was
12
EPA
data.
13
MR.
HANLEY:
Was
EPA
data
from
­­
14
DR.
PEPPER:
Yeah,
that
was
EPA's
data.
So
15
what
we
merely
did
was
correlate
the
health
data
that
16
we
saw,
this
is
unpublished
data,
as
I
say
we're
17
working
on
it,
for
the
area
hospitals
in
Fresno,
in
18
and
around
in
the
community
hospital
systems,
and
19
correlated
the
overlap
between
the
rises
in
the
20
carbon
monoxide
and
the
carbonaceous
particles,
it
21
was
PM10
at
that
point,
and
hospital
visits.
22
MR.
HANLEY:
So
my
question
is
was
to
say
23
general
characterizations,
CL
monitor,
or
was
this
a
24
monitor
like
at
a
street
corner
we
might
say
­­
25
227
DR.
PEPPER:
EPA
Superfund
Site
First
1
Street
in
Fresno.
2
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay.
Okay,
so
it's
a
general
3
characterization.
4
DR.
PEPPER:
Yeah.
5
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
6
DR.
PEPPER:
You're
welcome.
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Will
you
be
able
to
8
submit
these
data
with
your
testimony?
9
DR.
PEPPER:
I'm
going
to
leave
them
on
the
10
laptop.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
12
DR.
PEPPER:
I'm
a
picture
person.
I'm
a
13
doctor,
you
know
an
M.
D.
We
don't
write,
we
just
14
scribble,
but
I
am
sure
­­
so
the
pictures
I
hope
15
will
tell
a
piece
of
the
story.
And
I
would
16
encourage
you
to
include
those
because
people
do
17
understand
pictures.
I'll
try
to
get
some
written
18
supplements
to
those.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah.
If
you
are
20
able
to
write
some
explanatory
material
or
have
21
someone
write
it
for
you,
­­
22
DR.
PEPPER:
Okay.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
that
would
be
very
24
helpful.
25
228
DR.
PEPPER:
Wonderful.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
2
DR.
PEPPER:
Thank
you.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Blakeman
Early
and
4
Paul
Cort
are
next.
5
MR.
EARLY:
I
have
copies.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Sure,
we'd
be
happy
7
to
take
them.
Do
you
have
extras?
Thank
you.
8
MR.
EARLY:
I'm
Blakeman
Early
on
behalf
of
9
the
American
Lung
Association.
And
I'm
happy
I'm
10
appearing
right
after
Dr.
Pepper
because
you're
11
hearing
a
lot
of
the
same
thing
over
and
over
again,
12
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
make
things
provide
a
little
13
new
information,
or
it
might
not
be
new
to
you,
14
particularly
but
it
certainly
is
new
in
terms
of
15
needing
additional
emphasis.
16
We
believe
that
the
Administrator's
17
fundamentally
failing
to
set
a
course
in
fine
18
particle
standards
in
a
way
that's
required
by
the
19
Clean
Air
Act,
and
the
heart
of
the
disagreement
is
20
quite
clearly
what
level
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
21
in
order
to
set
a
level
that's
requisite
to
protect
22
sensitive
groups
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.
23
The
Administrator
has
placed
great
emphasis
24
on
the
need
to
establish
a
standard
that
is
neither
25
229
too
stringent
nor
too
weak,
the
baloney
must
be
1
sliced
neither
too
thin
nor
too
thick.
We
believe
2
this
concern
has
led
the
Administrator
away
from
the
3
core
consideration
of
the
margin
of
safety.
4
They
didn't
call
it
a
precautionary
5
principle
in
1970
when
the
Clean
Air
Act
was
enacted,
6
but
the
Senate
Environment
and
Public
Works
Committee
7
Report
accompanying
the
original
Clean
Air
Act
in
8
1970
said,
quote:
9
Margins
of
safety
are
essential
to
any
10
health­
related
environmental
standards
if
a
11
reasonable
degree
of
protection
against
12
hazards
which
research
has
not
yet
13
identified,
unquote.
14
In
1970
Congress
knew
that
the
research
was
15
not
sufficient
to
identify
the
nature
and
the
level
16
of
hazards
posed
by
air
pollution.
The
large
body
of
17
research
which
has
been
conducted
since
1997,
when
18
the
Fine
Particle
Standard
was
first
established,
19
well
illustrates
the
soundness
of
this
principle.
20
The
Administrator
acknowledges
there
are
21
adverse
health
effects
that
have
been
identified
22
among
populations
exposed
to
levels
of
fine
particle
23
and
course
particle
pollution
below
the
standard.
24
That
these
public
health
impacts
are
very
large,
much
25
230
larger
than
was
understood
before,
that
groups
of
1
sensitive
populations,
new
groups
of
sensitive
2
populations
are
affected,
including
people
with
3
cardiovascular
disease
and
diabetes.
4
The
Administrator
uses
this
information
to
5
find
that
the
current
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
is
6
not
sufficient
to
protect
public
health,
but
it
7
doesn't
lead
him
to
select
a
new
standard
that
is
8
below
the
level
where
research
shows
an
association
9
with
adverse
health
effects.
10
Inherent
in
the
concept
of
a
margin
of
11
safety
is
to
set
the
Air
Quality
Standard
at
a
level
12
where
research
is
not
finding
adverse
effects.
The
13
Senate
Environment
and
Public
Works
Committee
14
understood
this,
and
in
their
report
they
have
15
provided
the
following
guidance.
Quote:
16
Ambient
air
quality
is
sufficient
to
17
protect
the
health
of
such
persons
whenever
18
there
is
an
absence
of
adverse
effects
on
19
the
health
of
a
statistically
related
20
sample
of
persons
in
sensitive
groups
from
21
exposure
to
the
ambient
air.
22
This
is
not
a
new
concept.
Dr.
Pepper
23
called
it
a
precautionary
principle,
but
they
24
understood
it
very
well.
The
Administrator
is
not
25
231
doing
that.
1
Right
now
the
Administrator
is
talking
2
about
setting
the
standard
at
an
area
where
shortterm
3
exposure
is
likely
to
cause
­­
or
unlikely
to
cause
4
serious
adverse
effects.
We
think
the
Clean
Air
Act
5
clearly
shows
that
he
must
set
a
standard
where
it
is
6
not
going
to
cause
adverse
effects,
not
unlikely
7
effects.
8
The
longterm
standard,
the
Administrator
9
talks
about
the
uncertainty
of
data
in
a
limited
10
number
of
studies
as
a
basis
for
setting
a
level
11
lower
than
the
current
standard.
But
the
12
administrator
essentially
asserts
that
the
effects
13
might
or
might
not
be
occurring
at
15
micrograms.
14
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
any
uncertainty
15
should
be
resolved
in
favor
of
setting
the
standard
16
lower
and
protecting
people.
17
The
Administrator
applies
the
risk
18
assessment
to
assess
the
adequacy
of
the
new
19
standards
­­
or
the
old
standards
and
finds
them
20
inadequate,
but
when
he
applies
the
risk
assessment
21
he
doesn't
look
at
applying
the
risk
assessment
to
22
the
new
standard.
Any
application
of
the
risk
23
assessment
that
was
done,
applying
it
to
the
Proposed
24
Standard
the
Administrator
has
chosen,
shows
that
25
232
there
may
be
perhaps
no
reduction
in
risk
on
the
1
standard
that
the
Administrator
has
chosen.
This
is
2
clearly
inconsistent
with
the
mandate
of
the
Clean
3
Air
Act,
with
the
guidance
that
was
provided
by
the
4
authors
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
5
We
urge
the
Administrator
to
set
a
standard
6
that
is
at
a
level
below
where
effects
are
shown.
7
That's
what
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires,
and
that
is
8
what
public
health
really
needs
and
what
the
American
9
public
demands.
Thank
you.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
11
Mr.
Cort.
12
MR.
CORT:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Paul
13
Cort.
I
am
a
Staff
Attorney
for
EarthJustice
in
the
14
Oakland
Regional
Office.
15
EarthJustice
has
been
working
for
many
16
years
with
the
Latino
Issues
Forum,
Medical
Advocates
17
for
Healthy
Air,
and
the
Sierra
Club
to
fight
the
18
deliberate
Agency
failures
to
address
the
terrible
19
air
quality
problems
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
20
Through
the
litigation
efforts
of
these
groups
we
21
have
been
successful
in
turning
the
tide
and
finally
22
forcing
EPA
and
the
Air
District
to
take
action
in
23
the
Valley.
24
EPA's
proposal
for
course
particulate
25
233
matter
threatens
to
undo
many
of
these
hard­
fought
1
gains
just
when
progress
appeared
to
be
underway.
2
You've
already
heard
today
complaints
about
3
the
illegality
of
EPA's
Proposed
PM10
Standards
and
4
about
EPA's
transparent
attempt
to
promote
political
5
science
over
sound
science.
I
would
like
to
spend
my
6
few
minutes
this
afternoon
to
reflect
on
how
far
EPA
7
has
fallen
in
its
mission
to
protect
public
health.
8
To
me
this
is
manifest
most
clearly
in
EPA's
response
9
to
scientific
uncertainty
and
the
Proposed
PM
Course
10
Standards.
11
Once
upon
a
time
EPA
took
a
precautionary
12
approach
to
protecting
public
health
in
the
face
of
13
uncertainty.
It
is
hard
to
believe
that
not
that
14
long
ago
there
was
debate
about
the
need
for
a
15
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
lead.
In
16
setting
the
Lead
Standard
EPA
noted
the
ongoing
17
disagreement
over
several
issues,
including
the
18
exposure
levels
at
which
harmful
impacts
occur.
19
Industry
argued
that
EPA
only
had
authority
20
to
set
standards
to
protect
health
against
effects
21
that
are
known
to
be
clearly
harmful.
EPA
argued,
22
and
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
agreed,
that
23
uncertainty
about
health
effects
is
inevitable
and
24
that
Congress,
quote:
25
234
Specifically
directed
the
Administrator
to
1
allow
an
adequate
margin
of
safety
to
2
protect
against
effects
which
have
not
yet
3
been
uncovered
by
research
and
effects
4
whose
medical
significance
is
a
matter
of
5
disagreement.
6
Noting
the
precautionary
and
preventive
7
nature
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
Court
added,
quote:
8
As
we
read
the
statutory
provisions
and
the
9
legislative
history,
Congress
directed
the
10
Administrator
to
err
on
the
side
of
caution
11
in
making
necessary
decisions.
12
Somewhere
along
the
way
EPA
lost
its
13
direction.
Little
by
little
EPA
began
to
abuse
the
14
early
court
decisions,
upholding
the
Agency's
15
discretion
to
make
difficult,
technical
decisions.
16
We
have
seen
EPA
frequently
try
to
hide
behind
17
uncertainty,
to
sidestep
politically­
difficult
18
issues.
19
The
common
strategy
to
avoid
moving
forward
20
was
to
refuse
to
put
effort
and
resources
in
to
21
collecting
information.
As
long
as
the
record
was
22
empty,
EPA
could
claim
things
were
too
uncertain
to
23
support
change.
24
EPA
counted
on
the
fact
that
resources
to
25
235
generate
this
information
reside
primarily
with
the
1
government
and
industry.
As
long
as
they
did
nothing
2
to
resolve
uncertainty,
the
status
quo
could
be
3
maintained.
4
As
disgraceful
as
this
was
it
did
not
stoop
5
to
the
new
lows
in
this
proposal.
The
new
strategy
6
is
to
invent
and
create
uncertainty
and
then
ensure
7
that
new
information
will
not
be
collected.
8
The
prior
strategy
of
doing
nothing
is
no
9
longer
sufficient:
1,
Because
EPA
is
faced
with
a
10
record
that
is
not
empty;
and,
2,
Because
EPA
and
11
industry
are
no
longer
satisfied
with
maintaining
the
12
status
quo.
13
Rollbacks
and
relaxations
are
the
new
14
order.
The
lengths
to
which
EPA
will
go
to
mangle
15
the
record,
to
generate
uncertainty
is
boldly
16
transport.
EPA
tries
to
argue
that
the
health
17
impacts
of
rural
dust
are
uncertain.
This
attempt
to
18
feign
ignorance
is
unsupported
by
the
record
or
by
19
common
sense.
20
We
know
that
epidemiologic
studies
in
21
Coachella
and
Phoenix
link
exposure
of
course
22
particulates
to
health
impacts.
EPA
admits
this
23
much.
We
also
know
that
these
studies
were
conducted
24
in
areas
with
emissions
dominated
by
rural
sources.
25
236
We
know
that
rural
dust
from
farms
and
1
mines
is
nothing
like
"
uncontaminated
volcanic
ash."
2
We
know
this
dust
contains
pesticide
residues,
toxic
3
metals,
radionucleids,
not
to
mention
biological
4
agents
that
everyone
knows
are
linked
to
diseases
5
like
Valley
Fever.
6
We
know
that
rural
areas
have
the
same
7
sources
that
are
found
in
urban
areas.
Likewise,
we
8
know
that
in
many
western
urban
areas
the
dust
being
9
disturbed
today
is
the
same
earth
that
was
only
10
recently
being
farmed
or
mined
in
rural
areas.
11
We
know
that
CASAC
never
recommended
12
exempted
agricultural
and
mining
sources
or
leaving
13
rural
areas
unprotected
and
unmonitored.
EPA
knows
14
all
of
this,
too.
Yet
EPA
says
there
is
an
15
insufficient
basis
for
setting
a
standard
that
covers
16
rural
sources
of
dust
and
directs
states
to
remove
17
the
monitors
from
rural
areas.
The
two
conclusions
18
do
not
make
any
sense
together.
19
If
there
is
uncertainty
why
would
anyone
20
think
it
is
rational
to
stop
collecting
ambient
air
21
quality
data?
But
we
all
know
that
this
is
not
22
really
about
uncertainty.
23
Given
the
record
and
the
precautionary
24
directive
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
there
is
more
than
25
237
enough
content
to
set
a
course
PM
standard
that
1
applies
to
all
sources
in
all
areas
the
same
way
that
2
all
NAAQS
have
done
in
the
past.
Today's
proposal
is
3
unlawful,
a
clear
abuse
of
discretion,
and
arbitrary
4
and
capricious
in
the
extreme.
And
we
all
know
this.
5
Thank
you.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Any
questions?
7
Thank
you
both
very
much.
8
Judy
Levin
and
Elmer
Grossman.
9
MS.
LEVIN:
Hi.
My
name
is
Judy
Levin
and
10
I'm
not
part
of
any
organization.
I'm
just
here
as
a
11
concerned
human
being.
I'm
the
mother
of
two
and
I
12
took
time
out
of
my
schedule
today
to
let
you
know
13
how
concerned
I
am
about
the
quality
of
air
and
the
14
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Pollution.
15
As
we
know,
air
is
the
basis
of
life.
And
16
yet
the
quality
of
the
air
that
we
breathe
cannot
be
17
controlled
by
myself,
by
any
individual,
or
even
by
18
our
community.
So
we
rely
upon
our
government
to
19
protect
our
air
so
that
we
can
breathe
healthfully.
20
And
yet
the
Air
Quality
Standards
that
are
being
21
proposed
by
the
Bush
Administration
are
not
22
sufficient
to
protect
the
public
health.
23
Over
the
last
several
years
study
after
24
study
has
confirmed
the
damaging
health
effects
of
25
238
particle
pollution,
even
at
levels
well
below
the
1
Current
Annual
and
24­
Hour
Standards.
2
In
2005
both
the
Administration's
3
Independent
Science
Advisors
on
Clean
Air
issues
and
4
the
EPA
Staff
Scientists
concluded
that
adverse
5
health
effects
occur
at
levels
well
below
the
Current
6
Fine
Particle
Standards.
They
recommended
that
the
7
Administration
strengthen
the
standards
to
protect
8
public
health.
And
yet
in
December
the
Bush
9
Administration
rejected
these
recommendations
and
10
proposed
standards
that
would
have
little
positive
11
effect
on
public
health.
12
It
is
unprecedented
for
an
administration
13
to
disregard
the
recommendations
of
its
Independent
14
Clean
Air
Science
Advisors.
15
Particle
pollution
places
our
most
16
vulnerable
population,
such
as
children
with
asthma,
17
elderly,
and
people
with
heart
and
lung
disease
at
18
great
risk.
The
health
costs
and
the
social
costs
19
are
great
as
particle
pollution
cuts
short
the
lives
20
of
thousands,
tens
of
thousands
of
Americans
each
21
year
and
results
in
increased
hospitalizations.
22
Air
Quality
Standards
are
the
foundations
23
for
reducing
air
pollution
nationwide.
So
the
24
decision
that
you
make
on
Fine
Particle
Pollution
25
239
Standards
is
one
of
the
most
important
decisions
this
1
Administration
will
make
on
air
pollution.
The
Bush
2
Administration
must
strengthen
the
standards
to
3
protect
its
citizens.
An
Annual
Standard
no
higher
4
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
Daily
5
Standard
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
6
are
a
necessity.
7
Let's
make
it
so
that
when
we
say,
"
I'm
8
going
out
to
get
a
breath
of
air,"
that's
actually
a
9
good
thing.
10
Thank
you.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
12
Mr.
Grossman.
13
DR.
GROSSMAN:
Good
afternoon.
My
name's
14
Elmer
Grossman.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
afternoon.
16
DR.
GROSSMAN:
I'm
a
pediatrician
who
had
17
33
years
of
practicing
in
Berkeley
and
teaching
part
18
time
at
the
School
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of
19
California
in
San
Francisco,
where
I'm
Clinical
20
Professor
of
Pediatrics
Emeritus.
21
A
few
years
ago
I
was
asked
to
serve
on
the
22
City
of
Berkeley's
Environmental
Protection
23
Commission.
At
that
time
the
Commission
had
become
24
interested
in
the
question
of
wood
smoke
pollution
25
240
and
its
effect
on
our
air
quality
and
our
health.
1
And
as
a
physician
I
was
asked
to
look
at
this
and
2
report
back
to
the
Commission.
3
I
had
a
general
familiarity
with
the
4
problems
of
air
pollution
and
its
effect
on
health,
5
but
I
must
say
that
I
was
skeptical
that
anything
as
6
benign
seeming
as
a
fireplace
wood
smoke
would
have
7
any
major
impact
on
health.
But
I
began
to
look
at
8
the
data
which
even
then
in
the
year
2000
was
very
9
considerable.
And
it
soon
became
apparent,
as
you
10
all
know
and
as
the
EPA
attests,
that
air
pollution
11
is
a
very
major
factor
impacting
our
health
acutely.
12
And
I
was
amazed
at
how
much
data
there
was
and
how
13
consistent
it
was
and
how
important
it
was.
14
It's
clear
that
fine
particle
air
pollution
15
increases
our
risk
of
acute
respiratory
disease.
16
That
was
nothing
new
and
that
was
expected.
What
was
17
unclear
to
me
before
was
that
even
very
small
18
increases,
well
within
the
limits
previously
set
by
19
the
EPA
as
likely
to
be
safe,
were
followed
by
20
dramatic
increases
in
emergency
room
visits
and
21
hospital
visits
and
doctor
office
visits
and
for
22
pneumonia,
for
asthma
and
for
other
diseases.
23
And
even
more
surprising
to
me
was
the
fact
24
that
it
soon
became
apparent
the
death
rates
25
241
increased
when
there
was
even
as
little
as
a
10­
1
microgram­
per­
cubic­
meter
increase
in
fine
particle
2
pollution.
The
20
City
Study,
which
is
a
beautiful
3
study,
including
Oakland
across
the
Bay,
showed
that
4
there
was
over
a
half
percent
increase
in
mortality
5
with
every
10­
microgram
increase
per
cubic
meter
of
6
pollution.
This
was
mostly
due
to
unexpected
cardiac
7
death.
8
In
Oakland,
by
the
way,
there
was
a
two­
9
percent
increase
in
mortality
with
this
quite
small
10
increase
in
pollution.
11
The
next
thing
that
was
surprising
to
me
12
was
that
there
were
chronic
effects
on
developing
13
lungs
in
children
and
adolescents.
Studies
done
in
14
Los
Angeles
have
shown
the
longterm
effects
are
quite
15
predictably
linear:
The
dirtier
the
air
breathed
by
16
children
and
teenagers
during
their
growing­
up
period
17
the
worse
their
lung
function
is
when
they
become
18
adults.
19
Returning
to
the
work
that
our
little
20
Commission
did,
it
was
clear
that
there
wasn't
much
21
we
could
do
in
the
City
of
Berkeley
to
protect
our
22
public
health
from
polluted
air.
We
asked
the
City
23
Council
to
pass
rules
to
decrease
the
wood
smoke
24
pollution
that
we
looked
at
initially,
and
they
did
25
242
so.
But
this
is
an
overarching
problem
and
only
the
1
EPA,
the
steward
of
our
air,
can
do
anything
2
significant
to
help
our
public
health
and
protect
us
3
both
from
the
acute
and
the
chronic
effects
of
air
4
pollution.
5
The
Expert
Committee
gave
you
modest
but
6
very
good
advice,
suggesting
that
there
be
changes
in
7
allowable
levels
both
annually
and
24­
hour
levels
of
8
pollutants.
It's
terribly
important
that
this
be
9
followed,
that
you
do
not
follow
the
advice
of
10
stopping
the
monitoring
in
the
sparsely­
populated
11
areas,
and
that
you
continue
to
have
mining
and
12
agricultural
air
pollution
monitored.
13
In
California
where
the
Central
Valley
is
a
14
major
source
both
of
pollution
and
a
major
source
of
15
disease
these
days
because
of
it,
it's
particularly
16
important
as
you've
already
heard
today
from
several
17
people
that
we
continue
to
have
agriculture
and
18
mining
pollutants
included
in
the
pollutants
that
the
19
EPA
covers.
20
Thank
you
very
much.
You
have
the
21
opportunity
to
make
a
major
contribution
to
the
22
health
of
our
children
and
of
our
observes.
And
I
do
23
hope
that
you
will
follow
up
and
do
so.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
25
243
Grossman.
Just
one
question.
1
DR.
GROSSMAN:
Yes.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
mentioned
the
3
death
rate
increases.
Were
those
from
studies
that
4
are
already
in
our
record,
the
information
­­
5
DR.
GROSSMAN:
Oh,
my,
yes.
The
20
Cities
6
Study
was
published
in
the
year
2000.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah,
okay.
I
just
8
wanted
to
make
sure
we
­­
9
DR.
GROSSMAN:
You've
got
it.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
11
Wafaa
Aborashed.
Not
here,
okay.
12
Is
Gabrielle
Weeks
here?
Andrew
Browne?
13
Let
me
just
check
where
we
are.
14
Is
Andrew
Browne
­­
15
MR.
BROWNE:
Well,
I
am,
but
I
have
decided
16
that
what
I
was
going
to
say
has
already
been
said
17
very
well
and
in
fact
better
than
I
can
say
it.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
All
right.
19
Thank
you.
20
Is
Matthew
Hodges
here?
21
MR.
HODGES:
Good
afternoon.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
afternoon.
23
MR.
HODGES:
My
name
is
Matthew
Hodges
and
24
I
am
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
NPRA,
the
National
25
244
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association.
NPRA
is
a
1
national
trade
association
representing
more
than
450
2
companies,
including
virtually
all
U.
S.
refiners
and
3
petrochemical
manufacturers.
4
Our
members
supply
consumers
with
a
wide
5
variety
of
products
and
services
that
are
used
daily
6
in
homes
and
businesses.
These
products
include:
7
Gasoline;
home
heating
oil;
jet
fuel;
asphalt
8
products;
and
chemicals
that
serve
as
building
blocks
9
in
making
clothing,
medicine,
computers,
and
10
countless
other
products.
11
Because
our
member
companies
own
and
12
operate
facilities
which
would
be
subject
to
the
13
Proposed
PM
Standard,
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
14
the
EPA
has
provided
today
to
offer
comments
on
this
15
important
issue.
16
On
January
17th,
2006
the
U.
S.
EPA
proposed
17
revisions
to
the
existing
National
Ambient
Air
18
Quality
Standard
for
Fine
Particulate
Matter.
This
19
provision
would
greatly
increase
the
stringency
of
20
the
Fine
Particulate
NAAQS
at
a
time
when
21
implementation
of
the
current
Standard
is
just
22
beginning
and
despite
the
fact
that
key
uncertainties
23
remain
regarding
the
underlying
science.
24
By
way
of
background,
air
quality
is
good
25
245
and
getting
significantly
better
even
as
our
economy
1
grows.
Moreover,
EPA
rules
currently
in
place
2
combined
with
future
EPA
actions
will
continue
to
3
achieve
improvements.
4
Between
1970
and
2004
U.
S.
gross
domestic
5
product
increased
187
percent.
Vehicle
miles
6
traveled
increased
171
percent.
Energy
consumption
7
increased
47
percent.
And
U.
S.
population
grew
by
40
8
percent.
9
During
this
same
time
period
total
10
emissions
of
the
six
principal
air
pollutants
dropped
11
by
54
percent.
All
new
cars
and
light
trucks
now
12
comply
with
the
Tier
II
Program
which
establishes
13
tighter
tailpipe
standards
and
limits
the
amount
of
14
sulfur
in
gasoline.
These
new
standards
require
15
passenger
vehicles
to
be
77
to
95
percent
cleaner
16
than
those
produced
before
2004.
17
The
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
addresses
18
power
plant
emissions
in
29
eastern
states
plus
the
19
District
of
Columbia.
CARE
would
cut
SO2
by
70
20
percent
and
NOx
emissions
by
60
percent
from
today's
21
levels
when
fully
implemented.
22
In
light
of
this
progress
it
is
23
unreasonable
to
consider
to
moving
the
goal
posts
24
with
a
newly­
revised
standard
before
the
states
even
25
246
begin
to
comply
with
the
existing
Fine
Particulate
1
Standard.
2
States
are
just
beginning
to
design
3
emission­
reduction
tools
to
reach
the
existing
Fine
4
Particulate
Standard
which
they
must
meet
by
2010.
5
EPA
has
not
yet
finalized
any
rules
or
guidance
to
6
instruct
states
as
to
exactly
how
to
meet
the
current
7
Fine
Particulate
NAAQS.
After
those
rules
are
issued
8
states
must
submit
attainment
plans
for
the
current
9
Fine
Particulate
Standard
by
April
2008.
10
If
EPA
finalizes
its
proposed
revisions
to
11
the
existing
Fine
Particulate
Standard
it
would
12
unfairly
burden
states
with
a
new
and
more
difficult
13
target
even
before
states
submit
attainment
plans
for
14
the
current
standard.
15
Additionally,
the
science
developed
behind
16
the
first
Fine
Particulate
Standard
does
not
17
sufficiently
support
revising
the
standard.
EPA
is
18
required
to
set
NAAQS
at
a
level
that
is
requisite
to
19
protect
the
public
health.
But
in
reality
EPA's
20
analysis
shows
that
the
'
97
Fine
Particulate
Standard
21
to
be
more
protective
than
EPA
had
assumed
when
it
22
first
issued
that
standard
in
1997.
23
EPA's
2006
Risk
Assessment
Estimates
24
generally
lower
risk
upon
attainment
of
the
'
97
Fine
25
247
Particulate
NAAQS
than
EPA
estimated
and
when
it
sets
1
those
Standards
in
'
97.
2
The
key
studies
relied
upon
by
EPA
still
do
3
not
adequately
explain
the
cause
and
effect
between
4
fine
particulate
and
health
effects.
EPA
has
5
cherrypicked
certain
epidemiologic
studies
that
claim
6
an
association
between
fine
particulate
and
health
7
effects.
Other
studies
do
not
support
this
claim
and
8
in
fact
show
no
relationship
between
fine
particulate
9
and
health
effects.
10
The
Fine
Particulate
Standard
is
not
11
chemical
specific,
like
other
NAAQS.
It
includes
12
everything
from
dust
to
sea
salt.
We
still
do
not
13
adequately
understand
how
fine
particulate
might
14
cause
health
effects
or
even
what
portion
of
the
15
total
fine
particulate
mix
might
be
the
problematic
16
driver.
In
the
face
of
this
uncertainty
it
would
be
17
premature
to
change
the
standard.
18
Finally,
new
nonattainment
areas
will
hurt
19
both
large
and
small
businesses
and
prevent
expansion
20
and
growth
in
many
urban
and
suburban
counties.
21
Under
one
estimate
the
proposed
new
Fine
Particulate
22
Standard
would
result
in
75
new
nonattainment
areas.
23
Being
designated
a
nonattainment
area
makes
24
it
significantly
more
difficult
for
a
community
to
25
248
attack
new
businesses
or
expand
existing
plants.
New
1
or
expanded
plants
must
obtain
emission
offsets
from
2
their
new
activities
by
reducing
emissions
at
3
existing
facilities
by
an
even
greater
amount.
This
4
requirement
pushes
development
away
from
urban
and
5
suburban
areas
into
green
fields.
6
Air
permits
in
nonattainment
areas
contain
7
more
complicated
and
costly
measures,
again
driving
8
development
away
from
urban
and
suburban
areas.
9
In
closing,
NPRA
has
serious
concerns
about
10
how
state
agencies
and
affected
industries
can
11
implement
control
strategies
when
those
standards
12
could
change
on
the
rapid
time
line
currently
13
envisioned.
Further
review
of
the
scientific
basis
14
for
these
standards
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
15
risks
and
health
effects
have
been
adequately
16
characterized.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Your
time
is
up,
so
18
if
you
can
wrap
up,
please.
19
MR.
HODGES:
As
always,
NRPA
and
its
20
members
are
prepared
to
work
with
the
Agency
to
21
further
the
common
goals
of
reducing
pollution
and
22
protecting
the
environment
while
promoting
economic
23
growth.
24
Thank
you.
25
249
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Just
one
1
question.
When
you
said
that
the
'
97
Standard
is
2
more
protective
than
it
was
expected
to
be,
do
you
3
have
materials
that
support
that?
4
MR.
HODGES:
We
will
providing
that
with
5
the
written
comments
to
the
record,
yes.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
7
MR.
HODGES:
Thank
you.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
9
Is
Eric
Meyer
here?
10
MR.
MEYER:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
11
Eric
Meyer.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
afternoon.
13
MR.
MEYER:
And
I
am
reading
a
statement
14
from
Assemblywoman
Loni
Hancock,
who
is
Chair
of
the
15
Assembly
Natural
Resources
Committee.
16
"
Dear
Committee
Members,
17
"
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
address
18
you
today
on
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
19
Proposal
to
revise
Quality
Standards
for
Fine
and
20
Course
particulates.
It
is
particularly
important
21
that
this
hearing
is
being
held
in
San
Francisco,
22
since
California
suffers
from
some
of
the
worst
23
particle
pollution
in
the
nation.
24
"
Particle
pollution
is
both
dangerous
and
25
250
pervasive,
posing
serious
and
costly
public
health
1
problems.
It
causes
asthma
attacks,
heart
attacks,
2
strokes,
and
lung
cancer,
and
cuts
short
the
lives
of
3
tens
of
thousands
of
Americans.
4
"
Strong
national
particle
standards
are
5
crucial
to
fighting
this
proven
killer
and
to
6
fulfilling
our
responsibility
to
reduce
air
pollution
7
and
protect
our
citizens.
8
"
The
National
Air
Quality
Standards
set
by
9
EPA
drive
all
of
the
work
we
do
to
reduce
air
10
pollution.
Weak
standards
handicap
our
ability
to
11
fulfill
our
responsibility
to
reduce
air
pollution.
12
Since
particle
pollution
can
travel
long
distances
13
from
its
source,
states
cannot
solve
this
problem
on
14
their
own.
Strong
national
standards
are
required.
15
"
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
Air
16
Quality
Standards
be
based
solely
on
the
health
17
effects
of
air
pollutants.
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
18
Air
Quality
Standards
must
be
set
at
levels
that
19
protect
public
health,
including
the
health
of
20
sensitive
populations:
The
elderly,
young
children,
21
and
people
with
lung
and
heart
disease
and
diabetes
22
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.
23
"
The
Administration
Proposal,
which
largely
24
maintains
the
status
quo
for
fine
particle
pollution,
25
251
is
inadequate
to
protect
possible
health.
EPA's
own
1
analysis
shows
that
the
Proposed
Fine
Particle
2
Standards
will
leave
millions
of
Americans
3
unprotected.
The
Administration's
decision
to
reject
4
the
recommendations
of
its
own
Independent
Science
5
Advisors
to
strengthen
both
the
Annual
and
Daily
6
Standards
is
very
troubling.
It
is
unprecedented
for
7
an
Administration
to
disregard
the
recommendations
of
8
the
Independent
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
9
Committee.
10
"
As
the
Committee
concluded,
both
the
11
Annual
and
Daily
Standards
need
to
be
substantially
12
threatened
to
protect
public
health.
13
"
I
am
asking
the
Administration
to
issue
14
strong
final
standards
for
fine
particle
pollution
15
that
protect
public
health
and
comply
with
the
law.
16
In
addition,
the
Administration
should
issue
17
standards
and
monitoring
requirements
for
course
18
particle
pollution
that
protect
all
Americans.
19
"
Thank
you
for
conducting
these
public
20
hearings
on
such
an
important
public
issue.
21
"
Respectfully,
Loni
Hancock,
Assemblywoman,
22
14th
Assembly
District."
23
Thank
you.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Mr.
25
252
Meyer,
one
question.
Does
Assemblywoman
Hancock
have
1
any
specific
recommendations?
Is
she
endorsing
those
2
of
the
American
Lung
Association?
Do
you...
3
MR.
MEYER:
I
do
not
know.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
5
MR.
MEYER:
I'm
sure
at
this
point
she's
6
keeping
her
options
open.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
8
MR.
MEYER:
Thank
you.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
10
David
Chatfield
and
Dennis
Bolt.
11
MR.
CHATFIELD:
Hi.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And,
let's
say,
is
13
this
Dennis
Bolt?
14
MR.
CHATFIELD:
David
Chatfield.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
And
we're
16
doing
these
two
at
a
time.
If
Dennis
Bolt
here
I
17
would
like
to
just
get
him
seated
as
well.
18
MR.
CHATFIELD:
Shall
I
go
first?
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
please.
20
MR.
CHATFIELD:
My
name
is
David
Chatfield.
21
I
am
the
Executive
Director
of
Californians
for
22
Pesticide
Reform.
CPR
is
a
coalition
of
180
23
organizations
that
works
on
pesticides.
24
I'm
not
coming
to
you
today
with
technical
25
253
commentary.
I'm
here
for
one
of
my
colleagues
from
1
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
But
I
will
say
that
2
pesticides
and
air
quality
are
directly
linked.
3
They're
a
major
component
of
the
volatile
chemicals
4
that
cause
smog,
particularly
in
the
Valley,
and
they
5
are
part
of
the
­­
they're
kind
of
an
exotic
spice
6
that
attaches
itself
to
the
dust
stew
in
the
Valley
7
and
gives
people
double
jeopardy
in
terms
of
their
8
health.
9
Pesticides
are
a
big
draft
problem
and
10
they're
part
of
the
­­
become
part
of
the
dust
11
problem
when
they're
picked
up
and
moved
from
where
12
they're
supposed
to
be
to
where
they
end
up.
13
I
grew
up
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
myself
14
around
Bakersfield.
That
was
some
time
ago,
and
I
15
remember
there
was
a
lot
of
dust,
but
it
was
16
considerably
less
laced
with
these
modern
17
contaminants
from
diesel
and
pesticide
sources
18
compared
to
what
is
there
now.
19
I
think
that
rural
residents
have
been
20
denied
equal
protection
from
environmental
problems
21
in
too
many
situations.
And
to
relax
clean
air
22
protection
in
the
face
of
an
asthma
epidemic
in
the
23
Valley
now
is
simply
wrong.
I'm
sure
you've
heard
a
24
great
deal
about
that
from
former
people
who
have
25
254
been
here,
but
I
think
relaxing
standards
will
1
exacerbate
the
problem,
are
going
to
create
2
significant
costs
downstream
to
our
society.
3
Mainly
I'm
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
4
Teresa
DeAnda,
who
is
Californians
for
Pesticide
5
Reform's
San
Joaquin
Valley
Representative.
She's
6
worked
with
us
for
three
years.
She
has
been
the
7
victim
of
pesticide
drift.
She
lives
right
in
the
8
middle
of
the
most
contaminated
of
the
San
Joaquin
9
Valley.
She
is
the
mother
of
six
children
and
the
10
grandmother
of
three.
And
she
couldn't
be
here
11
because
of
illness
in
the
family,
and
I
promised
her
12
I
would
come
and
say
what
she
had
to
say
and
so
these
13
are
her
words:
14
"
When
I
grew
up
and
began
learning
of
air
15
pollution
I
learned
dirt
and
dust
had
another
matter,
16
which
is
particulate
matter.
Who
would
have
known
17
the
dirt
I
played
in
as
a
child
could
actually
be
18
harmful
to
our
lungs.
19
"
As
a
Valley
resident
who
lives
in
an
rural
20
community
named
Earlimart,
70
miles
south
of
Fresno
21
in
the
Central
Valley,
that
is
surrounded
by
dirt,
I
22
am
very
dismayed
that
the
particulate
matter
from
23
rural
areas
will
be"
­­
in
her
word
"
overlooked.
The
24
numbers
should
be
measured
even
more
carefully,
not
25
255
taken
off
the
slate.
1
"
Our
cars
are
covered
in
dust
every
2
morning.
Our
swamp
coolers
are
laden
with
dirt.
Our
3
children
suffer
from
asthma.
There
are
very
many
4
young
people
dying
from
heart
attacks.
The
dust
5
comes
into
our
homes
ever
so
more
prevalently
than
in
6
city
homes.
The
carburetor
filters
on
our
cars
are
7
more
frequently
full
of
dust
and
need
to
be
changed
8
all
the
time.
9
"
When
it's
summer
the
inflatable
pool
in
my
10
backyard
has
a
film
of
dust
over
it.
And
it
has
one
11
more
added
ingredient
mixed
into
the
dust:
The
12
pesticides
that
are
applied
onto
the
surrounding
13
agricultural
fields
in
this
area.
We
know
this
from
14
the
pungent
smell.
15
"
Our
roads
are
full
of
potholes
because
the
16
pavement
is
missing.
And
at
dusk
coming
down
17
southward
on
Freeway
99,
you
pass
Fresno,
you
near
18
Tulare,
and
you
begin
to
see
the
haze
thicken
from
19
the
fields
and
dairies.
20
"
When
you
pass
Pixley
and
get
into
21
Earlimart,
which
is
cut
in
half
by
Freeway
99,
you
22
see
a
cloud
of
foggy
like
haze
which
is
the
dust
23
which
has
risen
from
cars
driving
on
the
pavement­
24
missing
streets
and
from
the
surrounding
agriculture.
25
256
"
I
think
about
what
this
haze
is
doing
to
1
our
children
and
I
cry.
My
son
has
asthma.
He
2
misses
school,
as
so
many
children
here
do.
They
get
3
farther
behind
in
school.
They
get
a
worse
4
education.
Then
they're
not
prepared
for
society,
5
and
that
costs
us
all.
6
"
Do
not
remove
rural
standards
for
7
particulate
matter.
We
desperately
need
more
8
protection,
not
less."
9
Thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
this
and
10
what
Teresa
had
to
say
as
well.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
And
12
please
thank
her
for
us,
for
­­
13
MR.
CHATFIELD:
I
will.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We're
sorry
she
15
couldn't
be
here,
but
thank
you
for
­­
16
MR.
CHATFIELD:
I
am,
too.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
being
here
in
her
18
stead.
19
Mr.
Bolt.
20
MR.
BOLT:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Dennis
Bolt
21
with
the
Western
States
Petroleum
Association.
Thank
22
you
for
holding
the
forum
this
afternoon
and
hearing
23
this
broad
range
of
comments.
24
The
Western
States
Petroleum
Association
25
257
represents
more
than
30
companies
in
the
six
western
1
states,
including
California,
that
explore
for,
2
produce,
transport,
refine,
and
market
petroleum
and
3
petroleum­
related
products.
4
The
WSPA,
as
we're
known,
understand
the
5
importance
of
improving
and
protecting
­­
improving
6
Air
Quality
Standards
and
protecting
public
health.
7
For
over
30
years
we
have
partnered
with
state,
8
local,
and
regional
government
as
well
as
your
own
9
Agency
to
reduce
emissions
across
the
board.
10
Just
taking
the
Bay
Area
for
an
example,
11
we're
breathing
the
cleanest
air
that
we've
breathed
12
in
over
50
years.
Every
air
quality
measurement
has
13
been
reduced.
And
the
leader
for
those
reasons,
14
although
we've
reduced
stationary
sources
50
to
75
15
percent
across
the
state,
it's
cleaner­
burning
16
gasoline.
The
world's
cleanest­
burning
gasoline.
17
And
we're
coming
out
this
year,
the
ultra
low­
sulfur
18
diesel
is
coming
onto
the
market.
That
will
bring
19
dramatic
impacts.
20
Because
all
of
this,
this
proposal
is
21
midstream
to
some
dramatic
efforts,
we
question
22
whether
or
not
government
should
be
turned
on
a
dime
23
and
a
whole
new
planning
process
started,
like
we
are
24
with
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
Standard,
when
everything
that
25
258
is
being
done
to
reduce
PM
is
being
done
and
progress
1
is
being
made.
2
Despite
the
fact
that
these
disease
stats
3
have
been
represented
today
is
increasing,
emissions
4
are
going
down.
And
they
will
go
down
even
more
5
dramatically
in
the
future.
6
We
agreed
with
NPRA
that
your
own
studies
7
indicate
that
the
current
standard
is
more
protective
8
of
public
health
than
why
originally
thought.
And
we
9
think
calling
for
pause,
re­
evaluating
those
studies
10
and
the
benefits
already
being
delivered
to
society
11
and
delaying
the
implementation
of
the
standard
until
12
the
last
standard
is
implemented
is
the
right
public­
13
policy
approach,
and
here's
why.
14
Implementing
this
standard
is
going
to
be
15
disruptive
to
the
regulatory
processes
in
California.
16
I'll
give
an
example
of
that.
Last
year
the
Air
17
Resources
Board
implemented
a
toxics
rule
on
certain
18
sources.
And
then
this
year
the
Bay
Area
District
19
said
they
were
going
to
implement
a
PM
control
on
the
20
same
sources.
We're
going
to
have
to
refit
those
21
sources
twice
or
do
some
kind
of
forward
planning
in
22
capital
waste
so
that
just
adopting
a
new
standard,
23
there's
a
lot
of
overlapping
and
redundant
government
24
involved
in
that.
Plus
it
requires,
as
I
said,
a
25
259
whole
new
planning
process.
Rather
than
implementing
1
the
last
plan
we'll
be
doing
the
next
plan.
2
The
permitting
process
in
California
­­
the
3
California
Energy
Commission
has
already
said
that
4
permitting
time
lines
in
California
are
a
barrier
to
5
having
energy
to
meet
the
demands
of
the
future
in
6
the
state.
So
another
NSR
permitting
barrier
to
new
7
sources
will
be
disruptive
to
California
businesses,
8
either
expanding
or
siting
here.
We
don't
have
the
9
offsets
to
support
this
standard
in
the
future,
or
10
we're
concerned
that
they
cannot
be
obtained.
And
11
that
issue
really,
really
needs
to
be
addressed
lest
12
it
be
disrupted.
13
The
Fine
Particle
Standard
comes
at
a
time
14
when
the
PM
standards
both
here
in
California
and
in
15
states
across
the
country,
as
I
mentioned,
have
not
16
been
fully
implemented.
And
so
we
request
for
you
to
17
take
a
step
back,
evaluate
your
current
studies,
but
18
also
evaluate
what
is
on
the
table
and
the
benefits
19
that
will
come
from
that
and
let
us
go
through
this
20
job.
And
then
let's
get
some
new
sound
science
on
21
the
table
and
make
the
next
right
public­
policy
22
decision.
23
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
today.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Bolt.
25
260
I'm
sorry.
Yeah.
1
MR.
HANNON:
Just
one
question.
You
have
2
identified
several
policy
concerns
with
going
forward
3
at
this
time.
Do
you
have
any
comments
on
the
legal
4
authority
of
the
Agency
to
not
conduct
this
review?
5
MR.
BOLT:
We
will
be
addressing
any
of
6
those
issues
in
our
written
comments,
Mr.
Hannon.
7
Thank
you.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
9
Matt
Mengarelli
and
Frances
Spivy­
Weber.
10
MR.
MENGARELLI:
Hi.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Hello.
12
MR.
MENGARELLI:
Right
here?
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
Either
spot.
14
We
do
these
two
at
a
time
usually
if
two
people
are
15
here.
And
we
do
have
a
second
person.
16
THE
REPORTER:
Could
I
get
a
spelling
on
17
these
names?
I
don't
seem
to
have
them.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Would
you
mind
19
spelling
your
name
for
the
court
reporter?
20
Who's
going
to
go
first?
Okay.
21
MS.
SPIVY­
WEBER:
Frances
Spivy­
Weber,
F­
r­
22
a­
n­
c­
e­
s
S­
p­
i­
v­
y
hyphen
Weber,
with
one
b.
23
MR.
MENGARELLI:
Hi.
Matt,
M­
a­
t­
t.
24
Mengarelli
is
M­
e­
n­
g­
a­
r­
e­
l­
l­
i.
25
261
THE
REPORTER:
Thank
you.
1
MS.
SPIVY­
WEBER:
I
am
the
Executive
2
Director
for
Policy
at
the
Mono
Lake
Committee
and
3
I'm
here
to
speak
specifically
to
the
PM10
element
of
4
the
proposed
change.
5
I
think
you
know
already
and
probably
have
6
heard
today,
if
you
haven't
you
certainly
will
be
7
hearing
later
today,
that
the
two
most
­­
the
two
8
dirtiest
places
in
terms
of
PM10
are
in
the
Owens
9
Valley
area
and
at
Mono
Lake.
10
We
have
of
the
100
highest
dusty
days
that
11
occurred
in
the
entire
United
States
during
the
five­
12
year
period
from
2000
through
to
2004,
99
of
those
13
100
days
occurred
at
Owens
and
Mono
Lake.
14
During
the
five­
year
period,
some
period,
15
2000
to
2004,
the
Federal
PM
Standards
were
violated
16
247
days
in
the
Owens
Valley
and
Mono
Lake
17
Nonattainment
Areas.
That's
essentially
seven
weeks
18
per
year.
19
We
need
to
have
the
rules
in
place,
as
your
20
immediate
previous
speaker
said,
because
we
are
21
starting
to
actually
make
some
progress
on
22
controlling
the
dust
at
Mono
Lake.
We're
getting
23
water
back
from
the
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Water
24
and
Power.
It
is
controlling
the
dust
at
Mono
Lake
25
262
and
they're
starting
to
control
it
at
Owens
Lake.
1
If
you
throw
out
the
PM10
Standards
you
2
will
set
that
whole
process
back
to
square
one.
And
3
it
will
not
only
be
a
health
problem,
because
this
is
4
not
just
dust,
again
as
one
of
your
previous
speakers
5
said,
there
are
many
toxic
elements
in
the
dust.
6
There
are
elevated
levels
of
arsenic,
cadmium,
7
nickel,
and
sulfate
salts.
8
The
proposed
rule
on
PM10
discriminates
9
against
rural
areas,
against
areas
of
the
country
10
where
there
is
harmful
dust,
but
not
large
11
populations.
Interestingly,
however,
it's
an
area
12
that's
very
popular
to
urban
people
coming
for
13
recreation.
So
in
fact
urban
populations
would
be
14
affected
as
well.
15
So
I'm
here
briefly
to
ask
you
to
not
make
16
any
change
and,
particularly,
not
to
areas
that
would
17
be
affected
by
PM10
and,
particularly,
to
the
Mono
18
Lake,
Owens
Lake
area,
because
they
are
the
worst
in
19
the
country.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Ms.
Spivy­
21
Weber.
As
I
said
earlier
when
somebody
was
here
this
22
morning,
to
the
extent
you
have
any
information
to
23
support
or
to
explicate
the
metals
and
other
24
materials
that
are
in
the
dust,
that
would
be
helpful
25
263
to
us
to
have.
1
MS.
SPIVY­
WEBER:
We
will
certainly
provide
2
that.
Thank
you
so
much.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
4
Another
question?
5
MR.
HANLEY:
In
a
follow­
up
question,
so
I
6
understand.
You
said
a
couple
things
there.
You
7
said
you
support
to
not
make
any
change
regard
­­
and
8
I
expect
that's
with
regard
to
the
protection
the
9
current
PM10
network
provides
­­
10
MS.
SPIVY­
WEBER:
Correct.
11
MR.
HANLEY:
­­
for
your
area.
And
I
12
mentioned
earlier
in
the
morning,
that's
one
of
the
13
alternative
proposals,
is
to
possibly
have
the
14
existing
PM10
standard
in
place,
but
we
currently
are
15
­­
and
then
you
also
offered
to
have
the
equal
16
protection
in
the
rural
areas,
and
those
are
sort
of
17
two
different
versions
of
what
might
be
in
the
18
proposal
or
what
could
be
interpreted
to
be
in
the
19
proposal.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
20
what
your
preference
was
in
terms
of
a
21
recommendation.
22
MS.
SPIVY­
WEBER:
Our
current
preference
is
23
the
keep
in
place
the
PM10
standard
that
has
been
24
used
for
setting
regulations
for
controlling
dust
in
25
264
the
Owens
and
Mono
area.
1
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
3
Mr.
Mengarelli.
4
MR.
MENGARELLI:
Hello.
Thank
you
for
5
providing
this
opportunity
for
us.
And
I
just
6
represent
basically
myself,
my
two
daughters,
their
7
friends,
family
members
of
mine,
people
I
see
on
the
8
street.
9
I've
taken
pictures
and
I
view
the
panorama
10
of
the
Bay
a
lot
and
its
very
dense
with
obvious
11
haze,
which
is
smog.
And
I'm
just
concerned
that
12
there
is
no
real
protection
coming
from
the
13
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
14
It
seems
like
George
Bush
is
allowing
15
outside
contractors
to
handle
things
that
a
governed
16
board
should.
And
if
that
happens
we're
going
to
be
17
in
a
worse
place
than
we
are
now.
18
I
see
decline
in
the
protection
ability
of
19
our
government
to
protect
the
people.
And
this
20
concerns
me
greatly,
because
we're
all
people.
We're
21
the
same
people
breathing
the
same
air.
We
should
be
22
responsible
for
the
people
we
take
care.
23
And
the
tax
money
that
goes
to
pay
for
the
24
organization
such
as
EPA
should
be
used
for
the
25
265
people.
1
I'm
worried
about
my
daughters'
future
and
2
it's
in
your
hands
to
do
something
about
that.
You
3
are
responsible.
Certain
citizens
I
know
try
and
4
stand
up
and
make
a
difference,
and
they
are
not
5
allowed
to
do
so.
So,
again,
it
falls
in
your
hands
6
to
do
so.
So
we
hope
you
do
that
for
us
and
for
7
yourself.
8
And
if
I
can
help
in
any
way
I
want
to
9
continue
to
do
my
part
to
help.
And
that's
all
I
10
have
to
say.
Thank
you.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
12
MR.
MENGARELLI:
And
tell
George
Bush
I
13
said
hi.
14
(
Laughter.)
15
MR.
MENGARELLI:
Thank
you.
Like
to
meet
16
him,
too.
Thank
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
18
Patricia
Monahan
and
Emily
Lee.
Are
they
19
in
the
room?
20
MS.
MONAHAN:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
21
Patricia
Monahan.
I'm
a
Senior
Analyst
with
the
22
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists.
23
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
respond
24
to
EPA's
Proposed
particulate
Matter
Standards.
25
266
These
standards
are
critically
important
to
public
1
health,
particularly
for
the
most
vulnerable
members
2
of
our
society:
The
sick,
the
aged,
and
the
young.
3
The
public
health
and
scientific
community
4
is
united
in
support
of
stricter
Fine
and
Course
5
Particulate
Matter
Standards
than
EPA
has
proposed
at
6
this
time.
In
fact,
EPA's
Proposal
is
contrary
to
7
hundreds
of
peer­
reviewed
studies
and
EPA
Staff
8
research
on
the
health
impacts
of
particulate
9
pollution,
as
well
as
to
the
legal
requirements
and
10
the
spirit
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
11
Many
epidemiologic
studies
have
linked
fine
12
particles
with
a
variety
of
serious
cardiovascular
13
and
respiratory
illnesses
and
even
to
premature
14
death.
EPA
utilized
these
studies
in
its
recent
15
Rulemaking
for
Nonroad
Diesel
Equipment.
The
Agency
16
estimates
that
the
public
health
benefits
of
17
particulate
matter
control
exceed
costs
by
40
to
1.
18
EPA
estimates
the
annual
health
benefits
of
PM
19
control
from
nonroad
engines
to
be
$
80
billion
by
20
2030.
21
In
adults,
concentrations
below
the
current
22
Fine
Particle
Standards
have
been
associated
with
23
premature
death
from
heart
and
lung
disease.
Studies
24
show
increased
risk
down
to
the
lowest
levels
25
267
investigated.
There
is
also
increasing
evidence
that
1
course
particles
contribute
to
increased
2
hospitalizations
for
heart
and
lung
disease,
3
decreased
lung
function,
and
increased
respiratory
4
symptoms.
5
Course
PM
may
have
as
strong
shortterm
6
effects
as
fine
PM
on
pulmonary
disease,
asthma,
and
7
respiratory
ailments.
8
Compared
with
adults,
children
may
have
9
higher
sensitivity
to
air
pollution
due
to
10
physiologic
differences,
higher
activity
levels,
and
11
greater
exposure
to
outdoor
air
pollution.
Their
12
developing
bodies
do
not
have
the
full
range
of
13
defense
mechanisms
that
can
protect
against
harmful
14
exposures.
15
Recent
studies
have
linked
longterm
16
exposure
to
fine
particles
with
deficits
in
lung
17
growth,
asthma
exacerbations,
and
hospitalizations,
18
and
even
the
possible
development
of
asthma
in
19
otherwise
healthy
children.
20
Even
in
areas
that
meet
the
current
Annual
21
Fine
Particle
Standard
researchers
have
found
that
22
children
experience
increased
cough,
higher
cases
of
23
bronchitis,
and
decreased
lung
function.
24
Now
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
here
are
25
268
clear.
By
law,
the
EPA
Administrator
must
establish
1
health­
based
standards
without
regard
to
costs
or
2
political
pressures.
By
proposing
weak
Daily
and
3
Annual
Particle
Matter
Standards,
the
Agency
is
4
rejecting
the
scientific
recommendations
of
its
own
5
Clean
Air
Science
Advisors
as
well
as
the
American
6
Academy
of
Pediatrics,
the
American
College
of
7
Cardiology,
the
American
Thoracic
Society,
and
8
hundreds
of
other
medical
professionals
and
9
organizations.
10
There
is
no
sound
scientific
justification
11
for
limiting
the
Course
Particle
Standard
to
urban
12
areas
or
to
exempt
any
sector
or
industry,
like
13
agriculture
or
mining.
The
Clean
Air
Act
clearly
14
specifies
that
public
health
and
sound
science
should
15
shape
National
Air
Quality
Standards,
not
powerful
16
lobbying
interests.
17
We
support
an
Annual
Daily
PM2.5
Standard
18
at
California's
current
level,
25
micrograms
per
19
cubic
meter,
and
a
Daily
Standard
no
higher
than
25
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
21
In
addition,
the
Course
Particle
Standard
22
should
apply
to
urban
and
rural
areas
alike
without
23
blanket
exemptions
for
high
polluting
sources.
we
24
urge
EPA
to
follow
the
advice
of
the
medical
and
25
269
scientific
community
in
developing
stricter
standards
1
for
particulate
matter.
2
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
deliver
3
these
comments.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
5
Ms.
Lee.
6
MS.
LEE:
Hi.
My
name
is
Emily
Lee.
I
am
7
a
Program
Associate
with
the
Pacific
Institute.
8
We're
a
nonprofit
research
institute
based
in
Oakland
9
and
we
have
been
working
since
1995
to
partner
with
10
local
Environmental
Justice
communities
in
the
Bay
11
Area
to
do
research
and
studies
around
12
disproportionate
impacts
of
pollution.
13
And
I
want
to
talk
today
about
some
of
the
14
recent
research
we've
done
in
the
past
couple
years
15
around
diesel
pollution
and
how
it's
a
very
big
16
concern
of
the
Environmental
Justice
communities
in
17
the
Bay
Area.
18
We've
conducted
two
research
studies,
two
19
diesel
pollution
research
studies
in
two
communities
20
in
the
Bay
Area.
One
was
in
2003
in
west
Oakland.
21
The
other
one
was
just
last
summer
­­
actually
it
was
22
­­
yeah,
2005
in
west
Contra
Costa
County.
And
we
23
found
some
really
shocking
results
and
disturbing
24
results,
as
you
can
imagine,
of
the
disproportionate
25
270
amount
of
diesel
pollution
in
those
communities.
1
So
just
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
an
idea
2
of
what
we
found.
In
our
west
Oakland
study,
3
Clearing
the
Air,
we
found
that
some
residents
in
4
west
Oakland
are
exposed
to
five
times
more
diesel
5
particulate
matter
than
other
homes
in
Oakland.
And
6
we
also
found
that
on
average
residents
are
exposed
7
to
90
times
more
diesel
particulates
per
square
mile
8
per
year
in
west
Oakland
than
in
the
whole
state
of
9
California.
10
So
this
is
also
a
community
where
asthma
is
11
a
huge
problem,
where
children
in
west
Oakland
are
12
seven
times
more
likely
to
be
hospitalized
for
asthma
13
then
the
average
child
in
California.
So
I'm
sure
14
you
already
know
this,
but
diesel
particulate
matter
15
has
been
linked
to
cancer,
to
exacerbating
asthma,
16
and
even
some
links
to
causing
asthma,
as
well
as
17
more
serious
illnesses:
Cancer,
premature
death,
18
heart
disease.
19
And
our
recent
study
in
west
Contra
Costa
20
County,
Deluged
by
Diesel,
we
found
that
­­
which
was
21
conducted
with
several
community
partners,
we
found
22
that
diesel
emissions
in
west
Contra
Costa
County
are
23
40
times
higher
per
area
than
the
California
average.
24
And
this
community
is
also
one
that
suffers
25
271
from
a
disproportionate
amount
of
asthma
cases,
1
asthma
hospitalizations,
and
also
one
where
trains
2
idling
from
homes
less
than
50
feet
away,
where
3
railyards
are
cris­
crossed
throughout
the
4
neighborhood,
train
tracks,
and
severe
impacts
from
5
the
ports
in
both
of
these
communities.
Both
of
them
6
have
ports
nearby.
7
So
I
think
that
when
you're
talking
about
8
particulate
matter
standards,
you
really
need
to
be
9
considerate
of
these
communities
that
are
10
disproportionately
impacted
and
the
ones
who
are
11
facing
the
extreme
end
of
the
burden
in
these
hot
12
spots.
And
I
strongly
urge
the
EPA
to
adopt
much
13
stronger
standards
to
protect
public
health,
and
14
especially
the
health
of
those
populations
who
are
15
already
highly
impacted
from
particulate
matter
16
pollution.
17
These
are
low­
income
communities,
these
are
18
communities
of
color.
And
the
children
in
these
19
communities
deserve
better
than,
I
think,
status
quo.
20
I
think
we
need
to
go
beyond
that
to
protect
the
21
health
of
the
children
living
there,
of
the
seniors
22
who
are
also
exposed
on
a
daily
basis.
23
I
have
these
reports
if
you
guys
are
24
interested
in
viewing
them,
so.
25
272
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
1
MS.
LEE:
Okay.
Thank
you.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Any
questions?
3
MR.
HANLEY:
Make
sure
you
submit
the
4
report
for
the
docket.
The
west
Oakland
diesel
5
exposure
levels,
was
that
an
area
that's
already
6
above
the
NAAQS
for
PM,
fine
PM,
do
you
know?
7
MS.
LEE:
Yeah,
I
believe
so.
8
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay.
9
MS.
LEE:
I
mean
there
is
just
­­
if
you
10
look
at
that
community,
it's
got
three
freeways
11
surrounding
it.
There's
the
Port
of
Oakland.
12
There's
Oakland
army
base.
There's
tons
of
trucking
13
services
that
are
going
to
the
port
to
make
14
deliveries.
There's
just
so
much
around
it
that's
15
already
­­
folks
are
already
saying
this
is
too
much
16
and
that
we
can't
take
anymore.
And
we
need
to
17
reduce
our
levels
and
we
need
to
get
better
standards
18
so
that
we
can
work
with
agencies
to
help
enforce
it.
19
MR.
HANNON:
Do
you
know
in
your
report
is
20
there
any
discussion
of
the
methods
that
were
used
21
for
­­
the
analytical
methods
and
how
you
­­
22
MS.
LEE:
Yeah.
There's
actually
­­
for
23
both
of
these
reports,
if
you
­­
you
can
see
if
you
24
look
inside,
there's
going
to
be
a
link
to
a
25
273
technical
report.
1
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
2
MS.
LEE:
So
basically
that's
are
kind
of
3
executive
summaries
of
technical
documents
that
were
4
compiled.
And
there
were
a
couple
different
methods
5
used.
One
is
a
limited
indoor
air
monitoring
study
6
where
we
use
an
aethalometer
to
measure
the
amount
of
7
soot
as
a
proxy
for
diesel
pollution.
8
And
we
also
looked
at
the
diesel
emissions
9
inventory,
we
were
looking
at
previous
studies
having
10
been
conducted
to
get
a
general
sense
of
the
11
background
of
research
that's
already
shown
how
much
12
diesel
pollution
is
emitted.
13
So
for
both
of
these
reports
you
can
see
14
the
technical
reports
online.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
In
order
to
16
have
them
in
our
docket
we
actually
need
to
have
the
17
reports
themselves.
18
MS.
LEE:
Okay.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
So
if
you
can
make
20
hard
copies
of
the
technical
reports
and
get
them
to
21
our
docket.
You
can
leave
those
with
us
today
­­
22
MS.
LEE:
Okay.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
and
we'll
get
them
24
into
the
docket,
­­
25
274
MS.
LEE:
Sure.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
but
hard
copies
of
2
the
technical
reports
would
be
very
­­
3
MS.
LEE:
And
is
there
­­
what's
the
4
deadline?
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
It's
April
17th,
is
6
the
­­
7
MS.
LEE:
Okay.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
close
of
the
9
public
comment
period.
And
outside
there
is
an
10
information
sheet
that
explains
how
to
submit
11
materials
to
the
docket.
12
MS.
LEE:
Great.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
14
MS.
LEE:
Thank
you.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
both
very
16
much.
17
Anna
Mills
and
Kelly
Runyan.
Either
one.
18
MS.
MILLS:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
19
Anna
Mills
and
I'm
speaking
as
a
member
of
the
Mono
20
Lake
Committee.
I
am
an
English
instructor
at
City
21
College
of
San
Francisco.
And
I've
been
visiting
the
22
Mono
Lake
area
with
my
family
and
with
summer
camp
23
groups
for
15
years,
every
summer.
24
This
is,
in
brief,
the
wildest
and
most
25
275
beautiful
land
that
I
know.
And
I'm
not
sure
that
I
1
could
sustain
myself
through
the
year
without
such
a
2
place
to
return
to.
3
I
always
think
that
I'm
looking
at
a
4
moonscape
as
I
come
down
through
Tioga
Pass
and
see
a
5
silver­
blue
lake
in
a
great
gray
bowl.
Its
vastness
6
humbles
me.
But
I
know
that
it
is
far
from
barren.
7
It
is
full
of
seagulls
and
fried­
egg
poppies,
and
8
pinion
pines,
blazing­
rabbit
brush
and
sagebrush
that
9
sense
the
air
when
it
rains.
10
I've
watched
lightening
play
over
the
11
black­
and­
white
volcanic
islands.
I've
spread
my
12
arms
to
the
hills
around
the
lake
and
drawn
in
the
13
freshest,
emptiest
air
I
could
imagine.
14
Now
I
learn
that
this
air
could
become
one
15
of
the
worst
toxicity
in
America
and
indeed
it
may
16
already
be
one
of
the
worst
sources.
17
I
hope
we
can
ensure
that
this
basin
18
remains
a
sanctuary
and
not
a
bowl
of
dust
to
poison
19
us.
20
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
22
MR.
RUNYAN:
Hello.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Hello.
24
MR.
RUNYAN:
My
name
is
Kelly
Runyan.
I
am
25
276
an
engineer
working
and
living
in
San
Francisco,
but
1
I've
been
visiting
the
Mono
Lake
area
for
over
30
2
years.
I'm
a
Mono
Lake
Committee
member.
I'm
3
speaking
on
my
own
behalf
and
I
think
to
some
extent
4
on
behalf
of
the
50,000
Mono
Lake
Committee
members
5
who
care
about
that
region.
6
Like
Anna,
I
appreciate
what
I
see
there.
7
I
won't
repeat
the
details,
but
it's
a
wonderful
8
place
to
go.
9
I
think
the
PM
standard,
particularly
the
10
part
that
would
be
relaxed
for
rural
areas,
I
think
11
that
should
be
reconsidered
so
that
this
place
12
retains
the
protections
that
it
has,
because
those
13
protections
are
really
the
underpinnings
of
decisions
14
and
regulations
that
are
restoring
the
lake.
In
the
15
30
years
that
I've
been
looking
at
it,
it's
improved
16
dramatically
and
I
would
hate
to
see
that
be
17
reversed.
18
So
thank
you
very
much
for
the
chance
to
19
tell
you
these
things.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
21
for
taking
the
time
to
come
and
share
your
views
with
22
us.
23
Mel
Zeldin
and
Seth
Silverman.
24
THE
REPORTER:
I
don't
seem
to
have
any
of
25
277
these
on
my
list.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
Some
of
these
2
are
­­
Mel
Zeldin,
I
think
you
were
scheduled
to
3
speak
this
evening;
is
that
right?
4
MR.
ZELDIN:
Yeah,
I'm
scheduled
at
8:
40,
5
but
since
you're
moving
up,
they're
letting
me
go
6
ahead.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
That's
fine.
It's
8
just
­­
it's
just
fine.
I
just
wanted
to
­­
9
MR.
ZELDIN:
If
you
look
at
8:
40,
that's
10
me.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
help
our
court
12
reporter.
13
THE
REPORTER:
How
about
Telly,
was
that
T­
14
e­
l­
l­
y?
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I
believe
it
was
16
K­
e­
l­
l­
y
and
then
Runyan,
R­
u­
n­
y­
a­
n.
17
And
are
you
two
together?
18
All
right.
Let's
hear
Melvin.
19
MR.
ZELDIN:
Hi.
I'm
Mel
Zeldin
and
I'm
20
the
Technical
Consultant
to
CAPCOA,
the
California
21
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
Association,
which
22
represents
all
35
local
air
pollution
control
23
officers
within
California,
and
I'm
here
today
on
24
their
behalf.
25
278
California
is
home
to
some
38
million
1
people
and
has
some
of
the
worst
particle
pollution,
2
both
fine
and
course.
While
EPA
deserves
a
lot
of
3
credit
for
implementing
regulations
and
policies
4
which
have
served
as
the
basis
for
improving
5
particulate
air
quality
in
California,
we're
very
6
much
concerned
that
the
current
proposals
are
ill­
7
conceived,
not
supported
by
the
best
science,
are
8
inconsistent
with
EPA's
own
standard­
setting
process,
9
and
will
leave
millions
of
Californians
unprotected
10
from
the
deadly
effects
of
particulate
pollution.
11
Point
1.
We're
extremely
concerned
about
12
the
precedent­
setting
proposal
to
only
consider
urban
13
course
particles
and
not
particles
in
rural
areas.
14
We
recognize
that
certain
toxic
materials
from
motor
15
vehicles
can
coat
course
particles,
however
EPA
must
16
also
recognize
that
such
effects
also
occur
in
rural
17
areas,
in
addition
to
asbestos­
laden
serpentine
dusty
18
and
other
toxic
particles.
Taken
together,
there
may
19
be
as
much
if
not
more
health
risk
in
some
rural
20
areas
because
of
the
combined
effects
from
these
21
influences.
22
In
trying
to
justify
the
basis
for
an
23
urban­
versus­
rural­
health
concern
EPA
ignored
several
24
studies
which
found
health
effects
in
nonurban
areas
25
279
and
relied
primarily
on
studies
which
did
not.
This
1
is
selective
science
and
selective
science
has
no
2
place
in
any
governmental
regulatory
agency.
Rather,
3
best
science
should
be
the
standard.
4
This
coupled
with
the
proposed
monitoring
5
regulations
which
would
require
PM
course
monitors
in
6
urban
areas
with
populations
greater
than
100,000
7
would
essentially
perpetuate
a
dearth
of
data
in
8
rural
areas
so
that
it
would
be
difficult
for
EPA
to
9
reassess
in
the
future.
10
Point
2.
The
Urban
Course
Particulate
11
Standard
coupled
with
the
revocation
of
the
existing
12
PM10
Standards
would
leave
no
particulate
protection
13
for
rural
areas.
EPA
has
a
statutory
responsibility
14
to
protect
the
nation's
population
from
the
health
15
effects
of
air
population.
Congress
has
required
16
that
standards
be
set
with
an
adequate
margin
of
17
safety.
If
EPA
believes
that
there
are
insufficient
18
data
at
this
time
to
conclude
that
there
is
a
health
19
risk
to
rural
residents,
it
has
the
mandate
to
err
on
20
the
side
of
safety
and
protection.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
A
battery
change
22
here.
23
(
Discussion
regarding
the
public
address
24
microphone.)
25
280
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Should
he
put
the
mic
1
back?
2
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
Yes.
3
MR.
ZELDIN:
I'm
not
going
to
any
sound
4
here.
5
Thank
you.
6
If
EPA
believes
that
there
insufficient
7
data
at
this
time
to
conclude
that
there
is
a
health
8
risk
to
rural
residents,
it
has
the
mandate
to
err
on
9
the
side
of
safety
and
protection
and
not
leave
10
people
exposed
to
harm.
11
At
a
minimum
EPA
should
keep
some
level
of
12
PM
Course
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
in
place
for
13
all
areas
until
it
can
be
conclusively
proven
that
14
rural
particulates
are
safe
to
breathe.
15
A
case
in
point
is
the
town
of
Keeler,
not
16
far
from
the
periphery
of
Owens
Lake.
Imagine
17
telling
people
who
live
there
that
when
the
wind
18
blows
and
course
particulate
levels
are
thousands
of
19
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
visibility
is
poor
20
from
dust
that
it
is
safe
to
go
outside
and
breathe
21
the
clean
air.
That's
essentially
what
you're
22
telling
those
people
and
others
in
many
rural
areas.
23
Point
3.
Another
poor
precedent­
setting
24
aspect
of
this
proposal
is
the
specific
exclusion
of
25
281
agricultural
and
mining
sources.
Health­
based
1
standards
should
be
based
on
exposure
data
specific
2
to
a
pollutant.
And
then
air
management
agencies
3
determine
the
industries
contributing
or
not
4
contributing
to
the
pollutant
in
their
specific
area.
5
EPA's
proposal
also
leads
to
many
unworkable
aspects
6
of
SIP
preparation.
In
areas
such
as
the
San
Joaquin
7
Valley
agriculture
is
adjacent
to
populated
urban
8
areas
and
wind­
blown
dust
off
of
agricultural
fields
9
impacts
urban
areas.
10
There
are
no
good
scientific
techniques
11
available
that
would
allow
us
to
identify
a
course
12
particle
emanating
from
an
agriculture
field
versus
a
13
local
crustal
source.
In
some
situations
course
14
particle
exceedences
could
be
caused
solely
from
15
agricultural
particles
blown
into
an
urban
area
and
16
then
resuspended
by
urban
vehicles.
EPA
in
previous
17
guidance
to
states
has
always
preferred
preventive
18
actions
as
opposed
to
mitigative
actions.
For
this
19
example
control
actions
would
have
to
rely
primarily
20
on
mitigative
actions,
and
such
mitigative
actions
21
may
never
be
fully
sufficient
to
reduce
PM
course
22
concentrations
to
acceptable
levels.
23
It
should
be
noted
too
that
California
24
agriculture
has
notably
reduced
their
PM10
emissions
25
282
in
recent
years,
and
rollbacks
are
not
wanted.
1
Lastly,
it's
important
to
note
that
2
proposed
monitoring
regulation
changes
to
support
in
3
part
the
national
monitoring
strategy
were
based
on
a
4
key
underlying
principle:
No
budget
changes
in
air
5
monitoring.
6
The
current
proposed
budget
shows
7
significant
cuts
to
air
monitoring
programs
which
8
will
impact
California
air
districts'
abilities
to
9
maintain
their
air
monitoring
networks
consistent
10
with
the
strategy.
Therefore,
we
urge
EPA
to
re­
11
evaluate
and
reconstruct
the
proposed
air
monitoring
12
of
Particulate
Standard
Regulations
before
you
13
finalize
them.
14
Thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
comment.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Mr.
Zeldin,
one
16
question.
17
MR.
ZELDIN:
Yeah.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Will
you
be
giving
us
19
some
specific
ideas
on
how
to
re­
evaluate
and
20
reconstruct
the
monitoring
rules
in
written
testimony
21
or
­­
in
written
comments?
22
MR.
ZELDIN:
CAPCOA
will
probably
be
23
providing
specific
written
comments
before
the
24
deadline.
25
283
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
1
Any
other
questions?
2
MR.
HANLEY:
Do
we
have
both
these
names?
3
We
have
Seth's?
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah,
Seth
Silverman.
5
MR.
HANLEY:
And
Kaitlin
Sanford.
6
THE
REPORTER:
What
was
your
name?
7
MS.
SANFORD:
Kaitlin
Sanford.
8
THE
REPORTER:
Could
you
spell
that?
9
MS.
SANFORD:
K­
a­
i­
t­
l­
i­
n
S­
a­
n­
f­
o­
r­
d.
10
THE
REPORTER:
And?
11
MS.
SANFORD:
Seth
Silverman.
12
MR.
HANLEY:
He's
on
the
list.
13
THE
REPORTER:
Oh,
okay.
14
MR.
HANLEY:
Go
ahead.
15
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Thanks.
The
proposed
16
revisions
to
the
Clean
Air
Act's
regulations
of
17
particulates
represent
a
conscious
decision
to
ignore
18
a
certain
and
continual
threat
to
the
American
19
people.
We
are
here
representing
Students
for
a
20
Sustainable
Stanford,
the
campus
environmental
group
21
at
Stanford
University.
We're
here
today
to
object
22
publicly
to
this
failure
to
protect
and
specifically
23
to
the
weak
revisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
offered
by
24
EPA.
25
284
Particle
pollution
is
composed
of
soot
from
1
industrial
smoke
stacks;
diesel
exhaust;
fine
2
aerosols;
and
toxic
metals
including
lead,
copper,
3
nickels,
and
cadmium.
Particulates
are
extremely
4
harmful
to
human
health,
as
they
cause
chronic
5
asthma,
heart
attacks,
strokes,
and
lung
cancer.
6
According
to
EPA
data
from
1997,
7
particulates
cause
premature
death
in
35,000
8
Americans
annually.
Here
in
California
where
we
9
suffer
from
some
of
the
worst
particulate
emissions,
10
over
2600
people
perish
prematurely
each
and
every
11
year
as
a
result
of
the
unnecessary
allowance
of
12
hazardous
concentrations
of
particulate
emissions.
13
For
each
increase
of
10
micrograms
per
14
cubic
meter
of
fine
particles
in
the
air,
the
risk
of
15
death
from
any
cause
increases
by
11
to
17
percent.
16
Empirical
evidence
shows
that
the
brunt
of
the
health
17
risk
associated
with
particulates
is
borne
18
disproportionately
by
low­
income
and
minority
19
communities,
making
this
an
Environmental
Justice
20
concern.
Forty­
six
percent
of
the
nation's
public
21
housing
units
are
located
within
about
a
mile
of
22
factories
that
have
reported
toxic
emissions
to
the
23
EPA.
24
And
low­
income
communities
in
New
York
25
285
City,
where
buses
and
trucks
cris­
cross
neighborhoods
1
and
industrial
facilities
dot
the
landscape,
2
hospitalization
rates
due
to
asthma
were
21
percent
3
higher
in
low­
income
communities
than
in
other
4
communities.
5
Black
Americans
are
79
percent
more
likely
6
than
white
Americans
to
live
in
neighborhoods
where
7
industrial
pollution
is
suspected
of
posing
the
8
greatest
health
danger.
In
19
states
blacks
were
9
more
than
twice
as
likely
as
whites
to
live
in
10
neighborhoods
were
air
pollution
seems
to
have
posed
11
the
greatest
health
danger.
12
Here
in
California
communities
of
color
are
13
almost
three
times
more
likely
to
breathe
heavily
14
polluted
air
and
low­
income
residents
are
exposed
to
15
17
percent
more
particulate
matter
than
better­
16
resource
communities.
17
Just
as
the
burdens
of
current
pollution
18
fall
disproportionately
on
low­
income
and
minority
19
communities,
the
benefits
of
stronger
regulation
will
20
make
the
most
significant
impact
on
them
as
well.
21
Instead,
however,
the
reservation
to
the
Clean
Air
22
Act
offered
by
this
EPA
further
institutionalizes
23
this
environmental
injustice,
not
to
mention
the
fact
24
that
it
directly
contradicts
Executive
Order
12898
25
286
issued
by
President
Clinton
in
1994
to
address
1
environmental
injustice
in
the
United
States.
2
This
weak
revision
would
of
course
not
be
3
the
first
time
in
the
past
year
that
this
federal
4
government
has
knowingly
abandoned
low­
income
5
communities
and
communities
of
color
in
the
face
of
6
environmental
hazards.
And
sadly
it
seems
that
it
7
will
not
be
the
last.
8
MS.
SANFORD:
Power
plants
and
diesel
9
engines
are
the
most
substantial
polluters
with
10
regards
to
particulates.
One
way
to
begin
to
address
11
these
concerns
about
particulates
is
to
change
the
12
fuel
we
use
from
a
petroleum­
based
diesel
to
a
13
biodiesel.
14
We
have
begun
such
a
project
at
Stanford,
15
where
our
campus
shuttles
are
run
with
a
blend
of
16
five­
percent
biodiesel,
which
is
derived
from
waste
17
cooking
oil.
Replacing
petroleum
diesel
with
18
biodiesel
reduces
particulates
by
47
percent.
19
The
Clean
Air
Act
instructs
that
a
20
prescriptive
air
regulation
be
determined
solely
21
based
on
the
protection
of
public
health.
The
22
current
revision
did
not
account
for
what
is
supposed
23
to
be
the
singular
concern
for
public
health.
Such
a
24
revision,
therefore,
runs
in
direct
contradiction
25
287
with
the
prescriptions
for
the
Clean
Air
Act,
which
1
along
with
the
Clean
Water
Act,
NEPA,
FIFRA,
CRCLA,
2
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
form
the
bedrock
of
3
environmental
protections
of
the
United
States.
4
Unfortunately
the
revision
in
question
is
5
not
the
first
time
the
federal
government
has
worked
6
aggressively
to
undermine
the
environmental
7
safeguards
that
have
protected
Americans
and
our
8
environment
for
the
past
three
and
a
half
decades.
9
Such
an
assault
on
the
foundational
10
environmental
law
has
been
routine
for
the
Bush
11
Administration,
which
in
its
first
five
years
of
12
office
has
engaged
in
flagrant
and
unrestrained
13
attack
on
virtually
every
environmental
protection
14
safeguarding
U.
S.
citizens
and
our
environment.
15
Regardless
of
this
trend,
the
EPA
must
strengthen
16
regulation
of
particulate
standards
before
this
17
revision
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
finalized.
18
The
standard
should
be
set
at
the
most
19
protective
levels
based
on
the
recommendations
of
the
20
scientific
review
of
particulate
emissions.
This
21
level
of
protection
would
mean
standards
limited
to
22
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
Daily
Standards
of
23
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
24
Students
for
a
Sustainable
Stanford
thank
25
288
you
for
considering
our
public
comment.
We
urge
you
1
to
strengthen
the
current
revision
to
the
Clean
Air
2
Act
before
it
is
finalized
in
September.
3
MR.
HANNON:
Just
a
question
to
just
make
4
sure
I
understand.
So
those
recommendations
are
on
5
behalf
of
your
organization
and
not
just
to
you
as
6
individuals,
that's
right?
7
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Yes,
that's
correct.
8
MR.
HANNON:
Great.
Thank
you.
9
MR.
SILVERMAN:
Thanks
so
much.
10
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
Samantha
Staley.
Okay,
11
and
you
have
someone
with
you.
12
MR.
KETTERLE:
And
I
am
Jonas
Ketterle.
13
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
14
MS.
STALEY:
And
he
should
be
on
that
15
docket
as
well.
16
Good
afternoon.
We
are
here
speaking
on
17
behalf
of
the
Center
on
Environment
and
Energy
of
the
18
Stanford
Chapter
of
the
Roosevelt
Institution,
a
19
national
thinktank
of
student­
led
policy
research.
20
In
regards
to
EPA's
Proposed
Particulate
Matter
21
Standard
changes,
we
have
two
pressing
concerns.
22
First,
that
the
EPA
has
not
portrayed
a
23
high
commitment
to
scientific
integrity
in
relation
24
to
air
quality
in
the
present
Administration
and
is
25
289
under
scrutiny
by
its
own
Scientific
Advisors.
And,
1
second,
that
recent
research
indicates
that
2
particulates
may
be
the
second
leading
cause
of
3
global
warming.
4
While
it
is
encouraging
that
the
EPA
is
5
considering
stricter
standards,
stricter
does
not
6
automatically
translate
to
sufficient.
Indeed,
there
7
exists
substantial
evidence
to
indicate
that
EPA
8
actions
under
the
present
Administration
warrant
9
scrutiny.
10
The
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
in
its
11
2004
Scientific
Integrity
and
Policymaking
Report
12
criticized
the
EPA
for
withholding
an
analysis
13
showing
the
benefits
of
a
bipartisan
alternative
to
14
President
Bush's
Clear
Skies
Act.
Political
15
motivations
interfered
with
the
communication
of
16
clear
objective
science
in
a
timely
manner.
17
Given
this
precedent
it
is
hard
to
ignore
18
an
NPR
report
indicating
substantial
disagreement
19
between
the
EPA's
Scientific
Advisors
and
its
present
20
Administrator
Stephen
Johnson.
After
Johnson
21
announced
the
proposed
revisions
to
Particulate
22
Matter
Standards,
the
Chair
of
EPA's
Clean
Air
23
Scientific
Advisory
Board
challenged
his
decision
to
24
override
the
Board's
consensus,
a
consensus
that
25
290
called
for
both
stricter
maximum
Daily
and
Annual
1
Particulate
Matter
Exposure
Standards.
2
The
Board's
consensus
was
based
upon
3
extensive
review
of
the
scientific
literature
and
4
hearings
with
public
health
advocates.
As
they
stand
5
now,
the
proposals
only
call
for
changes
in
Daily
6
Exposure
levels
but
leave
Annual
Exposure
maximums
7
unchanged,
but
under
this
status
quo
and
these
8
continued
particulate
matter
levels
thousands
of
9
Americans
will
continue
to
suffer
from
the
10
corresponding
heart
disease,
stroke,
and
respiratory
11
failure.
12
Commenting
on
Johnson's
decision,
Professor
13
of
Epidemiology
at
Harvard
University,
Joe
Schwartz
14
stated,
quote:
What
the
science
has
been
saying
15
about
the
particles,
if
it
is
that
that
particular
16
decision
is
going
to
kill
thousands
of
people
per
17
year,
it's
not
that
the
science
isn't
there.
They're
18
just
ignoring
it,
end
quote.
19
We
challenge
the
EPA
administration
to
20
consider
the
advice
of
its
own
Scientific
Advisory
21
Board
and
to
commit
to
lower
Annual
Particulate
22
Matter
Standards,
both
Course
PM10
and
Fine
PM10
to
23
2.5
24
Thank
you.
25
291
THE
REPORTER:
Could
I
have
your
name,
1
please?
2
MS.
STALEY:
Samantha
Staley.
3
THE
REPORTER:
No,
his.
4
MR.
KETTERLE:
Jonah
Ketterle.
5
THE
REPORTER:
Could
you
spell
it?
6
MR.
KETTERLE:
Spelled
like
Jonas,
7
J­
o­
n­
a­
s.
8
But
stricter
emissions
standards
stand
to
9
provide
even
more
than
these
well
known
public
health
10
benefits.
Leading
research
indicates
that
the
11
restriction
of
particulate
emissions
could
possibly
12
be
the
most
effective
method
of
slowing
global
13
warming.
14
Recent
publications
in
the
scientific
15
journal
Nature
and
the
Journal
of
Geophysical
16
Research
maintain
that
black
carbon
particulate
17
matter
is
a
leading
factor
in
global
warming.
18
In
the
past
critics
of
more
stringent
19
particulate
matter
regulations
may
have
pointed
to
20
the
fact
that
many
particulates
are
reflective
in
21
nature,
thus
contributing
to
overall
global
cooling.
22
However,
new
computer
modeling
developments
by
23
leading
EPA­
funded
climatologists
show
that
black
24
carbon
absorbs
more
radiation
than
it
reflects,
25
292
contrary
to
previous
belief.
1
Indeed,
the
global
warming
effect
of
black
2
carbon
is
enough
to
counter
the
cooling
effect
of
3
other
particulates.
Soot
containing
black
carbon
has
4
an
atmospheric
lifetime
of
only
a
few
weeks,
yet
5
since
it
is
continuously
emitted
black
carbon
6
particulates
are
constantly
in
the
atmosphere.
In
7
comparison,
greenhouse
gases
CO2
and
methane
have
8
atmospheric
lifetime
of
10
to
100
years.
Therefore,
9
more
stringent
particulate
matter
emissions
standards
10
would
have
a
more
immediate
effect
on
slowing
global
11
climate
change
than
targeting
CO2
and
methane.
12
To
quantify
this
change
Professor
Mark
13
Jacobson
of
Stanford
University,
Civil
and
14
Environmental
Engineer,
estimates
that:
15
"
Eliminating
all
fossil
fuel
black
carbon
16
and
associated
organic
matter
could
17
eliminate
20
to
45
percent
of
such
net
18
warming
within
three
to
five
years
if
no
19
other
change
occurred.
Reducing
CO2
20
emissions
by
a
third
would
have
the
same
21
effect,
but
after
50
to
200
years."
22
As
part
of
the
EPA's
mission
to
protect
the
23
public
welfare,
taking
a
more
aggressive
approach
on
24
regulating
particulates
is
in
line,
especially
25
293
considering
the
results
of
the
most
advance
climate
1
models
that
take
black
carbon
particulates
into
2
account
and
that
predict
significant
potential
for
3
slowing
of
global
warming
under
stricter
emissions
4
standards.
5
We
appreciate
your
time
and
thank
you
for
6
your
consideration.
7
MR.
HANNON:
One
question.
A
witness
this
8
morning
also
spoke
about
the
reflective
capacity
of
9
black
carbon,
a
doctor
from
MAGI
Scientific
10
(
phonetic),
and
I
asked
him
as
well
to
reference
in
11
the
written
comments
any
studies
that
you
have
that
12
you'd
like
us
to
review.
13
You
will
need
to
give
them
to
us
and
we'll
14
see
that
they're
in
the
record.
If
you
have
written
15
testimony,
you
submit
later,
that
would
be
important
16
to
reference
that
as
well.
17
If
that
covers
all
the
studies
that
you
18
mentioned.
You
said
there
was
a
Nature
journal
and
I
19
forget
the
other
journal,
if
you
have
those
then
20
that's
fine.
We'd
be
happy
to
take
them.
21
MR.
KETTERLE:
Okay.
Thank
you.
22
MR.
HANLEY:
Next
up
is
Marc
Geller
and
23
Jenny
Bard.
24
MR.
GELLER:
Hello.
My
name
is
Marc
25
294
Geller.
I'm
a
photographer
and
I
work
in
the
solar
1
PV
industry
and
I'm
here
representing
Plug
In
2
America,
a
group
that
advocates
the
use
of
plug­
in
3
cars,
plug­
in
electric
cars
and
plug­
in
hybrid
4
vehicles
to
reduce
our
dependency
on
oil
and
to
5
attain
a
better,
cleaner
environment.
6
In
brief
my
point
is
simply:
Certainly
we
7
support
all
efforts
to
deal
with
the
particulate
8
matter
question,
but
the
issue
really
becomes
9
mitigation
versus
prevention.
And
we
have
electric
10
drive
technologies
for
motor
vehicle
that
are
zero
11
emission,
require
simply
electricity.
12
We
know
this
works
because
the
zero
13
emission
vehicle
mandate
in
California
led
to
the
14
production
of
thousands
of
electric
cars
that
worked
15
perfectly
fine,
that
the
people
who
drove
loved,
but
16
they
were
taken
away
by
the
car
companies
and
the
17
government
basically
in
California
caved
into
their
18
desire
not
to
produce
such
vehicles.
19
But
I
drove
here
in
one
of
those
cars
20
today,
and
it's
got
34,000
miles
on
it.
I
know
21
people
who
have
the
exact
same
car
that
has
91,000
22
miles
on
it
and
it
still
works
perfectly
well.
23
If
we
don't
want
to
be
sitting
here
and
24
having
these
conversations
into
the
future
forever
25
295
about
mitigating
the
problems
of
motor
vehicle
1
transportation
what
we
must
do
is
begin
the
process
2
of
transitioning
to
technologies
that
allow
us
to
3
drive
without
creating
these
problems.
4
We
can
regulate
and
we
have
done
the
5
emissions
out
of
power
plants,
and
they
are
getting
6
cleaner
all
the
time.
And
states
are
continuing
to
7
make
efforts
to
make
the
­­
make
the
grid
ever
8
greener
and
ever
more
renewable.
And
we
need
to
make
9
a
synergy
between
transportation
and
the
grid.
And
10
plug­
in
hybrids,
a
technology
that
President
Bush
11
recently
announced
his
support
for
in
Milwaukee
is
12
one
of
the
things
that
can
get
us
to
the
point
where
13
people
can
drive
their
cars
and
not
cause
the
14
problems
that
we're
talking
about
today.
15
If
you
have
any
questions
I'd
be
happy
to
16
answer
them,
but
thank
you
very
much.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
18
MS.
BARD:
Hello.
My
name
is
Jenny
Bard.
19
I
work
with
the
American
Lung
Association
of
20
California,
Redwood
Empire
Branch.
Our
office
is
in
21
Santa
Rosa,
and
we
cover
seven
counties,
from
Marin
22
to
the
Oregon
border.
I
direct
Clean
Air
Programs
23
and
the
12
Better
Breather
Club
Support
Groups
for
24
individuals
with
chronic
lung
disease.
25
296
We
have
an
estimated
150,000
residents
with
1
chronic
lung
disease,
including
asthma,
emphysema,
2
and
lung
cancer.
Our
office
represents
largely
rural
3
counties,
where
air
pollution
from
wood
smoke
and
4
agricultural
burning
are
our
number
one
clean
air
5
problem,
air
pollution
problem.
6
We
receive
calls
regularly
from
individuals
7
who
cannot
go
outside
in
the
wintertime
due
to
high
8
levels
of
wood
smoke
pollution
and/
or
agricultural
9
burning
in
their
neighborhoods.
Currently
there
is
10
no
regulation
that
protects
neighbors
from
polluting
11
their
neighbors
day
in
and
day
out
with
harmful
wood
12
smoke.
These
individuals
literally
become
prisoners
13
in
their
own
homes.
14
So
on
behalf
of
those
we
serve
we
urge
you
15
to
adopt
toughest
and
most
health­
protective
16
standards
recommended
by
your
own
health
experts
that
17
will
protect
our
population
from
the
high
levels
of
18
particle
pollution
they
are
experiencing
currently.
19
We
also
urge
you
to
maintain
a
strong
20
course
particle
standard
for
rural
areas.
There's
21
absolutely
no
reason
why
rural
residents
would
have
22
to
suffer
more
air
pollution
than
urban
residents.
23
Per
your
classification,
I
think
most
of
24
our
cities
would
fall
into
the
rural
definition
and
25
297
then
would
be
therefore
excluded
from
the
health
1
protections
that
you're
extending
to
other
2
communities.
3
I'm
sure
you've
heard
all
about
the
health
4
effects
of
breathing
particulate
pollution,
so
I'll
5
just
go
on
the
record
as
saying
that
it's
been
6
expressed
by
others
from
the
American
Lung
7
Association
today.
So
I
won't
take
time
on
that.
8
I
do
want
to
say
that
many
of
our
counties
9
don't
have
PM2.5
monitors.
Sonoma
County,
for
10
instance,
which
has
almost
half
a
million
residents
11
now,
the
southern
portion
of
it.
Marin
County,
Napa
12
County,
none
of
these
have
PM2.5
monitors.
So
along
13
with
the
regulations
we
really
need
to
see
more
of
14
these
monitors
in
all
of
the
counties
in
order
to
15
determine
whether
these
counties
are
meeting
the
16
regulations
and
the
Air
Quality
Standards.
17
We
have
been
advocating
with
our
local
Air
18
Districts
for
PM2.5
monitors,
particularly
because
19
the
PM10
monitors
are
showing
exceedences.
And
we
20
know
the
finer
particle,
the
finer
particles
are
the
21
most
dangerous,
so
we
certainly
want
to
know
what
the
22
levels
are.
23
The
standards
that
you
set
will
provide
the
24
mandate
for
the
local
Air
Districts
to
write
25
298
regulations
that
are
going
to
improve
air
quality.
1
Right
now
we
have
no
recourse
because
there
are
no
2
regulations
protecting
from
these
level
of
3
particulate
pollution
that
we're
experiencing.
4
So
we
have
been
working
closely
with
our
5
Air
Districts,
and
certainly
the
Lung
Association
6
looks
forward
to
working
with
EPA
and
local
Air
7
Districts
and
our
communities
to
educate
them
about
8
air
pollution
and
the
health
impacts
and
the
need
for
9
more
regulation.
10
Our
residents
already
know
that
breathing
11
air
containing
wood
smoke
can
harm
their
lungs.
What
12
they
need
now
from
U.
S.
EPA
are
Clean
Air
Standards
13
that
are
healthful
for
their
families
and
their
14
children.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
of
speaking
15
to
you
today.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Just
one
question
for
17
you,
Ms.
Bard.
18
MS.
BARD:
Yes.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Are
there
PM10
20
monitors
now
in
the
counties
­­
21
MS.
BARD:
Yes.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
you
mentioned?
23
But
no
PM2.5
monitors?
24
MS.
BARD:
Yes.
25
299
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
1
MS.
BARD:
There's
one
2.5
in
northern
2
Sonoma
County,
not
in
the
southern.
There
are
PM10s
3
in
Marin
and
Napa.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
5
MS.
BARD:
Thanks.
6
MS.
STONE:
I
have
a
question.
7
Mr.
Geller,
does
your
organization
have
any
8
specific
recommendations
about
levels
for
the
9
Standards
or
do
you
support
the
ALA?
10
MR.
GELLER:
On
Particulate
Standards?
11
MS.
STONE:
Yes.
12
MR.
GELLER:
No
particular
recommendations.
13
I
mean
we
would
like
to
not
have
to
deal
with
that
14
particular
problem
by
having
vehicles
that
don't
15
create
it.
16
MS.
STONE:
Okay.
Thank
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Thank
you
18
both.
19
Is
Bruce
Young
here?
20
Hi,
Mr.
Young.
21
MR.
YOUNG:
I
get
the
spot
all
by
myself
22
here?
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
do.
Right
now
we
24
have
a
little
lull
and
so
the
floor
is
yours.
25
300
MR.
YOUNG:
Okay.
My
name
is
Bruce
Young.
1
I
am
a
private
citizen
or
mostly
private,
for
the
2
most
part.
3
Now
I
know
that
you've
seen
the
reports
by
4
your
own
EPA
scientists
and
the
other
science
and
5
independent
panels
that
say
that
the
current
6
particulate
and
soot
levels
are
at
a
dangerous
7
health­
challenging
level.
And
I
know
that
you're
8
aware
also
of
a
thousand
or
2,­
medically
peer­
9
reviewed
studies
which
show
that
there
are
health
10
challenges
and
that
people
are
suffering
and
dying
11
from
the
particulates
and
soot
from
asthma,
stroke,
12
heart
attack,
and
cancer.
13
And
we
know
that
soot
particles
are
coming
14
from
engines
and
power
plants
and
that
sort
of
thing.
15
And
we
also
have
the
technology
to
create
less
of
16
those
particulates.
17
And
we
also
have
read
polls
and
the
18
articles
which
show
that
citizens
and
people
of
many
19
different
countries
and
certainly
of
the
U.
S.
favor
20
cleaner
air
and
are
willing
to
put
up
with
a
little
21
higher
cost
and
a
little
bit
more
inconvenience
in
22
order
to
have
a
cleaner
and
healthier
environment.
23
One
of
my
own
personal
perspectives
on
this
24
issue
is
from
when
I
lived
in
San
Francisco
in
a
25
301
couple
of
different
places
and
apartments
usually
on
1
a
couple
floors
up
on
city
streets.
And
every
2
morning
when
I
got
up
I'd
look
at
the
window,
which
3
I'd
leave
open
most
of
the
time
for
some
air,
and
I'd
4
find
this
gray,
black
powder
always
on
the
window
5
sill.
6
So
I'd
clean
it
off.
Check
it
later,
there
7
it
was
again.
So
it
was
a
continuing
thing.
And
you
8
know
it
always
gave
me
a
little
bit
of
a
weird
9
feeling
to
imagine,
okay,
so
if
all
this
black
stuff
10
is
landing
on
the
window
sill
it's
also
floating
11
around
in
the
room,
I'm
breathing
it
all
day
long,
12
all
night
long.
It
can't
be
good
for
me.
So
it's
an
13
issue.
14
And
I
just
really
­­
I'm
here
primarily
15
just
to
urge
you
to
strengthen
the
standards
for
16
particulate
emissions,
which
is
to
say
to
reduce
the
17
amount
of
allowable
soot
and
particulate
emissions.
18
This
is
to
protect
our
health,
my
health,
19
your
health,
the
people
who
live
nextdoor,
the
truck
20
driver,
bus
driver,
farmer,
plant
worker,
everybody.
21
We're
all
in
this
big
together.
This
is
one
big
22
family.
We
are
interdependent.
We
have
no
place
to
23
go.
And
soot
and
particulates
don't
care
who
we
are
24
or
what
the
borders
are,
so
we've
got
to
do
what
we
25
302
can.
1
I
think
it's
the
time
to
act.
We
have
the
2
ability
to
act.
And
it's
the
right
thing
to
do.
So
3
I
just
urge
you
to
take
a
strong
stand
for
reducing
4
particulates
as
you
can.
And
it
makes
a
lot
of
5
difference.
6
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
your
attention.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Thank
8
you.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
come.
9
Appreciate
that.
10
No
questions.
Thank
you.
11
MR.
YOUNG:
All
right.
Thank
you.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
understand
your
13
point
very
­­
14
MR.
YOUNG:
Okay.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
very
well.
16
At
this
point
we
don't
have
anybody
else
17
who's
actually
registered
to
speak.
Is
there
anyone
18
in
the
room
who
does
want
to
speak
but
hasn't
19
registered
yet?
20
Okay.
In
that
event
we're
going
to
take
a
21
short
break
until
we
have
some
more
folks
show
up
to
22
speak.
We
actually
have
people
signed
up
­­
no,
we
23
do
have
somebody?
Okay,
we
do
have
a
speaker.
So
we
24
will
not
take
a
break.
25
303
Andy
Reimers
and
Karen
Robertson
Strain
­­
1
is
it?
2
MS.
ROBERTSON
STRAIN:
Yes.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
have
two
at
a
4
time,
so
if
you
don't
mind
coming
up
at
the
same
5
time.
6
MS.
ROBERTSON
STRAIN:
Good
afternoon.
My
7
name
is
Karen
Robertson
Strain
and
I'm
speaking
on
8
behalf
of
the
American
Heart
Association
as
a
member
9
of
the
Health
Network
for
Clean
Air.
10
I
urge
the
EPA
to
adopt
much
stronger
11
standards
that
protect
public
health,
including
the
12
health
of
sensitive
populations,
especially
children
13
and
the
elderly,
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.
14
Longterm
exposure
to
air
pollution
has
caused
an
15
increase
to
asthma
and
cardiac­
related
diseases.
16
On
severe
air
pollution
days,
EMS
calls,
17
that's
the
emergency
medical
services
calls
for
18
asthma
and
cardiac­
related
problems
or
for
anyone
19
with
weakened
immune
systems
or
fragile
health
and
20
living
condition
show
a
significant
raise
in
needed
21
responses.
22
Exposure
to
air
pollution
increases
the
23
risk
of
heart
attack,
hospitalization
for
heart
24
failure,
and
the
triggering
of
implantable
25
304
cardioverter­
defibrillators,
the
electronic
devices
1
that
shock
the
heart
to
­­
in
dangerous
heartbeat
2
disturbances.
3
Longterm
effects
of
constant
air
pollution
4
increase
the
incidents
of
asthma
and
cardiovascular
5
disease,
while
affecting
patients
at
an
earlier
age.
6
In
addition,
recently­
published
studies
in
7
the
October
Stroke
Journal
showed
that
air
pollution
8
increases
the
risk
of
stroke.
And
all
the
relative
9
risk
may
be
small,
the
absolute
risk
in
terms
of
10
excess
number
of
strokes
can
be
quite
high,
11
especially
when
you
realize
that
someone
in
the
12
United
States
has
a
stroke
every
45
seconds.
13
Particles
are
so
small
that
they
can
bypass
14
the
body's
natural
defenses,
coughing
and
sneezing,
15
and
lodge
deep
within
the
lungs,
and
can
enter
the
16
bloodstream.
The
issue
is
that
this
is
the
first
17
time,
after
35
years,
that
the
EPA
has
rejected
18
recommendations
of
the
Independent
Clean
Air
19
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
which
concludes
that
20
both
the
Annual
and
the
Daily
Standards
for
Fine
21
Particle
Pollution
can
be
substantially
strengthened
22
to
protect
public
health.
23
There
is
no
precedent
for
EPA's
proposal
to
24
limit
standards
for
course
particle
pollution
to
25
305
urban
areas
and
issue
blanket
exemptions
for
major
1
industrial
sectors,
such
as
mining
and
agriculture.
2
Air
Quality
Standards
are
set
to
protect
all
3
Americans,
not
selected
portions.
4
The
law
states
that
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
5
Air
Quality
Standards
must
be
set
at
levels
that
6
protect
public
health
with
an
adequate
margin
of
7
safety,
including
vulnerable
populations:
Children,
8
elderly,
and
people
with
heart
disease
and
diabetes.
9
More
than
100
leading
air
quality
10
scientists
and
physicians
across
the
country
have
11
called
on
EPA
to
propose
substantially
more
12
protective
Air
Quality
Standards
for
particulates.
13
More
than
2,000
studies
confirm
the
relationship
14
between
particles
and
illness,
hospitalizations
and
15
premature
death,
and
that
these
deaths
occur
at
16
levels
well
below
current
standards.
For
these
17
reasons
I
am
urging
the
California
EPA
to
adopt
18
stronger
standards
for
air
particle
pollution.
I
19
urge
the
following
be
adopted:
20
An
Annual
Standard
for
Fine
Particle
21
Pollution
no
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
22
meter.
A
Daily
Standard
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
23
per
cubic
meter.
And
a
Strong
Course
Particle
24
Standard
and
monitoring
requirement
that
protects
all
25
306
Americans,
in
urban
and
rural
communities.
1
Thank
you.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
3
Just
one
request.
The
October
issue
of
4
Stroke
that
you
mentioned,
do
you
have
or
can
you
5
submit
for
the
docket
a
copy
of
that
study?
6
MS.
ROBERTSON
STRAIN:
I
don't
have
it,
but
7
I
can
submit.
Who
would
I
contact
or
talk
to
to...
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
There's
a
sheet
9
outside
that
tells
you
how
to
submit
to
the
docket.
10
The
comment
period's
open
until
April
17th,
so
11
there's
no
huge
rush.
12
MS.
ROBERTSON
STRAIN:
I
will
submit
that.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
But
it
would
be
14
helpful
to
have
that
study
in
the
record.
15
MS.
ROBERTSON
STRAIN:
Absolutely.
Thank
16
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
18
MR.
REIMERS:
Thank
you
for
having
me.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
20
MR.
REIMERS:
My
name
is
Andy
Reimers
and
I
21
am
just
a
public
citizen
who
wanted
to
comment.
22
I
believe
that
science
is
clear
that
23
particulate
pollution
is
a
major
health
concern.
Our
24
country
spends
billions
of
dollars
protecting
our
25
307
citizens
through
military
action,
but
yet
seems
to
1
ignore
some
of
the
more
common
problems
that
are
2
really
facing
us,
some
of
the
more
serious
threats.
3
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
is
really
a
4
travesty
is
this
is
not
a
technologically
unsolvable
5
problem.
There
is
countless
forms
of
renewable
6
energy
that
do
not
cause
particulate
pollution,
7
including
solar
and
wind.
8
And
I
believe
that
our
nation
needs
to
9
commit
to
those
renewable
sources
and
help
save
10
countless
people
from
unnecessary
suffering
and
cost
11
through
all
of
the
complications
that
are
caused
by
12
particulate
pollution.
And
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
13
Thank
you.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
15
for
coming.
Appreciate
that.
16
THE
REPORTER:
Could
you
spell
your
last
17
name
for
me?
18
MR.
REIMERS:
My
last
name
is
Reimers,
19
R­
e­
i­
m­
e­
r­
s.
20
Thank
you.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
both.
22
Dennis
Ransel.
23
MR.
RANSEL:
I
was
going
to
say,
"
Good
24
evening."
It's
not
quite
yet.
It's
good
afternoon.
25
308
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
for
coming.
1
MR.
RANSEL:
My
name
is
Dennis
Ransel
and
I
2
am
the
Planning
Manager
for
the
Clark
County
of
3
Nevada
­­
which
is
located
in
Las
Vegas
­­
Department
4
of
Air
Quality
and
Environmental
Management.
5
First
of
all,
our
Department
is
an
active
6
participant
in
the
STAPPA
ALAPCO
Organization.
And
I
7
want
to
express
our
concurrence
with
the
comments
8
that
were
provided
this
morning
by
Mr.
Larry
Greene
9
on
behalf
of
the
STAPPA
ALAPCO.
10
In
addition
Clark
County
has
the
following
11
comment
concerning
the
Proposed
PM
Coarse
Standard.
12
EPA
is
choosing
to
use
population
as
the
13
determinant
of
health
risk
instead
of
scientific
14
criteria,
which
ignores
the
composition
and
toxicity
15
of
the
particles
themselves
and
sends
the
message
16
that
the
health
of
people
living
in
smaller
rural
17
population
centers
does
not
matter.
18
Additionally,
it
excludes
collecting
19
monitoring
data
that
could
positively
determine
the
20
health
effects
of
those
areas.
This
message
is
that
21
the
health
of
people
in
smaller
population
centers
is
22
determined
to
be
not
at
risk
and
therefore
no
effort
23
will
be
made
in
the
future
to
assess
the
health
risks
24
to
those
individuals.
25
309
The
proposal
excluded
mining
and
1
agricultural
sources
of
PM
coarse
particles
from
2
regulation
and
does
not
retain
a
secondary
standard
3
to
prevent
unacceptable
effects
on
the
public
4
welfare,
damage
to
crops
and
vegetation,
buildings
5
and
properties,
and
ecosystems.
6
Excluding
mining
and
agricultural
sources
7
implies
that
the
emissions
from
these
sources
are
8
benign,
without
health
risk,
but
there
is
not
9
sufficient
evidence
to
support
this
premise.
10
As
a
matter
of
policy,
the
EPA
proposal
11
does
not
address
the
contamination
of
coarse
12
particles
from
agricultural
and
mining
sources
by
13
pesticides,
chemicals,
fertilizers,
heavy
metal,
14
cyanide,
carbon
black,
fuels,
diesel
exhaust,
et
15
cetera,
and
urban
toxic
materials.
16
It
does
not
address
the
contribution
and
17
effects
of
coarse
particles
from
mining
and
18
agricultural
sources
located
upwind
of
the
urban
19
centers
that
the
Proposed
Standard
is
designed
to
20
protect.
Mining
and
agricultural
sources
located
on
21
the
fringe
and
within
the
boundaries
of
fast­
growing
22
urban
areas,
like
Las
Vegas,
will
be
uncontrolled.
23
The
exclusion
of
mining
sources
leads
to
24
the
unrealistic
situation
where
the
mere
act
of
25
310
transporting
benign
mining
materials,
for
example
1
from
an
aggregate
plant,
onto
an
urban
construction
2
site,
making
those
materials
now
urban
coarse
and
a
3
health
risk.
4
Human
lungs
cannot
distinguish
between
PM
5
coarse
particles
generated
by
mining,
agricultural,
6
or
urban
sources.
By
deregulating
mining
and
7
agricultural
sources
and
not
protecting
people
living
8
in
smaller
population
centers,
air
quality
and
public
9
health
will
suffer.
10
Now
regarding
the
monitoring
proposal,
the
11
Clark
County
monitoring
network
currently
includes
a
12
total
of
17
PM10
continuous­
type
federal
reference
13
method
equivalent
samples.
Of
these
13
are
located
14
in
the
PM10
monitoring
area,
the
Las
Vegas
Valley,
15
and
four
are
located
at
attainment
areas
of
Clark
16
County.
17
Although
we
believe
that
the
Clark
County
18
PM10
monitoring
network
is
adequate
for
assessing
19
County
compliance
with
the
PM
NAAQS,
we
have
received
20
many
public
comments
to
the
contrary
during
SIP
21
development
and
rural
development
workshops.
22
In
addition,
adverse
comments
have
been
23
independently
made
to
the
press,
and
the
press
has
24
taken
these
public
concerns
very
seriously
and
25
311
published
a
number
of
unfavorable
articles
in
both
1
print
and
broadcast
media.
2
Finally,
the
monitoring
network
adequacy
3
issue
is
a
key
component
of
litigation
over
EPA
4
approval
of
Clark
County's
PM10
SIP.
Under
the
5
provision
of
the
Proposed
4
CFR
53
and
58,
Clark
6
County
is
entitled
to
only
four
federally­
supported
7
coarse
fraction
samples.
Given
previous
public
8
comments
on
the
sufficiency
of
our
current
PM
network
9
of
17
samplers,
we
anticipate
very
adverse
public
10
press
and
comments
if
Clark
County
is
mandated
to
11
implement
these
revisions
to
the
CFR
in
conjunction
12
with
the
proposed
Section
105
and
103
budget
cuts.
13
In
addition
to
the
public
concerns,
14
redesign
of
the
Clark
County
PM
monitoring
network
to
15
comply
with
the
proposed
CFR
revisions
could
form
the
16
basis
for
legally
challenging
future
air
quality
17
programs
in
Clark
County.
18
We
urge
EPA
to
reconsider
these
issues
as
19
they
move
forward
with
the
new
PM
Coarse
Standard.
20
Thank
you.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
John.
22
MR.
HANNON:
I
have
one
question.
23
You
mentioned
the
concern
about
mining
and
24
ag
sources
that
are
upwind
of
what
would
be
an
urban
25
312
coarse
area.
1
MR.
RANSEL:
Yes.
2
MR.
HANNON:
Could
you
amplify
on
that?
I
3
didn't
understand
the
concern.
4
MR.
RANSEL:
Primarily
we're
talking,
you
5
know,
about
sand
and
gravel,
aggregate
plants.
Fix,
6
in
Las
Vegas
Valley,
they
surround
the
Valley.
There
7
are
some
that
have
been
grandfathered
that
remain
in
8
the
Valley.
We
are
able
to
control
them
under
our
9
PM10
controls
now.
And
should
we
lose
the
ability
to
10
do
that,
to
have
permits
on
these
sources
that
would
11
leave
them
uncontrolled
and
could
be
a
significant
12
source
of
particulate
coarse,
in
this
case,
blowing
13
into
the
Las
Vegas
area,
the
high­
population,
dense
14
area.
15
And
that
would
be
a
significant
problem
and
16
really
kind
of
reverse
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we
have
17
accomplished
with
PM10
controls
and
the
progress
18
we've
made
towards
attaining
the
PM
NAAQS
in
Las
19
Vegas.
20
MR.
HANNON:
So
that's
a
transport
issue
21
basically.
22
MR.
RANSEL:
Well,
some
of
it
­­
you
know
23
it's
a
little
bit
of
both,
because
you
have,
in
the
24
fringes
of
the
Valley,
in
other
words
fringes
of
a
25
313
developed
area,
these
aggregate
plants.
1
And
they're
in,
you
know,
low­
density
areas
2
presently
but
they're
within
the
Las
Vegas
Valley.
3
Some
of
them
are
still
located
closer
to
construction
4
sites
in
the
developing
areas.
So
as
the
development
5
spreads,
what
we're
going
to
do
is
transfer
the
6
responsibility
to
the
construction
sites
which
are
7
very
well
controlled
to
date
and
away
from
these
8
aggregate
plants.
And
that
would
be
a
significant
9
problem.
10
MR.
HANLEY:
I
have
a
question
also.
11
In
the
proposal
which
you
cited,
the
53­
58
12
proposal,
basically
as
provided
for
Clark
County
13
would
be
a
candidate
for
four
­­
14
MR.
RANSEL:
Four.
15
MR.
HANLEY:
­­
monitoring
sites
under
the
16
PM10­
2.5
network
design.
And
that,
of
course,
17
is
based
upon
population
and
some
estimates
of
the
18
value
­­
19
MR.
RANSEL:
Right.
20
MR.
HANLEY:
­­
relative
to
what
the
21
standard
might
be.
Do
you
have
any
ideas
or
do
you
22
have
any
thoughts
that
you
want
to
share
with
the
23
Agency
regarding
other
criteria
that
the
Agency
might
24
consider
to
get
to
a
larger
number
of
monitors?
25
314
You
cited
that
in
your
SIP
process
you
took
1
some
criticism
because
people
said
you
didn't
have
an
2
adequate
monitoring
system
in
place
yet.
3
MR.
RANSEL:
It,
you
know,
­­
4
MR.
HANLEY:
It
seemed
like
you
had
a
5
pretty
robust
network,
just
looking
at
the
numbers.
6
So
can
you
­­
7
MR.
RANSEL:
I
think
we
do
have
a
robust
­­
8
MR.
HANLEY:
­­
can
you
give
me
some
more
9
information
on
that
that
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
10
consider?
11
MR.
RANSEL:
I
think
I
could
characterize
12
the
criticism
as
basically
saying
as
the
Valley
has
13
expanded
­­
our
growth
is
rather
dramatic
and
as
it
14
expands
out
from
the
urban
core
out
into
the
outer
15
reaches
of
the
Valley,
the
criticism
would
be
that
16
the
monitors
aren't
moving
with
the
population
17
growth.
18
And
if
we
end
up
with
a
total
of
four
19
monitors,
that
would
obviously
very
much
restrict
20
where
we
could
put
monitors
and
how
we
­­
you
know,
21
restrict
the
ability
actually
to
move
monitors
with
22
the
growth.
23
MR.
HANLEY:
That's
helpful.
Thank
you.
24
MR.
RANSEL:
And
that
is
basically
it.
25
315
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay,
thank
you.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Just
one
other
thing,
2
Mr.
Ransel.
3
You
talk
about
the
contamination
of
rural
4
particles.
If
you
do
have
any
information
about
5
that,
­­
6
MR.
RANSEL:
I
know,
we
don't.
And
that's
7
why
I
say
I
think
the
science
is
a
little
bit
shy
on
8
that
area.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
10
MR.
RANSEL:
And
our
concern
is
­­
we
11
obviously
have
rural
areas
in
Clark
County
that
are
12
affected,
and
we
do
have
some
monitors
in
the
rural
13
areas.
And
we're
concerned
that
we
would
not
have
14
any
monitors
under
this
new
criteria,
and
so
we
15
wouldn't
know,
­­
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
17
MR.
RANSEL:
­­
would
not
have
the
ability
18
to
find
out.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
20
MR.
RANSEL:
Okay.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
for
that
22
clarification.
23
MR.
RANSEL:
Is
that
it?
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
Thank
you
very
25
316
much.
1
MR.
RANSEL:
Thank
you,
again.
I
2
appreciate
the
opportunity.
Thank
you.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
for
coming.
4
Everett
Olsen.
5
MR.
OLSEN:
I
am
Everett
Olsen.
I
am
a
6
retired
science
teacher
of
physics,
chemistry,
7
biology.
I
didn't
want
to
make
a
comment
at
the
8
beginning
because
I
wanted
to
find
out
what
other
9
people
are
saying
so
I
didn't
have
to
say
anything
10
they
did.
So
I'm
stuck
with
the
questions
that
11
nobody's
raised.
12
The
first
one
is
you
have
said
that
you're
13
talking
about
a
population
of
a
hundred
thousand
in
14
an
area.
What
constitutes
an
area?
Now
it
happens
15
I'm
from
Monterey.
And
Monterey
has
got
several
16
cities
of
3,000
and
less
nearby.
And
when
­­
there's
17
a
long
distance.
And
on
the
other
side
of
Fort
Ord
18
is
Marina.
And
there's
some
other
little
areas.
And
19
if
you
add
it
all
up
you
might
end
up
with
a
hundred
20
thousand
if
you
want
to
go
­­
but
maybe
you
wouldn't.
21
And
so
the
question
is:
How
are
you
going
to
make
22
this
decision?
23
And
none
of
the
literature
that
I've
seen
24
so
far
has
come
up
with
an
answer
to
that.
So
I
pose
25
317
that
as
a
question
for
you
to
tell
me
how
you're
1
going
to
figure
that
out.
Okay.
2
The
second
thing
that
seems
to
be
really
3
missing
­­
and
I'm
really
thinking
about
they
­­
4
there's
various
military
material
on
Fort
Ord.,
and
5
it's
hidden
in
brush.
And
they
have
decided
that
6
it's
economical
to
burn
it,
which
means
basically
7
they
spend
a
small
amount
of
the
fuel,
maybe
20
8
percent,
30
percent,
something
like
that,
and
70
9
percent
of
it
goes
up
in
the
air
in
big
chunks
of
10
black
stuff
which
rains
down
on
the
rest
of
us.
11
Now,
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
know
the
sizes
of
12
that.
That's
­­
you
know,
that's
­­
I
leave
that
to
13
you
to
figure
out
what
the
sizes
are.
But
all
14
particles
are
not
the
same.
And
in
reading
your
15
documents
it
sounds
like
they
are.
16
I
maintain
that
a
glob
of
sand,
I
don't
17
really
want
that
in
my
lung
because
of
silicosis.
18
Okay.
Arsenic
would
be
pretty
fast
in
dealing
with
19
me
if
I
got
very
much
of
that,
so
I
don't
want
that.
20
A
pesticide
that
is
a
nerve
poison,
I'm
not
21
interested
in
that.
But
that
all
could
be
in
the
22
stuff
that's
equal.
23
I
tried
to
think
of
something
non­
­­
a
24
chunk
of
dust
in
making
flour
probably
wouldn't
do
me
25
318
a
lot
of
harm.
I
mean
I
could
probably
ignore
that.
1
I'm
not
being
urgent,
but
my
body
would
somehow
deal
2
with
it
somehow
and
it
would
go
away.
3
In
Fort
Ord
we've
got
beryllium
and
4
apparently
we've
got
some
radioactive
materials
as
5
well
and,
you
know,
I
don't
know
that
I
want
those
in
6
my
lung,
either.
7
And
from
my
science
I
might
point
out,
and
8
I
don't
see
anyone
pointing
this,
in
order
to
get
air
9
into
the
lungs
essentially
you're
bringing
the
blood
10
as
close
as
you
can
to
this
same
kind
of
air.
And
11
the
lungs
are
not
smart
enough
only
to
pull
in
the
12
air
but
they
get
whatever
is
on
the
other
­­
in
that
13
that
air
that's
on
the
other
side.
So
I
would
like
14
you
to
be
proactive
in
protecting
that.
15
Now
the
other
thing
with
regard
to
Fort
Ord
16
that's
very
important
is
that
they're
saying
it's
17
cheaper
for
them
­­
they're
shifting
the
cost.
And
I
18
would
like
to
have
one
of
you
look
at
the
doctor's
19
bills
for
someone
going
in
to
a
doctor.
They
don't
20
know
what's
wrong
with
him.
They
play
some
games.
21
They
keep
giving
him
a
bill.
And
he
gets
another
22
bill,
and
he
gets
another
bill,
and
he
gets
another
23
bill.
24
And
I
argue
that
in
the
end
if,
in
fact,
25
319
you're
trying
to
maintain
the
health
of
the
people
1
that
are
being
affected,
it's
going
to
cost
many
2
times
the
cost
to
help
the
victim
of
the
pollutants
3
in
the
air
than
it
would
be
to
find
another
way
to
do
4
the
same
job.
And
I
want
to
point
­­
I
call
it
cost
5
shifting.
You're
shifting
the
burden
from
the
person
6
who
could
have
found
a
way
­­
and
I
would
love
to
7
have
the
EPA
look
at
that
as
a
possible
­­
one
of
the
8
options,
really,
would
be
to
­­
besides
setting
up
9
standards,
is
to
really
have
a
part
of
it
­­
if
you
10
want
to
think
about
keeping
businesses
in
California,
11
provide
them
with
the
method
to
do
whatever
it
is
12
they
want
to
do
without
causing
a
problem.
13
Do
you
have
any
questions?
14
MR.
HANNON:
No.
15
MR.
HANLEY:
No.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
the
only
thing
17
I
did
want
to
point
out
just
­­
you
asked
a
question
18
about
how
are
we
going
to
measure
a
hundred
thousand?
19
MR.
OLSEN:
Yeah.
How
are
you
going
to
20
decide
on
the
areas
that
have
the
hundred
thousand?
21
MR.
HANLEY:
Of
course
we're
a
Federal
22
Government
agency
and
we
rely
on
our
sister
Federal
23
Government
agency
that
operates
the
Census
Bureau.
24
And
the
Census
Bureau
provides
for
specific
25
320
definitions
of
what's
known
as
an
urbanized
area.
1
And
they
are
literally
available
online
from
their
2
website.
And
so
you
could
look
up
your
particular
3
area
and,
as
I
understand
it,
to
look
at
your
area.
4
And
I
don't
know
it
specifically;
I
haven't
looked
at
5
it.
But
each
of
those
smaller
areas
would
6
essentially
be
micropolitan
areas
that
together
­­
7
unless
they
were
contiguous
­­
would
not
add
up
to
a
8
hundred
thousand.
But
we'd
have
to
look
at
that
more
9
closely.
10
MS.
STONE:
And
I
have
a
question.
11
What
did
you
mean
when
you
said
­­
you
were
12
talking
about
shifting
the
burden.
13
MR.
OLSEN:
Okay.
The
pollution
­­
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
were
asking
us
to
15
do
something
related
to
­­
16
MR.
OLSEN:
Yeah.
The
pollution
arrives
in
17
the
air
because
something
was
done,
whatever
it
was.
18
Now
the
person
who
emitted
it
could
remove
it.
19
MS.
STONE:
Right.
20
MR.
OLSEN:
Okay.
And
I'm
arguing
that
in
21
a
great
many
times
the
removal
of
it
would
be
far
22
less
than
the
cost
of
paying
all
the
doctor
bills
for
23
all
the
people
that
are
affected.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Right.
25
321
MR.
OLSEN:
Now
a
lot
of
those
people
you
1
don't
actually
see
because
they
don't
have
the
money
2
to
go
to
the
doctor
to
actually
get
it.
But
if
you
3
actually
think
in
terms
of
solving
all
the
health
4
problems
that
are
created,
those
that
do
get
to
the
5
doctor
and
those
that
just
are
not
getting
there.
6
MS.
[
SPEAKER]:
They
would
get
into
the
7
emergency
room.
8
MS.
STONE:
Right.
9
MR.
OLSEN:
I'm
even
talking
about
the
ones
10
that
don't
get
to
the
emergency
room.
11
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
They
just
suffer.
12
MR.
OLSEN:
They
just
suffer
from
it
and
13
you
find
them
with
an
early
death
and
then
blames
it
14
to
something
else
because,
you
know,
let's
face
it.
15
I
mean
if
you
have
a
problem
with
one
of
your
organs
16
it
alters
the
others.
They're
independent
­­
I
mean
17
they're
not
independent,
the
word
­­
18
MS.
[
SPEAKER]:
Interdependent.
19
MR.
OLSEN:
Interdependent.
There
we
go.
20
MS.
STONE:
All
right.
So
you
want
us
to
21
do
a
better
job
of
trying
to
quantify
some
of
these
22
effects.
23
MR.
OLSEN:
Of
keeping
the
costs
where
it's
24
low
at
the
source
­­
25
322
MS.
STONE:
Right.
Okay.
1
MR.
OLSEN:
­­
rather
than
spread
the
cost
2
out
and
make
it
ten,
a
hundred,
a
thousand
times
3
greater.
4
MS.
STONE:
Okay,
all
right.
5
MR.
OLSEN:
Okay?
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
thank
you.
7
MR.
OLSEN:
Thank
you
for
asking.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Let's
see.
Carolyn
9
Casavan.
10
And
is
Dorothy
Alther
here?
11
MS.
CASAVAN:
Hello.
My
name
is
Carolyn
12
Casavan.
I'm
a
Registered
Chemical
Engineer
in
the
13
state
of
California.
I
have
been
working
in
the
14
environmental
field
for
20
years
with
much
of
that
15
time
spent
in
air
quality
analysis
and
emissions
16
control.
17
I'm
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
the
18
Southern
California
Rocks
Product
Association,
also
19
known
as
SCRPA.
SCRPA
represents
mining
and
20
construction
material
suppliers
in
eight
counties
in
21
Southern
California.
22
SCRPA's
members
work
hard
to
protect
the
23
environment,
and
we
were
to
make
sure
that
these
24
efforts
are
focused
in
the
right
direction.
25
323
With
regard
to
the
EPA's
proposed
revisions
1
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
2
particulate
matter,
SCRPA
supports
the
exclusion
of
3
mining
and
similar
sources
of
crustal
material
in
4
meeting
the
Proposed
Standard
in
both
rural
and
urban
5
areas.
6
Adopting
this
exclusion
is
in
keeping
with
7
the
EPA
directive
that
air
quality
criteria
8
accurately
reflect
the
latest
scientific
knowledge
9
useful
in
indicating
the
kind
and
extent
of
10
identifiable
effects
on
public
health
or
welfare
that
11
may
be
expected
from
the
presence
of
a
pollutant
in
12
the
ambient
air
and
that
in
setting
standards
to
13
protect
public
health
and
welfare,
EPA's
task
is
to
14
establish
standards
that
are
neither
more
nor
less
15
stringent
than
necessary
for
these
purposes.
16
When
agencies
implement
environmental
17
regulations
the
overriding
objective
is
to
improve
18
the
environment.
Typically
laws
and
regulations
are
19
developed
to
address
one
or
a
few
issues.
20
As
environmental
controls
are
implemented,
21
additional
gains
are
difficult
to
achieve
and
at
22
greater
expense.
Control
measures
themselves
also
23
have
impacts.
As
controlled
requirements
increase
it
24
is
important
that
we
evaluate
proposed
regulatory
25
324
changes
to
ensure
that
the
new
regulations
address
1
the
appropriate
issues
so
that
they
will,
in
fact,
2
result
in
a
net
environmental
benefit.
3
We
commend
the
EPA
for
conducting
a
4
thorough
analysis
of
available
studies
regarding
the
5
potential
health
effects
of
particulate
matter.
We
6
are
especially
encouraged
with
the
separation
of
the
7
analysis
between
fine
and
coarse
particulates.
We
8
believe
that
the
ongoing
speciation
and
the
analysis
9
of
the
effects
of
particulate
matter
based
on
size
10
and
composition
is
a
valuable
effort.
11
A
better
understanding
of
particulate
12
matter
components
enhances
public
health
benefit
by
13
providing
a
means
to
focus
control
measures
in
14
proportion
to
impacts.
15
Two
of
the
key
findings
of
the
EPA
analysis
16
are
that
scientific
evidence
does
not
show
17
significant
public
health
risks
associated
with
18
long­
term
exposure
to
coarse
particulates
of
crustal
19
origin,
but
that
there
is
strong
evidence
linking
20
fine
particulates
to
public
health
effects.
21
We
believe
that
these
findings
support
the
22
exclusion
of
sources
of
natural
crustal
particles
in
23
both
urban
and
rural
areas.
24
If
we
are
going
to
solve
our
air
pollution
25
325
problems,
it
is
essential
that
we
focus
our
resources
1
in
the
appropriate
areas.
Some
might
argue
that
2
controlling
emissions
on
all
sources
irrespective
of
3
their
contribution
to
the
problem
is
okay.
We
4
disagree.
Focusing
on
the
wrong
sources
can
actually
5
be
counterproductive.
6
For
example,
diesel
particulate
emissions
7
have
a
high
degree
of
impact
and
natural
crustal
8
emissions
do
not.
When
air
districts
promulgate
9
fugitive
dust
rules
in
order
to
control
PM10
they
do
10
not
evaluate
the
impact
of
their
rules
on
any
11
pollutant
other
than
PM10.
12
Many
fugitive
dust
rules
would
have
13
operators
increase
material
moisture
content
and
14
sweep
paved
roads
more
frequently.
And
the
emissions
15
from
these
activities
are
seldom
evaluated.
16
Southern
California
produces
approximately
17
50
million
tons
of
sand
and
gravel
each
year.
If
18
fugitive
dust
rules
add
only
one
percent
moisture
to
19
the
material,
this
amounts
to
500,000
tons
of
water.
20
Onroad
trucks
carry
approximately
25
tons
per
load.
21
Accordingly,
20,000
extra
truck
trips
per
year
can
22
be
attributed
to
this
increase
in
moisture.
23
If
each
truck
trip
is
30
miles
round
trip,
24
then
600,000
vehicle
miles
an
approximately
150
tons
25
326
of
combustion
emissions
would
result.
In
addition,
a
1
sizable
amount
of
sand
and
gravel
is
dried
during
2
processing
to
manufacture
specialty
sands,
asphalt,
3
and
other
construction
materials.
4
More
moisture
in
feed
material
requires
5
more
fuel
for
drying.
Fortunately,
most
of
the
6
drying
processes
permitted
in
this
state
are
now
7
natural
gas
fuel.
So
diesel
combustion
isn't
an
8
issue.
Nevertheless,
more
moisture
will
still
9
increase
emissions
of
ozone
precursors
and
greenhouse
10
gases.
11
Lastly,
sweeping
of
paved
roads
has
been
12
found
to
be
most
efficient
when
sweeping
is
13
infrequent
or
objects
being
swept
are
large
in
size.
14
In
fact,
some
states
have
shown
that
sweeping
when
15
the
road
surface
is
relatively
clean
does
little
more
16
than
move
PM10
around
and
cause
it
to
become
17
airborne.
18
Nevertheless,
Agency
rules
have
required
19
sweeping
to
occur
more
and
more
frequently
over
the
20
years
without
any
indication
that
doing
so
will
21
reduce
PM10
emissions
and
with
no
evaluation
of
the
22
impacts
of
related
combustion
emissions.
23
Tightening
controls
on
natural
crustal
24
sources
such
as
sand
and
gravel
mines,
also
will
25
327
reduce
the
number
of
mines
in
urban
areas.
The
1
demand
for
sand
and
gravel
in
urban
areas
will
not
2
change.
And
the
amount
of
sand
and
gravel
shipped
3
into
the
area
from
more
distant
mines
will
increase.
4
Thus,
the
crustal
emissions
will
be
removed
out
of
5
the
urban
setting
but
at
the
expense
of
a
regional
6
increase
in
traffic
and
combustion
emissions
of
7
diesel
particulates,
ozone
precursors,
and
greenhouse
8
gases.
We
believe
that
this
will
result
in
a
9
negative
environmental
impact.
10
The
average
material
transportation
11
distance
from
mines
in
urban
areas
in
Southern
12
California
is
25
­­
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I'm
afraid
your
time
14
is
up.
15
MS.
CASAVAN:
Can
I
just
do
in
summary?
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
you
could
just
17
wind
up.
18
MS.
CASAVAN:
I'll
do
that.
Okay?
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
20
MS.
CASAVAN:
In
summary
if
we
are
going
to
21
solve
our
air
pollution
problems
it
is
essential
that
22
we
properly
characterize
the
problem
so
that
we
can
23
focus
our
resources
in
appropriate
areas.
24
As
discussed,
focusing
on
the
wrong
sources
25
328
can
actually
be
counterproductive.
We
believe
that
1
the
public
debate
and
application
of
industry
2
resources
should
be
focused
on
fine
particulates
3
where
it
will
do
the
most
good
and
the
exclusion
for
4
natural
crustal
such
as
that
occurring
with
sand
and
5
gravel
mining
should
be
retained
for
both
rural
and
6
urban
areas.
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
8
MR.
HANLEY:
Before
you
walk
away
I
have
a
9
question.
10
I
heard
you
discuss
the
merits
of
11
separation
based
upon
size
and
composition.
And
I
12
believe
that
you're
suggesting
that
your
group
would
13
support
continued
work
in
that
area.
14
The
Agency
did
provide
in
the
proposal
for
15
Part
58
a
limited
speciation
network
for
coarse
16
particles.
And
I'm
wondering
had
your
group
had
a
17
chance
to
review
that
and
was
there
anything
about
18
that
that
might
be
improved,
because
that
was
part
of
19
the
proposal
process.
And
we
were
looking
for
20
comment
on
that.
21
MS.
CASAVAN:
The
monitoring
for
coarse
­­
22
MR.
HANLEY:
Yes,
the
monitoring
for
23
speciation
for
coarse
particles
specifically.
24
MS.
CASAVAN:
We've
looked
at
that,
but
I
25
329
did
not
come
here
today
prepared
to
speak
on
that.
1
MR.
HANLEY:
Sure.
2
MS.
CASAVAN:
But
we
can
prepare
comments
3
on
that.
4
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
5
MS.
CASAVAN:
Okay.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
One
other
7
question
for
you.
8
MR.
HANNON:
Perhaps
you've
gone
over
this,
9
but
just
to
be
clear.
10
A
prior
witness
talked
about
sand
and
11
gravel,
aggregate
plants,
they're
upwind
of
an
urban
12
area
that
would
be
covered
by
the
Coarse
Standard,
13
with
the
Coarse
Standard
then
being
focused
on
the
14
resuspended
dust
of
high
traffic
on
construction
site
15
dust,
et
cetera.
And
a
concern
of
the
coarse
16
particles
coming
into
the
urban
from
the
sand
and
17
gravel
or
aggregate
plant
and
then
having
to
be
18
addressed,
instead
of
at
the
source,
being
addressed
19
secondarily
through
either,
as
you
mentioned,
street
20
sweeping
or
other
activities.
21
Did
you
have
any
comments
on
that,
those
22
issues?
23
MS.
CASAVAN:
Yes.
There
are
ways
that
24
coarse
particulates
from
sand
and
gravel
mines
can
be
25
330
controlled,
that
these
regulations
wouldn't
eliminate
1
these
other
opportunities
for
controlling.
2
One
of
those
is
to
require
controls
under
3
nuisance
regulations.
And
another
way
that
coarse
4
particulates
can
be
controlled
for
sand
and
gravel
5
mines
is
that
in
most
areas
a
conditional
use
permit
6
or
a
mining
permit
is
required
for
the
operation
of
7
the
mine.
And
dust
control
measures
can
be
8
incorporated
into
both
the
conditional
use
permit
or
9
the
dust
control
measures
could
be
implemented
as
10
part
of
a
nuisance.
11
So
there
are
ways
that
those
types
of
12
particulates
can
be
addressed
under
other
13
regulations,
under
other
permitting
opportunities.
14
MR.
HANNON:
And
so
your
view
is
that
that
15
would
be
appropriate
under
our
proposal,
that
that
16
would
not
be
concluded
by
our
proposal?
17
MS.
CASAVAN:
Right.
That's
right.
18
MR.
HANNON:
Fair
enough.
19
MS.
CASAVAN:
Those
would
still
be
20
available
to
cities
to
control
particulate
emissions
21
from
those
operations.
22
Thank
you.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
24
Ms.
Alther.
25
331
MS.
ALTHER:
My
name
is
Dorothy
Alther,
and
1
I'm
here
representing
the
Owens
Valley
Indian
Water
2
Commission.
3
My
client
is
a
consortium
of
three
4
federally­
recognized
Indian
Tribes:
The
Bishop
5
Paiute
Tribe,
the
Lone
Pine
Paiute
Tribe,
and
the
Big
6
Pine
Paiute
Tribe.
7
These
Tribes
are
all
located
in
the
Owens
8
Valley
and
the
Lone
Pine
Tribe
actually
sits
on
the
9
north
shore
of
the
Owens
Dry
Lake.
10
My
clients
have
struggled
since
probably
11
the
1990s,
working
very
closely
with
Great
Basin,
12
whom
I
believe
has
already
testified
today,
in
trying
13
to
find
a
solution
to
the
dust
problem
at
the
Dry
14
Lake.
After
decades
of
struggle
and
research
and
15
study,
we
were
finally
able
to
have
EPA
approve
the
16
state
SIP
for
the
Owens
Dry
Lake.
17
I
was
very,
very
involved
in
that
process,
18
as
well
as
my
clients.
And
I
have
to
say
that
the
19
single
most
compelling
reason
that
SIP
was
finally
20
submitted
and
ultimately
approved
was
the
pressure
21
that
EPA
was
able
to
place
on
the
State
of
California
22
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
23
We
were
threatening
the
state
with
a
24
possible
FIP
and
possible
loss
of
transportation
25
332
funds
for
failing
to
meet
the
deadlines
for
the
1
serious
nonattainment
of
the
Owens
Dry
Lake.
2
My
clients,
when
we
were
in
the
throes
of
3
trying
to
get
the
SIP
approved,
we
went
to
EPA
and
we
4
asked
them
to
put
whatever
pressure
they
could.
And
5
EPA
was
willing,
but
only
after
we
threatened
to
sue
6
EPA
for
not
carrying
out
the
responsibilities
under
7
the
Clean
Air
Act.
8
And
an
additional
basis
for
pressuring
EPA
9
was
its
Trust
responsibility
that
it
owes
the
Tribes
10
in
the
Owens
Valley.
11
Under
the
new
proposed
regulations
my
12
clients
are
getting
doubly
hit.
We're
not
only
13
losing
the
PM10
Control
Standards
for
the
Owens
Dry
14
Lake
because
of
the
dust
exemption
from
the
rule,
15
we're
also
a
population
of
less
than
a
hundred
16
thousand.
So
even
if
the
dust
wasn't
exempt
we
still
17
wouldn't
fall
under
controls.
18
Like
I
said,
the
Owens
Dry
Lake,
I
believe
19
you
saw
earlier,
the
Great
Basin's
very
effective
20
dust
video
of
the
Dry
Lake.
My
clients
live
with
21
that
on
a
daily
basis.
They
see
the
dust
coming
off
22
of
that
Dry
Lake.
They
breathe
it;
they
live
with
23
it.
My
clients
are
very
much
opposed
to
the
dust
24
exemption
as
well
as
the
hundred
thousand
population
25
333
reduction
of
control
in
populated
areas.
1
I
would
also
just
like
to
stress
that
in
2
your
consideration
of
this
I
would
like
to
remind
you
3
of
your
Trust
responsibility
to
the
Native
American
4
people
and
Tribes
in
taking
this
into
consideration.
5
I
would
also
encourage
you,
and
I
believe
6
there's
been
a
formal
request,
that
you
hold
at
least
7
one
or
two
of
these
public
meetings
in
Indian
8
Country.
This
is
impacting
rural
America.
And
when
9
you
say
"
rural
America,"
you're
talking
Indian
10
Country.
11
So
I
really
strongly
encourage
you
to
try
12
and
hold
at
least
one
or
two
of
these
consultations
13
in
rural
Indian
Country.
14
Thank
you.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
16
MR.
HANNON:
Lydia?
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
John.
18
MR.
HANNON:
I'm
sorry.
I
just
have
one
19
question.
20
MS.
ALTHER:
Um­
hum.
21
MR.
HANNON:
You
mentioned
a
dust
exemption
22
in
the
hundred
thousand.
Do
you
mean
­­
I'm
not
sure
23
there's
a
difference
there.
By
the
dust
exemption,
24
do
you
mean
the
definition
of
the
indicator
that
25
334
doesn't
include
­­
1
MS.
ALTHER:
Dust,
yes.
2
MR.
HANNON:
­­
ambient
mix
that's
3
dominated
by...
Okay.
4
MS.
ALTHER:
Yes.
5
MR.
HANNON:
And
then
the
hundred
thousand
6
is
a
proposed
criteria
to
help
identify
that
dividing
7
line.
Okay?
8
MS.
ALTHER:
So
even
if
the
dust
­­
9
MR.
HANNON:
Yes.
10
MS.
ALTHER:
­­
was
one
of
the
criteria,
we
11
would
still
be
excluded
under
the
hundred
thousand.
12
So,
like
I
said,
it's
a
double
whammy
for
the
Owens
13
Valley.
14
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
Yes.
16
Thank
you,
both.
17
Paula
Stigler
and
Monique
Sullivan.
18
MS.
SULLIVAN:
I'm
Monique
Sullivan.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay,
great.
20
MS.
STIGLER:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
21
Paula
Stigler.
I'm
an
Environmental
Health
Scientist
22
as
well
as
the
Air
Quality
Specialist
for
the
Pala
23
Band
of
Mission
Indians.
I'm
going
to
read
draft
24
letter
that's
been
put
together
from
the
National
25
335
Tribal
Air
Association,
and
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
1
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
these
proposed
rules.
2
There
are
several
concerns
regarding
these
3
rules
in
Indian
Country.
The
first
being
the
4
proposed
PM
Fine
Standard
does
not
adequately
protect
5
human
health.
And
proposing
a
PM
2.5
NAAQS
6
consisting
of
24­
hour
standard
of
35
micrograms
per
7
meter
cubed
and
an
annual
standard
of
15
micrograms
8
per
meter
cubed,
the
EPA
has
ignored
the
9
recommendations
of
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
10
Committee,
which
recommended
an
annual
standard
of
13
11
to
14
micrograms
per
meter
cubed.
12
The
Proposed
Standard
also
conflicts
with
13
the
EPA
Staff
Paper
because
it
couples
the
35
14
standard
with
a
98­
percentile
form
rather
than
the
15
99­
percentile
form
recommended
by
the
staff
for
a
16
standard
in
this
range
of
values.
17
The
weaker
standards
proposed
by
the
EPA
18
would
provide
protection
to
millions
fewer
Americans
19
than
would
the
values
recommended
by
the
staff
and
20
the
CASAC.
21
Secondly,
the
EPA's
proposal
to
limit
the
22
PM
Coarse
Standard
to
urban
areas
is
illogical
and
23
not
supported
by
science.
EPA's
Proposed
Standards
24
for
coarse
but
inhalable
particulate
matter
is
25
336
fundamentally
flawed.
1
The
EPA
proposes
to
revoke
the
currently
2
nationally­
applicable
PM10
Standard.
This
revocation
3
would
occur
everywhere
with
respect
to
the
current
4
Annual
Standard
and
an
all
but
15
cites
with
respect
5
to
the
current
24­
Hour
Standard.
6
In
its
place
EPA
proposes
a
PM10
to
2.5
7
standard
on
a
24­
hour
basis
only.
EPA
also
proposes
8
to
further
define
this
standard
by
applying
it
only
9
to
the
particulate
matter
that
is
dominated
by
10
resuspended
dust
from
high­
density
traffic
on
paved
11
roads
and
generated
by
industrial
or
construction
12
sources.
13
The
standard,
as
proposed,
would
expressly
14
not
apply
to
PM10
to
2.5
which
originates
from
wind­
15
blown
dust,
such
as
from
agriculture
and
mining
16
sources.
In
fact,
EPA
takes
the
extraordinary
step
17
of
declaring
in
the
proposed
NOx
that
agriculture
and
18
mining
sources
shall
not
be
regulated
to
meet
this
19
standard.
20
Just
a
little
bit
background
on
the
Pala
21
Indian
Reservation.
We
are
located
in
Southern
22
California
on
the
border
with
Riverside
County,
but
23
we
are
in
San
Diego
County.
We're
approximately
24
12,000
acres.
And
we
line
a
valley
surrounded
by
25
337
several
agricultural
and
mining
operations.
1
This
approach
is
flawed
for
several
2
reasons.
It
draws
exactly
the
wrong
conclusion
from
3
the
existence
of
uncertainty
and
the
understanding
of
4
health
effects
from
coarse
particles
and
in
the
face
5
of
uncertainty
as
to
the
relative
toxicity
of
6
different
components
of
coarse
particulate
matter
7
originating
from
different
sources.
8
The
EPA
should
adopt
a
standard
that
9
protects
the
public
health
of
all
Americans
with
an
10
adequate
margin
of
satisfy.
There's
a
lack
of
11
epidemiological
studies
in
some
of
these
areas,
12
especially
in
Indian
Country
regarding
the
effects
of
13
coarse
particle
pollution
on
people
living
in
these
14
areas.
I'd
like
to
stress
that
fact,
especially
15
living
and
working
with
the
Reservation
that
does
not
16
­­
that
has
these
agriculture
and
mining
operations
17
and
there
have
been
no
epidemiological
studies
done
18
there.
19
EPA's
basis
for
distinguishing
based
on
20
health
effects
between
urban
and
rural
coarse
21
particulate
matter
appears
to
be
unsound.
It
states
22
that
the
relevant
studies
generally
support
the
view
23
that
the
mix
of
thoracic
coarse
particles,
generally
24
found
in
urban
areas,
is
of
concern
to
public
health
25
338
in
contrast
to
natural
dust
of
geological
origin.
1
But
while
much
of
the
preamble
discussion
2
confirms
the
existence
of
health
effects
from
coarse
3
particulate
matter
in
urban
areas,
few
studies
are
4
cited
to
support
the
proposition
that
there's
an
5
absence
of
such
effects
in
rural
areas.
6
To
summarize
that
point,
an
absence
of
7
evidence
is
not
evidence
of
absence.
And
EPA
should
8
use
the
purported
absence
studies
showing
adverse
9
health
effects
from
PM
coarse
materials
in
rural
10
areas
to
preclude
regulation
in
those
areas
when
it
11
knows
that
PM
coarse,
in
general,
poses
a
health
12
risk.
13
In
excluding
rural
areas
from
the
standard,
14
it
does
not
appear
that
EPA
provided
adequate
15
consideration
to
the
threats
of
the
population
within
16
rural
areas.
This
is
important
from
our
perspective
17
because
several
of
the
factors
for
sensitivity
to
18
coarse
particulate
matter,
such
as
asthma
and
19
diabetes
are
prevalent
and
are
increasing
among
20
Native
Americans.
21
The
EPA
acknowledges
the
importance
of
22
demographic
factors
by
placing
greater
weight
on
U.
S.
23
and
Canadian
studies
rather
than
other
international
24
studies.
25
339
By
the
same
token,
EPA
must
explain
how
it
1
accounted
for
the
varying
demographics
of
Indian
and
2
other
rural
populations
as
opposed
to
urban
3
populations
in
setting
this
health­
based
standard.
4
The
Proposed
PM
Coarse
Monitoring
5
Regulation
will
leave
Tribes
and
other
rural
areas
in
6
the
dark.
The
provisions
for
ambient
monitoring
of
7
PM
Coarse
proposed
concurrently
with
the
NOx
8
revisions
are
equally
objectionable.
9
In
essence,
provisions
require
particulate
10
matter
coarse
monitoring
only
in
those
urban
areas
in
11
which
the
PM10
to
2.5
NOx
would
apply.
Thus
EPA's
12
monitoring
strategy
is
based
on
the
premise
that
it
13
is
not
necessary
to
monitor
PM
Coarse
in
areas
where
14
EPA
has
declared
that
the
particulate
matter
is
not
15
harmful.
This
premise
is
flawed
for
all
the
reasons
16
I've
already
mentioned,
and
there's
not
a
rational
17
basis
for
proclaiming
all
rural,
agricultural,
and
18
mining
dust
to
be
of
no
concern.
19
The
proposed
monitoring
provisions
are
20
especially
problematic
for
Indian
Country,
because
21
monitoring
is
required
only
in
metropolitan
22
statistical
areas
with
populations
of
a
hundred
23
thousand
or
more
and
is
additionally
constrained
by
24
other
requirements
designed
to
ensure
that
only
25
340
urban­
type
particles
are
measured.
Few
or
no
Tribal
1
lands
will
be
eligible
for
monitoring.
This
will
2
pull
the
rug
out
from
under
current
Tribal
monitoring
3
efforts
designed
to
provide
Tribes
with
more
4
information
regarding
air
quality
in
their
5
communities,
which
is
much
needed
so
that
they
can
be
6
effective
participants
in
the
nation's
air
quality
7
management
programs.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
you
could
please
9
wrap
up?
10
MS.
STIGLER:
We
appreciate
this
11
opportunity
to
comment,
and
I'd
like
to
also
remind
12
the
EPA
about
their
Trust
responsibility
to
the
13
Tribes
as
well.
And
I
urge
you
all
to
hold
these
14
public
hearings
in
Tribal
Country,
Indian
Country,
as
15
well
as
rural
areas
where
it's
of
major
concern.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
17
MS.
STIGLER:
Thank
you.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
19
Ms.
Sullivan.
20
MS.
SULLIVAN:
Hi.
My
name
is
Monique
21
Sullivan.
I
am
the
Campaign
Director
in
the
Berkeley
22
Campaign
Office
for
Environment
California.
We're
a
23
statewide
environmental
organization
representing
24
over
85,000
members
that
support
environmental
25
341
protection
for
California.
1
I'm
here
just
to
make
a
brief
statement.
2
I've
been
working
in
Berkeley
for
a
year
and
a
half
3
now
doing
this
campaign
and
outreach
to
Californians
4
on
environmental
issues.
And
I
have
talked
to
5
thousands
and
thousands
of
Californians,
primarily
in
6
the
Bay
Area
obviously,
about
their
environmental
7
concerns.
Whether
it's
air
pollution
or
clean
8
energy,
Californians
feel
like
their
environment
is
9
at
risk,
and
they
would
­­
I
can
speak
on
my
own
10
behalf
and
on
behalf
of
the
people
I've
spoken
with
11
on
the
streets
and
at
the
door
­­
that
we
need
to
see
12
stronger
restrictions
and
stronger
protections
for
13
our
environment.
14
On
air
issues
like
this,
our
research
shows
15
that
California
is
already
leading
in
higher
and
16
dangerous
levels
of
smog
and
soot
pollution.
17
I
come
from
Louisiana
originally.
And
we
18
have
four
coal­
fired
power
plants
in
Louisiana,
and
19
we
have
areas
of
our
state
referred
as
"
Cancer
Alley"
20
for
the
amount
of
dangerous
chemicals,
especially
air
21
pollution
that
we
deal
with.
And
cancer
rates
where
22
I
come
from
are
outrageously
high.
When
I
was
23
growing
up
I
thought
that
cancer
was
the
only
thing
24
that
people
died
of
and
it
was
just
a
question
of
25
342
what
type
of
cancer.
1
I
would
hate
to
see
California
get
to
that
2
point
and
­­
sorry.
I
don't
talk
into
microphones
3
very
often.
4
But
I
would
hate
to
see
California
get
to
5
that
point.
And
I
think
this
is
an
opportunity
to
6
make
sure
that
Californians'
voices
are
heard
and
7
that
we
do
not
allow
more
smog
and
soot
pollution
and
8
fine
particles'
pollution
into
our
air.
So
please
9
consider
these
comments
as
representative
of
10
Californians.
Thank
you.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Very
good.
Thank
you
12
very
much.
13
Kirsten
Clemmensen
and
Mauricio
Garzon.
14
MS.
CLEMMENSEN:
My
name
is
Kirsten
15
Clemmensen.
I
work
as
a
Field
Manager
for
16
Environment
California
in
the
Berkeley
Campaign
17
Office.
I've
worked
in
that
capacity
for
the
past
18
six
months.
Before
that
I
worked
in
the
San
19
Francisco
Campaign
Office
for
Environment
California.
20
In
my
work
I've
spoken
to
over
2,000
people
in
the
21
Bay
Area
about
alternative
energy.
22
And
one
of
the
things
I
spoke
to
many,
many
23
people
about
was
the
fact
that
asthma
is
currently
24
the
leading
cause
of
missed
school
days
in
25
343
California.
And
asthma
is
very
strongly
linked
to
1
the
amount
of
pollution
in
the
air.
2
Also
on
a
personal
front,
especially
3
through
this
work,
I
have
only
moved
out
here
in
the
4
past
year
and
I
really
do
love
it
here.
It's
a
place
5
I
would
like
to
raise
a
family,
but
it
is
a
very
huge
6
concern
of
mine
that
I
don't
want
to
be
raising
7
children
in
an
area
where
there's
a
very
high
risk
of
8
them
getting
asthma
because
of
the
quality
of
the
9
air,
or
even
cancer
later
in
life.
10
So
I
definitely
urge
you
to
adopt
the
11
strongest
possible
standard
for
controlling
and
12
monitoring
smog
and
soot
pollution.
Thank
you.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
14
MR.
GARZON:
Hello.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Hello.
16
MR.
GARZON:
My
name
is
Mauricio
Garzon.
I
17
am
actually
one
of
the
Campaign
Coordinators
for
18
Environment
California.
19
I
guess
there's
two
aspects
of
this
I
20
should
like
to
discuss
with
you.
Just
in
a
prior
21
life
I
also
just
have
a
finance
background.
I
22
managed
a
$
20
billion
global
portfolio.
I
have
a
23
very
keen
understanding
of
economics,
as
well
as
24
social
policy
as
it
is
affected
by
economics.
So
I'd
25
344
like
to
just
make
a
couple
of
statements
on
that.
1
But
just
on
a
personal
note,
I'm
an
2
athlete.
I
run
a
lot.
It
is
an
issue
of
great
3
dismay
that
I
could
be
improving
my
health
at
the
4
same
time
while
I'm
actually
really
worsening
my
5
health.
Just
the
fact
that
the
atmosphere
is
6
becoming
somewhat
of
a
health
issue,
in
the
first
7
place,
is
highly
problematic.
It's
something
that
is
8
just
a
state
of
affairs
that
that's
just
9
unconscionable
at
this
point
really.
The
only
reason
10
for
that
to
happen
is
just
the
almighty
dollar.
It's
11
very
clear.
There's
no
reason
that
any
12
administration
permits
its
special
advisory
task
13
force
on
clean
air
to
conduct
a
review
­­
two,
as
I
14
understand
it,
independent
reviews
­­
and
then
15
basically
disavow
the
findings
of
that.
The
only
16
compelling
factor
is
the
dollar.
Clearly
it's
an
17
issue
of
progressional
policy
which,
in
this
case,
is
18
not
for
the
better.
And
that's
an
issue
that
needs
19
to
be
addressed
in
a
longterm
way.
20
There
are
clearly
better
opportunities.
21
The
science
is
clear,
and
all
that
is
not
being
22
addressed.
It
is
unacceptable
that
the
23
Administration
is
not
held
accountable
for
doing
what
24
it's
been
elected
to
do,
which
is
essential
to
25
345
safeguard
the
health
and
the
well­
being
of
the
state,
1
let
alone
just
the
populace
in
general.
2
It
seems
to
me
that
the
local
government,
3
the
state
government,
has
great
power
to
defeat
that
4
progressional
policy
and
that's
something
that
is
5
appropriate
construing
the
contemporary
signs
and
6
obviously
the
health
needs
of
the
public.
And
I
urge
7
you
to
do
that.
Thank
you.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
both.
9
Laura
Kowler
and
David
Wyman.
10
MS.
KOWLER:
Hello.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Hello.
12
MS.
KOWLER:
Can
you
hear
me?
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
have
two
mics
you
14
need
to
speak
into.
15
MS.
KOWLER:
Hi.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
One
is
for
the
room
17
and
one
is
for
our
court
reporters.
18
MS.
KOWLER:
Good.
Okay.
Well,
I'm
Laura,
19
and
I
­­
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Why
don't
you
just
21
say
your
full
name
for
the
court
reporter,
if
you
22
don't
mind?
23
MS.
KOWLER:
Okay.
Laura
Kowler.
24
And
I
work
with
Environment
California.
In
25
346
numbers
up
here;
we're
represented.
And
I'm
also
new
1
to
the
area
and
getting
familiar
with
California
and
2
San
Francisco,
in
particular,
and
find
that
­­
I'm
3
also
an
athlete.
I
run,
and
I
have
a
really
hard
4
time
running
out
in
the
City.
And
I
feel
5
uncomfortable
about
my
­­
well,
I
just
have
many
6
health
concerns
and
prefer
to
be
out
in
the
farmland
7
when
I'm
running,
but
that's
not
very
possible.
8
But
I
just
wanted
to
say
and
kind
of
9
reiterate
that
it
is
unprecedented
for
any
10
administration
to
reject
the
recommendations
of
its
11
own
independent
clean
air
science
advisors.
And
we
12
all
know
this.
13
In
December
the
Bush
Administration
14
proposed
to
make
only
a
token
change
to
today's
15
standards,
which
would
largely
maintain
the
status
16
quo.
The
Administration
rejected
the
recommendations
17
of
its
Science
Advisors
and
EPA
Staff
Scientists,
18
putting
polluters
over
public
health
and
the
law.
19
And
we
all
know
that
there
is
another
way
20
to
do
this
and
to
clean
the
air
for
everyone,
21
ourselves,
our
generation
and
the
generations
to
22
come.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
24
MS.
KOWLER:
Thank
you.
25
347
MR.
WYMAN:
Hi.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Hi.
2
MR.
WYMAN:
My
name
is
David
Wyman.
I'm
a
3
citizen
and
an
instructor
for
Environment
California
4
in
our
Menlo
Park­
based
Office.
We
canvass
around
5
the
Peninsula
and
South
Bay
area.
And
I
actually
did
6
a
little
bit
of
work
with
Environment
California
this
7
past
summer
up
here
in
San
Francisco
as
well.
8
I
guess
I'm
here
more
to
tell
a
little
bit
9
of
a
personal
story.
I
know
you
guys
all
day
have
10
been
listening
to
doctors
and
professionals
spew
all
11
these
facts
at
you.
And
I
don't
­­
that's
not
where
12
I
come
in.
13
As
a
citizen
and
an
instructor
and
has
a
14
canvasser
for
Environment
California,
I've
had
a
15
chance
to
meet
a
lot
of
people
that
work
with
the
16
organization.
And
as
my
colleagues
have
said,
we've
17
talked
to
thousands
of
people
in
our
time
doing
this
18
job.
And
we
definitely
have
heard
how
the
public
19
feels
about
these
issues.
20
I
guess
what
I
want
to
talk
about
is
that
21
I've
spoken
over
my
time
working
with
the
22
organization
to
some
of
my
colleagues
in
Los
Angeles.
23
I've
heard
personal
stories
from
them
of
going
24
door­
to­
door,
talking
to
people
about
environmental
25
348
issues
that
most
people
tend
to
care
about
and
just
1
making
sure
that
we
keep
these
environmental
issues
2
intact.
3
And
the
stories
that
I've
heard
is
that
my
4
colleagues
can't
do
their
job.
As
they're
walking
5
the
hills
of
Los
Angeles
on
hot
summer
days,
they've
6
had
to
sit
down
on
the
sidewalk
or
on
someone's
lawn
7
and
have
become
sick,
too
sick
to
continue
on
with
8
their
job
to
protect
the
environment
on
issues
that
9
most
of
us
all
care
about,
because
of
the
air
10
pollution
in
Los
Angeles.
11
Now
I,
myself,
am
set
to
go
direct
the
12
office
in
Los
Angeles
starting
after
the
summer,
and
13
I
was
very
excited
because
that's
a
big
office
for
14
our
organization.
However,
I
was
almost
­­
I
almost
15
said
no,
simply
because
I
do
know
how
polluted
the
16
air
is
down
there.
And
that
was,
honestly,
one
of
17
the
biggest
drawbacks
knowing
that
every
single
day
18
I'm
going
to
be
out
there
standing
on
the
street
19
corner
talking
to
people,
knowing
the
air
that
I'm
20
going
to
be
breathing
for
at
least
12
months
of
my
21
life.
22
And
it's
a
shame
that
I
almost
said
no
to
23
do
a
job
in
such
an
important
area
of
our
state
24
simply
because
I
was
afraid
of
breathing
the
air
25
349
five,
six
days
a
week.
And
so
that
is
why
I
am
here
1
asking
you
guys
to
adopt
stronger
standards
for
soot
2
pollution
than
have
been
put
forth
at
this
point.
3
Thank
you.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
5
Thank
you,
both.
6
MS.
KOWLER:
Thank
you.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Jessica
Giannini
and
8
the
Reverend
Sally
Bingham.
9
MS.
GIANNINI:
Hello.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Come
forward,
will
11
you?
We're
trying
to
do
these
two
at
a
time.
12
MS.
GIANNINI:
So
very
quickly,
I
just
13
wanted
to
say
I
work
very
closely
with
several
of
the
14
people
that
were
just
speaking
­­
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Can
you
just
16
introduce
yourself
for
the
purpose
of
the
court
17
reporter,
please?
18
MS.
GIANNINI:
Okay.
My
name
is
Jessica
19
Giannini.
I
am
working
currently
with
CALPIRG.
And
20
we
were
originally
working
with
Environment
21
California.
I'm
basically
here
to
tell
you
that
I
22
used
to
live
in
L.
A.
I
lived
there
for
two
years.
I
23
went
to
school
at
the
California
Institute
of
the
24
Arts.
And
I
used
to
run
with
a
good
friend
of
mine,
25
350
Jessica
Oh,
who
lived
in
Oahu.
And
it
was
her
first
1
time
in
California.
We
used
to
run
every
other
day
2
or
so,
trying
to
keep
in
shape.
3
And
at
first
we
were
able
to
do
it,
no
4
problems,
because
the
Santa
Ana
winds
came
in
and
5
cleaned
out
the
air,
pushed
all
the
pollution
away.
6
But
there
are
days
in
Santa
Clara
Valley
that
are
red
7
or
close
to
red
or
orange,
and
when
we
would
run
on
8
those
days
our
lungs
would
burn
so
hard
that
we
were
9
unable
to
run.
We
would
have
to
literally
stop
and
10
go
and
get
a
gym
membership
so
that
we
could
run
11
indoors
where
we
would
not
be
subjected
to
this
type
12
of
environment.
13
So
I'm
urging
you
today
to
enforce
stricter
14
rules,
because
I've
noticed
­­
I
live
in
San
Jose
15
right
now
­­
I've
noticed
the
air
quality
in
San
Jose
16
is
becoming
more
like
that
of
L.
A.
And
the
more
I
17
see
the
hills
vanish
behind
the
white
clouds
that
are
18
of
smog
I
have
become
very
distraught
because
I
do
19
like
to
run
outside
here.
I'm
an
environmental
20
studies
major
right
now,
and
I
love
to
go
outdoors
21
and
run
and
spend
my
time
in
nature.
And
I
find
it
22
very
disconcerting
that
I
will
not
be
able
to
do
this
23
without
putting
my
health
in
extreme
jeopardy.
24
So
I'm
here
to
urge
you
to
listen
to
the
25
351
scientists
and
listen
to
the
data
that
you've
been
1
told
her
today
to
enforce
stricter
laws
and
to
not
2
weaken
the
laws
that
we
already
have
placed
on
our
3
clean
air.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
for
your
5
time.
6
MR.
HANNON:
Lydia,
I'm
sorry.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
Sure,
john.
8
MR.
HANNON:
Can
I
just
ask
one
question.
9
Several
persons
have
testified
from
10
Environment
California
and
mentioned
that
you
talk
to
11
a
lot
of
people
on
the
street.
12
MS.
GIANNINI:
Yes.
13
MR.
HANNON:
Thousands
of
people.
It's
14
just
of
interest
to
know,
when
you
talk
to
people
15
about
air
pollution
and
their
problems,
do
people
16
draw
distinctions
between
ozone,
PM?
I
mean
we've
17
talked
here
extensively
today
about
coarse
PM,
urban,
18
rural;
fine
PM,
coarse
PM.
19
In
the
discussions
on
the
street
that
you
20
folks
have,
to
what
extent
are
those
distinctions
21
drawn
at
all?
22
MS.
GIANNINI:
Well,
to
be
specifically
23
honest
I
have
not
been
working
with
the
campaign
as
24
much
as
my
colleagues.
I
have
just
recently
joined.
25
352
But
from
my
experience
a
lot
of
these
things
have
1
not
been
brought
to
the
attention
of
the
general
2
population,
­­
3
MR.
HANNON:
Um­
hum,
right.
4
MS.
GIANNINI:
­­
and
so
distinctions
5
between
those
two
specific
types
are
not
necessarily
6
found.
But
a
lot
of
people
do
understand
that
there
7
is
different
types
of
pollution.
They
usually
link
8
it
specifically
to
car
pollution
and
factory
9
pollution,
as
in
coal,
and
such
things,
­­
10
MR.
HANNON:
Right.
11
MS.
GIANNINI:
­­
which
are,
as
I'm
aware,
12
what
you
are
discussing
today,
that
type
of
13
pollution.
So
they
are
a
little
bit
aware
of
the
14
idea
of
the
type
of
specific
pollution.
15
MR.
HANNON:
It's
part
of
the
pollution
16
from
those
sources
is
what
we're
talking
about
today.
17
MS.
GIANNINI:
Right,
right.
I
understand
18
that.
19
Thank
you.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Reverend
Bingham.
21
REVEREND
BINGHAM:
Do
we
need
both
of
22
these?
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
do.
24
REVEREND
BINGHAM:
Yes.
25
353
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
One
is
for
the
court
1
reporter
and
one
is
for
the
room.
2
REVEREND
BINGHAM:
Well,
good
afternoon.
I
3
am
Sally
Bingham.
I
work
as
the
environmental
4
minister
up
at
Grace
Cathedral
on
Nob
Hill.
But
I
5
also
run
a
program
called,
"
The
Regeneration
6
Project,"
and
within
that
we
have
what
we
call
the
7
"
Interfaith
Power
and
Light
Campaign."
And
we've
got
8
programs
in
17
states
around
the
country,
including
9
one
in
Washington,
D.
C.
And
I
travel
to
all
these
10
different
state
programs
speaking
with
our
11
constituencies
and
our
religious
leaders
of
all
12
denominations
in
these
states.
13
And
all
of
these
people
are
concerned
about
14
air
pollution.
In
response
to
the
question
you
just
15
asked
my
tablemate,
I'm
not
sure
that
all
these
16
people
do
understand
the
difference
between
the
17
different
kinds
of
pollutants.
But
there
is
a
18
growing
concern
about
the
health
problems
that
come
19
with
soot
pollution.
20
And
I,
as
a
religious
leader,
I'm
called
to
21
serve
and
protect
the
people
that
we
serve.
And
I've
22
always
felt
that
that
is
also
the
job
of
the
23
Government.
And
I
never
thought
I
would
be
sitting
24
in
front
of
people
defending
myself
and
my
25
354
constituency
against
the
act
of
the
Government.
1
I
think
that
it's
terribly
important
that
2
not
only
our
group,
as
religious
leaders,
but
that
3
anybody
who
sits
in
a
leadership
role
with
the
4
ability
to
regulate
air
will
have
a
personal
5
responsibility
for
being
sure
that
the
air
is
clean
6
that
everyone
breathes,
not
just
people
in
big
cities
7
but
people
in
rural
areas
as
well.
And
there
8
shouldn't
be
a
distinction
between
who
breathes
the
9
clean
air
and
who
doesn't.
All
people
have
a
right
10
to
justice.
11
And
I
believe
that
our
­­
just
using
the
12
example
of
our
campaign
and
the
people
around
the
13
country
who
are
concerned
about
these
issues
­­
14
whether
or
not
the
Government
acts;
the
religious
15
community
will
act.
And
we
have
lead
in
the
past.
16
The
Civil
Rights
Movement
was
lead
by
religious
17
leaders.
The
abolition
of
slavery,
women's
rights
to
18
vote,
these
are
all
things
where
the
religious
19
community
has
played
a
major
role.
20
And
we
are
prepared
to
do
that
again
and
21
fight
for
healthy,
clean
air
for
all
Americans
and
22
particularly
those
that
are
the
most
vulnerable.
I
23
mean
particularly
in
the
religious
community
that
is
24
an
issue.
The
religious
community
folks
are
called
25
355
to
protect
the
least
of
us.
And,
as
you
probably
1
have
heard
many
times,
Jesus
said,
"
Whatever
you
do
2
to
the
least
of
us
you
do
to
me."
3
And
I
would
like
to
have
it
go
on
record
4
that
our
campaign
in
all
these
states
around
the
5
country
is
in
power,
heavy
support
of
strict
and
very
6
thorough
air
quality
regulations.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Well,
thank
8
you
very
much
for
your
testimony
from
both
of
you.
9
Any
questions
at
all?
10
Thank
you.
11
Moira
Chapin
and
Adam
Harper.
12
MS.
CHAPIN:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
13
Moira
Chapin.
I'm
a
Field
Organizer
with
Environment
14
California.
I
think
you
heard
already
we're
a
15
statewide
environmental
group.
16
Thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
17
testify
today.
I'm
here
today
to
urge
you
to
heed
18
the
scientific
community
and
protect
public
health
by
19
substantially
strengthening
the
Air
Quality
Standards
20
for
Fine
Particle
Soot
Pollution.
I
live
in
Los
21
Angeles.
I'm
well
acquainted
with
air
pollution
as
22
others
have
mentioned.
You
know
you
can
see
the
smog
23
on
a
daily
basis.
24
But
what
we're
talking
about
here
today,
25
356
soot
pollution
is
particles
so
fine
that
they're
one­
1
thirtieth
the
size
of
a
human
hair.
I
think
somebody
2
said
earlier
today
that
soot
pollution
is
a
silent
3
killer.
Tiny
particles
that
can
bypass
the
body's
4
natural
defenses
and
lodge
deep
in
the
lungs.
So
5
it's
something
that
is
almost
more
frightening
that
6
way
in
that
it's
harder
to
see
something
that
we're
7
not
necessarily
aware
of
every
day.
8
It's
also
our
nation's
deadliest
air
9
pollutant
and
one
of
its
most
pervasive.
Fine
10
particle
pollution
can
cause
asthma
attacks,
lung
11
cancer,
heart
attacks,
and
even
strokes.
12
Small
particles
are
so
dangerous
that
they
13
cause
tens
of
thousands
of
premature
deaths
every
14
year,
cutting
off
the
lives
of
victims
by
an
average
15
of
14
years,
according
to
one
EPA
estimate.
16
Combustion
sources
such
as
coal­
fired
power
17
plants
and
diesel
engines
are
the
largest
sources
of
18
fine
particles
which
can
fall
close
to
home
or
travel
19
thousands
of
miles
through
the
air.
20
While
air
quality
has
improved
in
the
U.
S.
21
since
the
inception
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
in
1970,
by
22
EPA's
own
count
over
88
million
Americans
still
live
23
in
areas
with
unsafe
levels
of
soot
pollution.
24
In
our
own
recent
survey
of
state
25
357
environmental
agencies,
we
found
that
fine
particle
1
levels
exceeded
National
Air
Quality
Standards
for
2
soot
in
nearly
half
the
states,
including
California.
3
In
fact,
California
actually
ranks
first
in
the
4
county
or
worst
for
the
worst
annual
pollution.
5
What
this
means
is
that
our
state
is
6
polluted
year­
round.
With
sensitive
groups
such
7
senior
citizens,
children
with
asthma,
and
people
8
with
heart
and
lung
disease
bearing
the
brunt
of
this
9
and
suffering
the
most.
10
Incredibly,
despite
the
magnitude
of
the
11
health
risks
from
fine
particles
we
had
no
national
12
air
quality
standards
for
fine
particle
soot
13
pollution
until
1997.
Today
we
are
still
operating
14
under
the
same
Annual
and
Daily
Standards
that
EPA
15
adopted
then,
standards
intended
to
establish
how
16
much
soot
is
safe
to
breathe
on
a
regular
basis
and
17
on
any
one
given
day.
18
Unfortunately,
the
levels
at
which
both
the
19
Annual
and
Daily
Standards
were
set
are
far
too
weak
20
to
protect
public
health.
21
Over
2,000
peer
review
studies
have
shown
22
that
fine
particle
exposure,
whether
longterm
or
23
shortterm,
has
devastating
health
effects
even
at
24
levels
well
below
the
current
standard.
And
the
more
25
358
we
learn
about
the
health
effects
of
soot,
the
more
1
we
realize
the
severity
of
the
threats.
2
For
instance,
a
major
study
published
just
3
last
November
found
that
the
chronic
health
effects
4
of
fine
particles
are
two
to
three
times
greater
than
5
previously
believed
and
that
for
each
increase
of
ten
6
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
fine
particles
in
the
7
air
the
risk
of
death
from
any
cause
rose
by
11
to
17
8
percent.
9
Such
knowledge
clearly
demands
action
and
10
so
does
the
law.
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
the
EPA
11
must
set
air
quality
standards
to
protect
public
12
health,
including
the
health
of
sensitive
groups,
13
with
an
adequate
margin
of
safety,
14
I
think
this
phrase
has
been
repeated
many
15
times
today,
but
once
again
it
bears
repeating.
The
16
Agency
must
review
Air
Quality
Standards
every
five
17
years
to
ensure
that
they
reflect
the
latest
18
scientific
knowledge
and
update
the
standards
as
19
needed.
20
Last
year
both
the
EPA
Staff
Scientists
and
21
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee,
the
22
Administration's
Independent
Science
Advisors
on
Air
23
Pollution
Issues
concluded
that
the
Fine
Particle
24
Standards
are
too
weak
to
protect
public
health.
As
25
359
a
result,
they
recommended
that
the
Administration
1
strengthen
the
standards.
2
The
medical
and
scientific
communities
both
3
endorsed
the
strongest
standards
within
EPA's
4
recommended
ranges,
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
5
the
Annual
Standard
and
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
6
for
the
Daily
Standard.
7
Regrettably,
despite
having
knowledge
that
8
soot
pollution
is,
quote:
Our
most
pressing
9
air­
quality
problem,
unquote,
the
Administration
has
10
chosen
to
disregard
the
advice
of
its
own
Scientific
11
Advisors.
In
the
face
of
overwhelming
evidence
of
12
the
harmful
effect
of
fine
particles
it
has
proposed
13
no
change
whatsoever
to
the
Annual
Standard
and
only
14
a
limited
reduction
in
the
Daily
Standard,
a
15
reduction
that
will
have
very
little
impact
on
16
improving
public
health.
17
In
short,
it
has
opted
to
largely
maintain
18
the
status
quo
under
pressure
from
power
companies
19
and
other
powerful
special
interests
and
at
the
20
expense
of
public
health.
21
I'm
extremely
disappointed
in
the
22
Administration's
proposal
which
puts
politics
over
23
science
and
the
law,
leaving
millions
of
Californians
24
and
Americans
across
the
country
to
suffer
the
25
360
consequences.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Could
you
please
wrap
2
up?
3
MS.
CHAPIN:
Yes.
4
It's
not
too
late
to
change
the
course.
We
5
urge
the
Administration
to
revisit
this
proposal
and,
6
once
again,
heed
the
recommendations
of
the
medical
7
and
scientific
communities
and
strengthen
the
8
standard
to
protect
public
health.
Thank
you.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
10
Just
a
couple
of
requests.
You
mentioned
11
that
studies
show
or
you
had
information
showing
that
12
the
lives
of
victims
were
shortened
by
14
years.
13
MS.
CHAPIN:
Um­
hum.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Do
you
have
any
­­
or
15
can
you
supply
information
to
support
that
statement?
16
MS.
CHAPIN:
Yes,
I
can
get
that,
too.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
let's
see
what
18
other
­­
19
MS.
STONE:
A
November
article.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah,
you
referenced
21
a
November
article.
If
you
can
provide
that
article,
22
that
would
be
helpful.
23
MS.
STONE:
Get
it
to
us.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
then
you
also
25
361
mentioned
that
standards
were
exceeded
­­
if
I
heard
1
you
correctly
­­
in
over
half
the
states?
2
MS.
CHAPIN:
Right.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
you
can
provide
4
your
support
for
statement.
5
MS.
CHAPIN:
Sure.
We
recently
released
a
6
report
on
that.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
8
MS.
CHAPIN:
Yes.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
Thank
10
you.
11
No
questions.
Okay.
12
Mr.
Harper.
13
MR.
HARPER:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
14
Adam
Harper.
I'm
the
Association
Manager
of
the
15
California
Mining
Association.
I
am
speaking
today
16
on
behalf
of
the
National
Stone,
Sand
and
Gravel
17
Association;
California
Mining
Association;
and
the
18
Construction
Materials
Association
of
California.
19
As
trade
associations,
we
represent
a
broad
20
group
of
mining
and
construction
material
suppliers
21
with
substantial
interest
in
reasonable
regulation
of
22
coarse
particle
emissions.
23
In
the
debate
over
Coarse
PM
Standards,
24
almost
everyone
seems
to
agree
that
the
health
25
362
evidence
is
relatively
weak
and
additional
research
1
is
needed.
Some
believe
that
no
standards
should
be
2
adopted
absence
new
evidence
demonstrating
a
national
3
public
health
threat.
4
Others
believe
that
the
EPA
should
adopt
a
5
standard
based
on
the
current
evidence
pending
6
additional
research.
EPA's
proposal
essentially
7
adopts
the
latter
approach
with
exclusions
for
8
certain
types
of
emissions
that
have
not
been
shown
9
to
be
harmful.
That
is
discussed
in
EPA's
Criteria
10
Document
for
PM.
11
If
the
EPA
proceeds
with
the
proposed
12
approach
it's
imperative
for
the
Agency
to
provide
13
exclusions
for
emissions
that
have
not
been
shown
to
14
be
harmful
wherever
they
are
located.
15
When
Congress
adopted
the
Ambient
Standard
16
Provisions
they
made
it
clear
that
the
standards
must
17
be
based
on
significant
risk
of
harm.
Industries
are
18
not
required
to
prove
the
absence
of
harm,
because
19
the
resulting
economic
dislocation
may
be
substantial
20
but
unnecessary.
21
The
administrator,
when
establishing
22
National
Primary
and
Secondary
Ambient
Air
Quality
23
Standards
follows
Clean
Air
Act
Section
108(
a)(
1)(
A),
24
which
states:
Emissions
of
which
in
his
judgment
25
363
cause
or
contribute
to
air
pollution
which
reasonably
1
may
be
anticipated
to
endanger
the
public
health
or
2
welfare.
3
This
is
relevant
as
EPA's
current
Criteria
4
Document
contains
the
strongest
statements
yet,
that
5
normal
exposure
to
crustal
material
is
not
likely
to
6
be
harmful
and
would
therefore
be
unlikely
to
7
endanger
the
public
health.
8
This
is
recognized
in
the
EPA
Staff
Paper
9
and
the
report
prepared
by
the
Clean
Air
Scientific
10
Advisory
Committee.
The
EPA
summarized
it
this
way
11
in
the
Federal
Register
notice.
The
limited
evidence
12
does
not
support
either
the
existence
or
the
lack
of
13
causative
associations
for
community
exposures
to
14
thoracic
coarse
particles
from
agricultural
or
mining
15
industries.
16
In
the
EPA
Staff
Paper
EPA
notes:
Ambient
17
PM10
to
2.5
exposure
is
associated
with
health
18
effects
and
studies
conducted
in
urban
areas
and
the
19
limited
available
health
evidence
more
strongly
20
implicates
coarse
particles
from
industrial
and
21
traffic­
related
sources
than
from
uncontaminated
soil
22
or
geologic
sources.
23
As
a
result,
the
EPA
Staff
Report
24
appropriately
calls
for
an
exclusion
for
mining
25
364
operations
handling
crustal
materials
in
rural
areas.
1
However,
it
would
regulate
urban
emissions
that
are
2
not
likely
to
be
harmful,
as
they
have
the
same
3
source
characteristics
as
mines
in
rural
areas.
4
The
Proposed
Standard
is
based
on
5
epidemiological
studies
of
exposure
to
the
dust
that
6
swirls
in
the
streets
of
Detroit
and
other
major
7
cites.
8
In
contrast,
many
emissions
from
our
9
industries
consist
predominately
of
natural
crustal
10
material.
There
has
been
some
discussion
of
11
addressing
this
problem
by
restricting
the
Coarse
PM
12
Standard
to
urban
areas.
We
do
not
believe
that
such
13
an
approach
would
be
appropriate
or
workable.
While
14
it
is
suitable
for
rural
sources,
it
would
regulate
15
urban
emissions
that
are
not
likely
to
be
harmful
16
merely
because
of
the
source
location.
17
The
same
emissions
from
the
same
type
of
18
source
in
other
locations
would
not
be
regulated.
We
19
do
not
believe
the
scientific
record
justifies
such
20
discrimination
and
we
do
not
understand
EPA's
21
proposal
to
require
it.
22
As
we
read
EPA's
proposal
such
sources
23
would
be
excluded
from
the
standard
due
to
24
requirements
for
monitor
placement.
25
365
We
appreciate
the
willingness
of
EPA
staff
1
and
CASAC
to
hear
and
consider
industry's
concerns.
2
We
believe
that
these
concerns
are
the
basis
for
the
3
exclusion
that
EPA
has
proposed
for
mining,
4
agricultural,
and
similar
emissions.
5
For
the
reasons
I
have
stated,
we
believe
6
that
the
exclusion
is
both
scientifically
justified
7
and
legally
required.
We
fully
support
the
exclusion
8
and
request
that
it
be
expanded
to
include
crustal
9
emissions
from
urban
operations
as
well.
10
If
EPA
proceeds
to
adopt
a
final
for
coarse
11
PM,
we
believe
that
the
proposed
exclusion
must
be
12
retained
and
expanded
to
ensure
against
regulation
of
13
crustal
and
other
emissions
that
have
not
been
shown
14
to
be
harmful.
Based
on
the
current
scientific
15
record,
we
believe
that
such
an
appreciate
would
16
provide
complaint
public
health
protection
while
17
protecting
against
unnecessary
economic
disruption.
18
Focusing
regulatory
efforts
on
areas
where
19
the
health
risks
have
been
more
clearly
established,
20
rather
than
being
inconclusive,
if
EPA
includes
21
sources
where
there
are
no
significant
proven
risks,
22
it
is
quite
possible
future
emissions
reductions
will
23
not
be
made
in
the
noncrustal
coarse
PM
of
concern
24
but
rather
the
crustal
sources
with
no
proven
25
366
benefits
to
society.
1
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
note
that
as
an
2
industry
we're
very
proud
of
our
long
efforts
to
3
reduce
PM10
emissions.
Emissions
from
our
operations
4
and
according
to
the
California
Air
Resources
Board's
5
own
emissions
inventory
estimate
the
mining
industry
6
has
made
real
reductions
in
PM10
emissions.
7
In
1975
mineral
processes
accounted
for
8
nearly
five
percent
of
the
state's
annual
PM
9
emissions,
compared
to
less
than
two
percent
in
2005.
10
This
is
not
just
a
percentage
reduction,
but
a
real
11
reduction
of
PM10
made
by
over
54
tons
per
day.
In
12
that
same
time
the
production
of
aggregate
from
sand
13
and
gravel
operations
has
increased
78
percent
from
14
88
million
tons
a
year
to
158
million
tons
a
year
in
15
2003.
16
In
contrast,
emissions
from
paved
roads
17
have
went
from
seven
percent
to
17
percent
at
the
18
state's
inventory
of
PM10
emissions
with
an
increase
19
of
over
200
tons
per
day.
Again,
thank
you
for
the
20
time
and
opportunity
to
comment.
I'd
be
happy
to
21
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I
want
to
make
sure
23
I'm
understanding
the
point
you're
making.
24
MR.
HARPER:
Okay.
25
367
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Is
your
concern
that
1
the
proposed
exclusion
for
agriculture
and
mining
and
2
other
similar
sources
does
not
apply
in
urban
areas?
3
MR.
HARPER:
Correct.
That
exclusion
to
4
crustal
materials,
is
that
an
incorrect
reading?
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
it's
a
blanket
6
exclusion
­­
7
MR.
HARPER:
Okay.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
as
several
of
our
9
commentors
have
noted.
So
it
would
apply
in
urban
10
and
rural
both,
as
proposed.
11
MR.
HARPER:
Okay.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
So
I
just
want
to
13
make
sure
I
was
understanding
your
point.
14
MR.
HARPER:
All
right.
15
MR.
HANLEY:
I
have
a
related
question.
16
There
was
a
prior
­­
two
prior
witnesses
17
who
spoke
to
the
issue
of
transport
from
a
rural
area
18
into
the
urban
area
of
materials,
coarse
materials
19
from
sand
to
gravel
operations,
for
example.
And
I
20
wondered
­­
and
one
commentor
mentioned
that
it
was
21
appropriate
to
not
have
them
­­
to
have
them
treated
22
under
the
exclusion
that
was
proposed,
recognizing
23
that
at
the
same
time
the
operations
would
still
be
24
subject
to
state
restrictions
under
nuisance
law
or
25
368
permitting
under
use
restrictions.
1
Is
that
your
understanding
as
well?
2
MR.
HARPER:
Certainly
­­
at
least
I
know
3
in
California
local
jurisdictions
have
broad
permit
4
authority,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
unique
to
5
California,
but
we
are
a
three­
tiered
system
of
6
government.
So,
yes,
locals
have
the
permitting
7
authority
in
California.
Within
that
they
do
put
8
requirements
on
operations
in
a
variety
of
areas.
9
MR.
HANNON:
And
your
understanding
is
that
10
our
proposal
would
not
stop
that;
it
would
not
11
interfere
with
that?
12
MR.
HARPER:
No,
it
would
not.
13
MR.
HANNON:
Thank
you.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
both.
15
Dr.
Janice
Kim
and
Dr.
Ronald
Wyzga.
Are
16
you
both
here?
Is
Dr.
Janice
Kim
here?
17
MS.
STONE:
She
was
here
earlier.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Right.
Okay.
19
How
about
Lee
Jones?
20
DR.
WYZGA:
Here.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Do
you
want
to
22
come
forward?
23
DR.
WYZGA:
Sure.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
Dr.
Wyzga,
if
25
369
you're
ready.
1
DR.
WYZGA:
Okay.
I'm
Dr.
Ron
Wyzga.
I'm
2
a
Technical
Executive
at
the
Electric
Power
Research
3
Institute.
And
today
I'd
like
to
tell
you
about
4
recent
results
from
EPRI­
sponsored
research
that
may
5
be
helpful
to
your
consideration
of
the
annual
PM
6
NAAQS.
7
The
level
of
that
standard
is
influenced
8
largely
by
the
results
of
longterm
mortality
studies,
9
studies
in
which
mortality
experiences
related
to
10
longer­
term
air
quality
levels,
most
often
an
annual
11
average
level
of
pollution.
12
We
sponsored
two
studies
of
longterm
13
mortality.
One
is
a
study
of
a
cohort
of
over
a
14
hundred
thousand
Californians
that
have
been
followed
15
since
1959.
The
other
is
a
study
of
about
70,000
16
male
veterans
who
have
been
followed
since
1976.
17
The
initial
studies
and
study
populations
18
are
described
in
the
published
papers.
The
initial
19
papers
of
the
veterans'
study
were
discussed
in
the
20
Criteria
Document
for
PM.
However,
two
very
recent
21
publications
from
these
studies
are
not
included
in
22
that
document,
and
I
have
copies
of
them
which
I'll
23
leave
at
the
front
desk.
And
they're
a
recent
paper
24
published
by
Enstrom
in
2005,
Inhalation
Toxicology,
25
370
and
a
second
paper
by
Lipfert,
et
al.,
public
in
1
2006,
Atmospheric
Environment.
2
The
key
findings
of
the
papers
are
as
3
follows:
The
Enstrom
2005
paper
finds
basically
that
4
PM
2.5
is
statistically
significant
associated
with
5
total
mortality
only
for
the
earliest
time
period
6
study,
from
1973
to
1982.
Associations
in
later
time
7
periods,
'
83
through
'
92;
and
'
93
through
2002
8
between
mortality
and
PM
were
negative,
but
they
were
9
not
statistically
significant.
10
The
Lipfert,
et
al.
paper
published
in
11
2006,
reports
on
the
association
between
longterm
12
mortality
and
measures
of
PM
2.5,
ozone,
CO,
SO2,
13
coarse
PM,
and
traffic
density.
14
In
single
pollutant
are
traffic
variable
15
analyses
statistically
significant
associations
were
16
found
between
mortality
and
traffic
density,
17
mortality
in
peak
ozone,
mortality
in
PM
2.5,
18
mortality
in
nonsulfate
PM
2.5,
and
mortality
and
19
coarse
PM.
20
Multipollutant
models,
that
is
models
in
21
which
we
consider
more
than
one
pollutant,
indicate
22
that
the
traffic
density
variable
dominates
all
of
23
the
pollution
variables.
It
alone
retains
24
statistical
significance
in
multipollutant
models.
25
371
It's
unclear
whether
traffic
density
is
a
1
surrogate
for
an
unmeasured
pollutant
or
some
other
2
characteristic
associated
with
traffic
density,
for
3
example
stress
or
noise.
4
More
recent
results,
which
are
not
yet
5
published
from
the
same
studies,
on
the
California
6
cohort
we've
looked
at
other
pollutants
besides
PM
7
2.5
in
the
ozone,
carbon
monoxide,
NO2,
SO2,
and
8
measured
traffic
density.
And
we
get
similar
risk
9
estimates
for
each
of
these
variables,
as
well
as
for
10
traffic
density.
11
Using
multivariant
models
we're
not
able
to
12
identify
any
one
of
these
variables
as
being
more
13
highly
significantly
associated
with
mortality
than
14
any
others.
In
other
words,
we
couldn't
separate
15
them
out.
That
manuscript
is
in
preparation.
16
The
most
recent
results
of
the
veterans
17
study,
we've
made
use
of
the
detailed
data
that
EPA
18
has
collected
from
its
speciation
trends
network.
19
And
so
we
had
data
available
for
a
whole
host
of
20
metal
ions,
elemental
carbon,
organic
carbon,
21
sulfate,
and
nitrate.
22
In
single
pollutant
models,
statistically
23
significant
associations
were
found
between
longterm
24
mortality
and
elemental
carbon,
nitrate,
vanadium,
25
372
and
nickel.
1
In
multipollutant
models
the
measure
of
2
traffic
density
appeared
to
dominate
all
of
the
above
3
measures.
However,
in
models
without
a
traffic
4
density
variable
the
most
important
pollutant
5
variables
were
elemental
carbon
and
nitrates,
which
6
are
sometimes
significantly
associated
with
7
mortality,
depending
upon
the
model.
That
manuscript
8
has
been
submitted
for
publication.
We
received
9
reviewers'
comments;
they've
been
responded
to.
And
10
we're
now
waiting
a
decision
on
the
Journal.
If
it's
11
accepted
before
some
deadline
date
we'll
let
you
know
12
and
get
you
a
copy
as
soon
as
we
possible
can.
13
We've
done
extensive
research
in
other
14
areas.
And
we'll
make
sure
that
we
get
you
all
of
15
our
key
resource
results
in
time
for
the
April
17th
16
deadline.
I
thank
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
18
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you
for
showing
that.
19
Regarding
the
multipollutant
model,
when
20
you
consider
characterization
of
the
ambient
air
21
measurements,
do
you
look
for
area­
wide,
systematic
22
area­
wide
concentrations
as
averages
or
do
you
look
23
for
peaks,
you
know,
considering
where
the
monitor
24
locations
are
when
you
compare
one
pollutant
to
25
373
another
in
the
model?
1
DR.
WYZGA:
Basically
we've
used
­­
okay.
2
3
Spatially
we've
looked
at
an
average
concentration
4
within
a
county.
5
MR.
HANLEY:
Okay.
6
DR.
WYZGA:
Or
except
in
the
California
7
case
I
think
we
did
it
within
zip
codes.
We
did.
So
8
we
had
an
area­
wide
measure
for
zip
code.
9
Temporally
we
did
look
at
some
peak
10
concentrations,
especially
for
some
of
the
gases.
11
And
we
found
that
when
we
tended
to
look
at
the
peak
12
concentrations
we
got
higher
associations
than
when
13
we
looked
at
24­
hour.
We
measured
such
things
as
CO,
14
ozone.
The
peak
concentrations
appeared
to
be
more
15
important
than
24­
hour.
16
MR.
HANLEY:
Thank
you.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
18
Mr.
Jones.
19
MR.
JONES:
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
20
come
before
you
today.
My
name
is
Lee
Jones.
And
21
I'm
a
resident
of
North
Richmond.
And
I
won't
read
22
any
reports
because
I
want
to
give
you
my
personal
23
experience.
24
As
I
say
we
live
in
the
"
belly
of
the
25
374
beast."
And
that
is
in
West
County.
That
is
1
surrounded
by
Parchester
Village,
Iron
Triangle,
and
2
West
San
Pablo.
We
have
General
Chemical;
we
have
3
Chevron;
we
have
two
­­
well,
three
railroads,
three
4
railroads
that
run
around
there.
One
is
the
UP
and
5
one
is
BNSF,
and
one
is
the
Richmond
Railroad.
6
And
we
also
have
trains
that
unload
7
shipments
of
cars
in
the
community.
And
not
only
do
8
we
have
trains
but
we
also
have
trucks,
those
big­
box
9
warehouses
that
stand
on
the
community.
We
have
­­
10
well,
as
I
say,
we
live
in
the
belly
of
the
beast.
11
When
I
first
moved
there
I
noticed
that
I
­
12
­
you
know
I
love
flowers.
I
had
my
flowers
out,
and
13
I
could
never
figure
out
why
was
the
leaves
falling
14
off,
getting
these
little
brown
spots
on
them.
And
15
not
only
that,
too,
I
noticed
that
­­
I
have
panel
on
16
my
home.
I
have
to
wash
that
down
during
the
summer
17
at
least
every
other
month.
And
I
notice
there
was
18
that
black
stuff
on
it
all
the
time.
19
And
I
realized
later
on,
after
I
had
taken
20
a
few
seminars,
that
that
was
soot,
soot
from
the
21
freeways.
I
live
between
three
freeways:
580,
I­
80,
22
and
the
Richmond
Parkway.
And
those
are
very
heavily
23
traveled
with
trucks.
24
The
Port
of
Richmond
just
recently
blocked
25
375
Sacramento
so
they
can
cut
down
on
some
of
the
1
traffic
that's
going
to
be
running
up
I­
80
so
that
2
they
can
use
the
ships
to
transfer
from
Oakland
to
3
Sacramento.
4
But
as
you
know,
those
ships
also
run
off
5
that
bunker
fuel,
which
is
very
thick
and
black.
So
6
they're
really
not
doing
us
much
of
a
favor
simply
7
because,
as
I
say,
we
are
bombarded
with
all
of
that
8
stuff.
9
I
suffer
from
asthma.
My
granddaughter
10
suffers
from
asthma.
And
my
wife
is
constantly
11
coughing
up
mucus.
12
And
if
you
would
come
out
and
visit
my
13
community,
I
would
like
you
to
visit
1555
Third
14
Street,
which
is
a
senior
building
that
houses
15
seniors.
Those
seniors
came
out
there
right
after
16
the
war.
And
really
you
will
see
them
walking
around
17
with
these
air
tanks
where
they're
breathing
oxygen,
18
and
they're
constantly
spitting
all
the
time.
19
And
those
are
the
things
that
we
have
in
20
our
community.
Our
community
is,
like
I
said,
is
21
just
­­
it's
bombarded
with
PM,
PM10.
We
asked
for
22
monitors,
but
we
have
­­
I
understand
there's
a
23
monitor.
I
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
be
checked
24
that
often.
What
we
really
would
like
to
have
are
25
376
monitors
that
measure
PM
2.5,
because
we
recognize
1
that
there
is
a
good
movement
that's
on
its
way.
2
And
since
we
have
three
railroads,
tracks,
3
three
railroad
companies
that
running
by
the
home.
4
And
as
a
matter
of
fact,
we
have
some
homes
that's
5
less
than
50
feet
from
a
railroad.
I
mean
this
is
6
like
a
fence
line.
7
And
not
only
do
they
run
that
close,
but
8
there
are
times
when
the
railroad
­­
when
the
train
9
will
set
there
and
stay
parked
for
up
to
one
or
two
10
hours
so
that
they
can
allow
one
train
to
pass
by
11
while
another
one,
you
know,
comes
through.
And
they
12
use
that.
And
that's
less
than
­­
that's
right
in
13
somebody's
backyard.
14
And,
you
know,
if
you're
there
when
those
15
trains
are
sitting
there,
sometime
they're
like
three
16
or
four
of
these
locomotives,
because
they
are
real
17
long.
And
I
mean
the
whole
community
is
just
lit
up
18
with
soot
and
the
smell.
It
smells
awful.
19
And
immediately
you
start
coughing,
too,
20
because
your
eyes
begin
to
burn
and
your
throat
begin
21
to
burn.
And
we
know
that's
what
it
is.
We've
asked
22
the
railroad
to
cut
us
a
little
slack
and
not
do
23
that,
but
they
totally
ignore
us.
And
we're
in
the
24
process
of
hoping
that
we
can
get
to
sit
down
and
25
377
talk
to
them
and
see
if
they
won't
come
up
with
some
1
high­
tech
equipment
because
we
now
recognize
there
is
2
high­
tech
equipment,
but
will
they
please,
especially
3
those
small
trains
that's
doing
all
the
pushing
and
4
pulling
and
chaining,
you
know,
unloading
there.
If
5
they
would
use
some
of
the
high­
tech
equipment
or
6
some
of
the
new
diesels
that
just
came
out
­­
I
7
understand
GE
has
a
wonderful
that
perhaps
fill
8
almost
90
percent
of
the
PM.
9
But,
like
I
said,
we
need
help
out
there
10
because,
like
I
say,
we
are
dying
and
we're
sick.
11
And,
like
I
say,
if
you
come
out
and
walk
in
our
12
community,
it
is
a
community
of
color,
and
it's
a
13
poor
community,
you
would
see
the
people
walking
14
around
out
there,
they
look
like
zombies.
Their
lack
15
of
energy
because
they're
sick.
16
And
we
also
have
a
brain
drain,
because
17
those
people
that
can
move
out
moved
out
because
they
18
recognized
what
was
going
on
in
the
community.
And,
19
like
I
said,
you
know,
that's
what
is
going
on
out
20
there.
We
need
lots
of
help
out
there.
And
we're
21
hoping
that
you
guys
will
make
sure
that
the
laws
are
22
really
strict
and
stick
to
it.
23
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we
need
something
24
better
because,
like
I
says,
just
the
average
is
not
25
378
going
to
get
by,
especially
with
the
good
moving
up
1
here
which
is
going
to
increase
15
to
20
percent
in
2
the
next
­­
between
2010
and
2020.
We
won't
be
able
3
to
make
it
out
there.
We
will
be
bombarded
with
that
4
type
of
stuff.
Thank
you.
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Thank
6
you,
both,
very
much.
7
MR.
JONES:
And,
by
the
way,
we
did
a
8
study.
Did
you
all
see
this?
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
A
previous
10
speaker
provided
us
those
studies.
11
MR.
JONES:
Yes.
Thank
you.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
13
Michael
Steele
and
John
Kinsman.
14
MR.
STEELE:
Well,
good
afternoon.
My
name
15
is
Michael
Steele.
I
live
in
Oakland,
California,
16
but
I've
lived
all
over
the
country.
17
I'm
here
with
Environment
California
but
18
I've
been
an
environmental
activist
pretty
much
most
19
of
my
life.
I
live
­­
well,
with
many
cancer
rates
20
on
the
rise
all
over
the
country
it's
pretty
much
a
21
travesty
for
the
Bush
Administration
to
even
be
22
considering
relaxing
controls
on
this
type
of
23
pollution.
Current
restrictions
are
already
too
lax.
24
I'm
sure
that
a
number
of
people
have
25
379
already
spoken
to
this
effect.
I
really
just
got
1
here
about
20
minutes
ago.
2
What
concerns
me,
though,
is
that
this
3
would
be
another
in
a
long
line
of
concessions
that
4
the
current
Administration
has
given
to
corporate
5
interests
at
the
expense
of
common
folk.
Whether
6
these
people
live
in
rural
or
urban
areas
seems
of
no
7
consequence
at
all.
8
For
an
organization
known
as
the
9
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
allow
this
would
10
be
a
violation
of
their
charter
as
far
as
I
can
see
11
and
a
betrayal
of
the
citizens
of
this
country.
12
Thank
you.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
14
And
if
you
can
take
both
mics
please;
one
15
for
the
court
reporter.
16
MR.
KINSMAN:
My
name
is
John
Kisman
and
I
17
am
Director
of
Air
Quality
Programs
at
the
Edison
18
Electric
Institute
which
is
the
association
of
U.
S.
19
shareholder­
owned
electric
companies.
20
Our
plants
and
other
industrial
sources
21
have
been
making
dramatic
reductions
in
emissions
for
22
several
decades
while
supplying
the
nation's
23
increasing
demand
for
energy
and
consumer
products.
24
Between
1970
and
2004,
according
to
the
EPA,
energy
25
380
consumption
increased
47
percent.
The
total
1
emissions
from
all
sources
of
the
six
principal
air
2
pollutants
dropped
by
54
percent.
3
The
electric
power
sector
has
cut
4
emissions,
such
as
a
fine
particle,
particulate
5
matter,
sulfur
dioxide,
and
nitrogen
oxides
by
more
6
than
40
percent
since
1980.
And
when
EPA
tightens
7
the
Fine
Particle
Standards,
as
proposed,
or
leaves
8
the
current
standards
in
place,
air
quality
will
9
continue
to
dramatically
improve.
10
The
power
sector
is
on
track
to
reduce
its
11
sulfur
oxide,
and
NOx,
and
nitrogen
oxide
emission
12
rates
in
pounds
per
million
megawatt
hours
by
more
13
than
90
percent
compared
to
1980
levels
upon
14
implementation
of
EPA's
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule,
15
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule,
and
Clean
Air
Visibility
16
Rule.
These
amount
to
huge
pollution
cuts
already
in
17
the
pipeline,
ordered
just
within
this
past
year,
and
18
we
think
that
EPA
should
give
them
a
chance
to
work
19
before
seeking
additional
emission
reductions.
20
Moving
on,
we're
going
to
focus
our
21
comments
on
the
24­
hour
Fine
Particle
Standard
22
proposal,
which
EPA
has
proposed
to
dramatically
23
tighten.
EEI
supports
the
establishment
of
Air
24
Quality
Standards
based
on
a
complete
and
thorough
25
381
review
of
the
current
body
of
scientific
literature.
1
Unfortunately,
we
do
not
believe
EPA
has
conducted
2
such
a
review.
3
Simply
stated,
EPA
staff
has
cherrypicked
4
the
science
while
giving
short
shrift
to
studies
that
5
suggest
PM
2.5
or
fine
particles
present
little
or
no
6
concern.
An
influential
EPA
staff
memo
given
to
the
7
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
to
8
characterize
the
mortality
risk
of
fine
particles
9
over
short
time
periods
omitted
ten
studies
that
show
10
mostly
no
effect
or
mixed
effects
of
fine
particles.
11
When
the
complete
set
of
studies
from
EPA's
12
particulate
matter
Category
Document
is
considered,
13
only
three
show
statistically
significant
effects
of
14
fine
particles,
one
at
about
today's
standard
and
two
15
at
just
above
EPA's
new
proposed
Fine
Particle
16
Standard
for
24
hours.
17
Equally
important
is
the
fact
that
EPA's
18
review
of
the
scientific
literature
fails
and
assess
19
and
identify
specific
types
of
particles
or
other
20
pollutants
present
in
the
air
along
with
fine
21
particulate
matter
that
may
be
more
significantly
22
associated
with
health
concerns.
23
This
shortcoming
has
been
raised
by
the
24
National
Academy
of
Sciences
and
EPA's
own
Office
of
25
382
Inspector
General.
As
a
result
EPA
does
not
know
1
which
of
the
many
substances
that
comprise
fine
2
particulate
matter
might
be
causing
a
problem.
3
Legitimate
health
concerns
must
be
4
addressed,
but
moving
ahead
with
a
plan
that
may
not,
5
in
fact,
is
in
no
one's
best
interest.
EPA's
6
Inspector
General
has
recognized
that
the
potential
7
folly
of
heading
further
down
the
road
to
a
8
regulation
without
adequate
guidance
as
to
what
9
should
be
regulated.
10
In
February
2005,
quote:
The
inspector
11
general
determined
that
by
2010
industry
would
spend
12
$
37
billion
annually
to
reduce
ambient
fine
particle
13
concentrations
despite
the
fact
that
EPA
has
14
inadequate
fine
particle
speciation
data
to
help
15
ensure
that
reductions
are
made
by
the
right
sources.
16
The
consequences
of
being
labeled
a
17
nonattainment
area
or
county
go
beyond
the
tens
of
18
billions
of
dollars
in
costs
to
industry
each
year
19
that
also
impact
consumers
with
higher
costs
for
20
energy
and
consumer
goods.
21
A
nonattainment
status
encourages
new
22
industry
from
locating
within
such
areas
and
may
23
prevent
existing
industries
from
expanding.
And
the
24
additional
requirements
imposed
on
individual­
­­
25
383
industrial
sources
within
these
areas
may
cause
some
1
facilities
to
shut
down
and
relocate,
leading
to
a
2
loss
of
jobs.
3
Lost
jobs,
wages
and
increased
costs
for
4
energy
and
consumer
products
create
an
adverse,
5
real­
world
impact
that
is
much
more
concrete
than
the
6
uncertain
benefits
of
the
proposed
standard.
7
Analysis
for
the
American
Petroleum
8
Institute
of
the
impact
of
the
proposed
standards
9
finds
that
more
than
225
additional
counties
will
be
10
thrown
into
nonattainment.
Again,
public
health
is
11
paramount,
but
let's
be
sure
that
we're
providing
the
12
public
with
health
benefits
they
expect
before
we
13
lower
the
boom
on
local
economies.
14
In
closing,
the
science
supporting
EPA's
15
proposed
tightening
of
the
fine
particle
standard
16
remains
inconsistent
and
uncertain
while
the
17
potential
costs
to
consumers
are
very
real.
18
EPA
should
allow
states
to
implement
the
19
existing
standards
which
they
must
do
by
2010
before
20
moving
the
goal
post.
21
EPA
appreciates
(
sic)
the
com­
­­
22
opportunity
to
discuss
our
views
on
EPA's
proposed
23
particulate
matter
standards.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
Just
so
25
384
I'm
clear:
Mr.
Kinsman,
you
are
saying
that
we
1
should
not
revise
the
standards
at
all?
Is
that
true
2
for
both
the
annual
and
24­
hour
standard
for
fine
3
particles
and
the
PM10
standard,
or
are
you
4
addressing
only
the
fine
particles?
5
MR.
KINSMAN:
We're
only
addressing,
today,
6
the
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
8
MR.
KINSMAN:
We
believe
that
the
science
9
makes
it
very,
very
difficult
to
choose
35
versus
40,
10
versus
45.
I
can
see
the
decision
to
reduce
the
11
standard
from
65,
somewhat.
We
don't
think
35
is
12
justified.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
you
don't
have
a
14
recommendation
between
35
and
65?
15
MR.
KINSMAN:
Not
at
this
time.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
17
MR.
HANNON:
You
mentioned
a
comment
which
18
I
believe
was
from
the
IG
report
you
were
citing
19
about
an
inadequate
fine
particle
speciation
data.
20
Were
you
merely
noting
that
was
in
the
21
report,
or
were
you
also
suggesting
that
­­
that
­­
22
you,
representing
the
Edison
Electric
Institute
had
23
some
issues
with
­­
supported
that
comment,
and,
if
24
so,
did
you
have
any
recommendations
of
how
that
25
385
might
be
improved?
1
MR.
KINSMAN:
Well,
it
was
­­
we
were
more
2
observing
the
recommendation
­­
3
MR.
HANNON:
That's
fine.
4
MR.
KINSMAN:
­­
of
the
IG.
And
we
concur.
5
MR.
HANNON:
Thank
you.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
just
one
other
7
question.
8
You
mentioned
you
have
an
analysis
that
9
shows
225
counties
are
thrown
into
nonattainment,
as
10
you
put
it,
under
our
proposed
standards
­­
11
MR.
KINSMAN:
We
can
submit
that.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
and
you
will
13
submit
that?
14
MR.
KINSMAN:
Um­
hum.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
16
All
right.
Thank
you
both,
very
much.
17
Dr.
Janis
Kim
and
Dr.
Douglas
Kerr.
18
DR.
KIM:
Good
afternoon.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good
afternoon.
20
DR.
KIM:
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
21
speak
here
today.
22
My
name
is
Janis
Kim.
I
am
a
pediatrician,
23
a
member
of
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
24
National
Committee
on
Environmental
Health
and
lead
25
386
author
of
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
2004
1
Policy
Statement:
Ambient
Air
Pollution
Health
2
Hazards
to
Children.
3
I
am
also
a
Public
Health
Officer
in
the
4
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
of
5
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
6
Today
I
am
speaking
before
you
as
an
7
individual
pediatrician
and
not
on
behalf
of
a
8
specific
agency
or
organization.
9
Air
pollution
from
particulate
matter
is
of
10
critical
concern
for
pediatricians.
I
did
my
11
pediatric
residency
in
Los
Angeles
and
took
care
of
12
many
children
coming
to
the
emergency
room
with
13
asthma
attacks
during
smoggy
days.
14
Now,
in
addition
to
short­
term
effect
of
15
particulate
matter
causing
asthma
attacks
in
16
children,
scientists
are
finding
that
growing
up
in
17
areas
with
particulate
pollution
impacts
ability
of
18
children's
lungs
to
grow.
19
The
effects
of
PM
on
lung
development
seems
20
to
effect
most
children,
not
just
those
with
asthma.
21
These
effects
are
permanent
and
diminish
in
lung
22
function
as
a
young
adult
is
a
strong
risk
factor
for
23
shorter
life
expectancy.
24
Also,
many
scientific
studies
are
now
25
387
finding
links
between
particulate
pollution
and
lower
1
birth
weight,
premature
birth
and
infant
mortality.
2
These
studies
have
been
reviewed
in
the
3
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
Ambient
Air
Policy
4
Statement.
Based
on
the
science,
the
American
5
Academy
of
Pediatrics
has
urged
the
EPA
to
adopt
more
6
stringent
PM
standards
to
adequately
protect
7
children.
8
The
AAP
has
called
for
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
9
annual
average
PM2.5
of
12
micrograms
per
meter
cubed
10
and
a
24­
hour
standard
of
25
micrograms
per
meter
11
cubed
through
both
AAP
testimony
and
the
Clean
Air
12
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
in
April,
2005
and
13
through
a
subsequent
letter
to
the
EPA
administrator
14
and
I
have
documents
that
I
can
submit
documenting
15
that.
16
The
newer
studies
that
are
being
published
17
now,
many
of
which
we've
heard
about
today,
continue
18
to
provide
additional
scientific
evidence
to
justify
19
a
more
stringent
particulate
matter
standard.
20
As
a
pediatrician,
I
support
the
AAP
21
recommendations.
Clearly
the
proposed
fine
standards
22
­­
fine
particle
standards
do
not
provide
an
adequate
23
margin
of
safety
for
our
children.
24
I'd
also
like
to
comment
on
the
proposed
25
388
coarse
PM
standard.
1
The
coarse
PM
standard
is
not
protective
of
2
children.
Recent
studies
in
Canada
by
Lenn
and
Yang
3
have
found
respiratory
effects
in
children
due
to
4
coarse
particles.
5
In
addition,
Brinacroof
and
Aforzberg
6
(
phonetics)
and
the
European
Respiratory
Journal
of
7
2005
recently
reviewed
the
epidemiologic
studies
on
8
coarse
particles
and
found
that
many
studies
cited
in
9
that
review
found
coarse
particle
effects
in
­­
at
10
levels
below
the
proposed
PM
coarse
particle
standard
11
of
70
micrograms
per
meter
cubed.
12
I
urge
you
­­
in
addition,
I
urge
you
to
13
extend
coverage
of
the
coarse
particle
matter
14
standards
to
rural
areas
and
to
continue
national
15
monitoring
of
coarse
PM.
16
As
you've
heard
today
from
others,
there
is
17
insufficient
scientific
evidence
to
determine
that
18
ambient
coarse
particles
from
rural
areas
are
benign.
19
To
the
contrary,
both
toxicology
studies
on
20
coarse
particles
and
health
studies
in
the
Coachella
21
Valley
raise
concerns
about
the
health
impacts
of
22
coarse
particles
in
rural
areas.
Thus
children
from
23
rural
areas
should
be
afforded
the
same
protection
24
from
harmful
coarse
particles
as
children
living
in
25
389
urban
areas.
1
As
a
medical
student
I
was
drawn
to
2
pediatrics
because
I
liked
the
idea
of
preventive
3
medicine.
We
have
well
child
care
visits
and
4
anticipatory
guidance
to
parents.
We
make
sure
that
5
children
are
healthy
and
developing
on
track.
6
We
provide
immunizations
to
protect
the
7
health
of
children
from
common
­­
from
deaths
from
8
common
infections
of
childhood.
9
Insuring
clean
air
for
our
children
to
10
breathe
is
beyond
the
scope
of
what
we,
as
11
pediatricians,
can
do.
The
science
is
unambiguous:
12
particulate
matter
air
pollution
is
harmful.
13
The
EPA
is
charged
with
the
responsibility
14
of
establishing
air
quality
standards
that
protect
15
children
and
other
vulnerable
members
of
our
nation.
16
More
stringent
PM
standards
are
needed
to
17
achieve
this
goal.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Kim.
19
You
reference
several
recent
studies.
I
wondered
if
20
you
can
submit
those
to
us
for
our
records,
since
we
21
are
conducting
a
review
of
recent
studies.
22
DR.
KIM:
I
would
be
happy
to.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
All
right.
That
24
would
be
very
helpful.
Thank
you.
25
390
DR.
KERR:
Excuse
me,
I'm
Dr.
Douglas
Kerr.
1
Thank
you
for
letting
me
share
my
thoughts
2
with
you
today.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
and
if
you
could
4
use
both
mics.
5
DR.
KERR:
Let
me
know
if
I
am
­­
if
you
6
can
hear
me.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
So
far.
Can
the
8
folks
back
there
hear
Dr.
Kerr?
9
Yes.
10
DR.
KERR:
One
of
the
­­
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Not
very
well
is
what
12
you're
­­
if
you
can
­­
13
DR.
KERR:
Not
very
well.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
speak
up
just
a
15
little
bit.
16
DR.
KERR:
Okay.
How's
this?
17
MR.
HANNON:
Maybe
rotate
the
mic
up
just
a
18
tiny
bit.
19
DR.
KERR:
Why
didn't
I
think
of
that?
20
Thank
you.
21
One
of
the
many
ways
in
which
we've
22
outsmarted
ourselves
since
the
industrial
revolution
23
is
that
in
exchange
for
the
modern
convenience
of
24
diesel
engines
and
coal
and
oil
and
natural­
gas
fired
25
391
electricity
generation,
we
now
find
that
breath
and
1
breathing
can
kill
you.
2
It's
harder
now
to
use
the
metaphor
about
3
breathing
life
into
something
now
that
breathing
4
inhales
death.
Breathing
kills
tens
of
thousands
of
5
Americans
every
year
by
heart
attack
or
­­
or
stroke,
6
for
example,
when
a
particulate
leaves
the
lungs
and
7
enters
the
bloodstream.
8
Other
breathing
deaths
are
caused
by
cancer
9
of
the
lung
when
the
minute
size
of
these
particles
10
allows
them
to
lodge
so
deeply
in
that
delicate
11
tissue.
12
These
breathing
deaths
have
occurred
to
13
Americans
whom
the
Clean
Air
Act
was
bound,
by
law,
14
to
protect.
It
didn't
work
out.
And
it
didn't
work
15
out,
at
least
in
part,
surely,
because
of
new
science
16
and
new
knowledge.
17
Studies
have
now
demonstrated
that
the
18
relationship
between
particulate
matter,
on
the
one
19
hand,
and
illness,
hospitalizations,
premature
death,
20
all
these
relationships
occur
at
particulate
levels
21
substantially
below
the
current
standards.
22
Your
scientists,
the
EPA's
Staff
23
Scientists,
found
that
the
current
standards
are
too
24
lax
to
protect
American
citizens'
health.
25
392
The
same
conclusion
was
arrived
at
by
the
1
Bush
Administration's
Independent
Scientific
2
Advisors.
They
apparently
got
a
little
too
3
independent
because,
as
we've
seen,
the
Bush
4
Administration's
response
has
been
to
advocate
that
5
we
stop
monitoring
the
air
at
all
in
medium
and
6
small­
size
communities.
Too
bad
for
them;
they're
on
7
their
own.
8
The
Bush
Administration's
response
has
been
9
to
advocate
that
we
make
it
possible
for
agricultural
10
and
mining
businesses
to
do
whatever
they
want
to
our
11
air
without
monitoring
or
sanctions.
Too
bad
for
us;
12
we're
on
our
own.
13
The
Bush
Administration's
response
has
been
14
to
advocate
no
change
at
all
to
the
currently
lethal
15
standard
­­
Annual
Standard
for
particulate
matter
16
air
pollution.
The
Bush
Administration's
response
17
has
been
to
advocate
a
trivial
change
in
the
Daily
18
Standard
that
won't
have
any
health
benefits
for
19
American
citizens.
20
Sometimes
the
Bush
Administration
can't
21
find
weapons
of
mass
destruction
because
they're
not
22
there.
But
particulate
matter
air
pollution
kills
23
tens
of
thousands
of
Americans
every
year.
So
in
24
this
situation,
they
can't
find
weapons
of
mass
25
393
destruction
even
though
they're
up
their
nose.
1
In
this
case,
to
get
a
breath
of
fresh
air,
2
I
think
we
need
to
ignore
the
self­
seeking
3
hair­
splitting
and
sleight
of
hand
of
industry
4
representatives.
I
think
we
need
to
ignore
the
5
astonishing,
such
as
it
is,
morality
of
the
Bush
6
Administration
in
its
response
to
the
matter.
And
we
7
need
to
go
back
to
the
science
which
says
that
people
8
are
dying
because
the
standards
for
particulate
9
matter
air
pollution
are
too
lax
and
need
to
be
10
tightened
in
order
to
protect
the
lives
of
citizens
11
who
share
the
American
air.
12
We
need
an
Annual
Standard
no
higher
than
13
12
micrograms
and
a
Daily
Standard
no
higher
than
25
14
micrograms,
both
per
cubic
meter.
15
We
are
counting
on
you
for
our
lives
and
16
our
families
members
lives
and
our
fellow
citizens.
17
Please
create
strength,
where
the
Bush
Administration
18
is
apparently
willing
to
create
weakness,
in
this
law
19
and
in
our
health.
20
Thank
you.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Your
time
is
22
up,
Dr.
Kerr.
Thank
you.
23
Do
you
have
any
questions?
24
Okay.
Thank
you
both.
25
394
DR.
KERR:
Um­
hum.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Annemarie
Donjacour
2
and
Kathleen
Foree
­­
is
it?
Or
Foree?
No?
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
4
MS.
DONJACOUR:
Good
evening.
5
So
my
name
is
Annemarie
Donjacour.
6
And
I'm
here
as
a
concerned
individual
and
7
as
a
mom,
and
also
a
scientist,
a
basic
scientist
as
8
UCSF.
And
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
9
directly
to
you.
10
I've
been
hearing
some
of
the
people
speak,
11
and
a
lot
of
the
factual
things
that
I
was
going
to
12
say
I'm
sure
you've
heard
many
times
from
people.
13
But
I
wanted
to
add
my
voice
and
sort
of
vote
with
my
14
mouth
­­
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Oh,
sure.
16
MS.
DONJACOUR:
­­
instead
of
my
feet.
17
And
I
too
support
the
more
stringent
18
standards
that
Dr.
Kerr
had
mentioned
and
the
broader
19
monitoring
of
fine
particle
air
pollution.
20
I'm
­­
I
believe
the
review
process
that
21
we've
built
into
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
something
that
22
we
need
to
use,
and
we
need
to
update
our
standards
23
in
accordance
with
scientific
information.
24
And
hearing
about
this
issue
­­
I'm
a
25
395
development
biologist
­­
sent
me
to
the
literature,
1
myself,
because
I
can't
believe
it
when
I
see
it.
2
And
I
was
impressed
by
the
basic
science
that's
3
involved
in
the
arthro­
sclerotic
models
that
are
4
shown
that
the
fine
particles
do
effect
the
build
up
5
of
plaque
and
hardening
of
the
arteries.
6
In
reading
reports,
I,
as
a
scientist,
was
7
convinced
that
there
was
a
lot
of
strong
evidence
8
that
the
current
standards
don't
make
a
healthy
set
9
of
levels
for
­­
for
people.
And
I
don't
think
­­
I
10
think
that
we
need
to
upgrade
them
to
reflect
the
11
current
science.
12
The
amount
of
pollution
that
we
are
13
currently
allowing
doesn't
adequately
protect
our
14
health,
which
is
the
standard
that's
in
the
law.
15
Fine
particle
pollutions
at
current
levels,
16
they
do
aggravate
respiratory
diseases
and
hardening
17
of
the
arteries.
And
these
are
problems
that
are
on
18
the
rise
in
our
society
and
we
don't
need
to
19
aggravate
them.
20
I'm
sure
you
know,
many
medical
groups,
21
including
the
American
Lung
Association
recommending
22
annual
limits
of
the
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
23
and
the
peak
limits
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
24
I
really
urge
you
to
follow
these
25
396
recommendations.
And
as
a
previous
speaker
said
even
1
the
EPA
scientists
have
recommended
tightening
them
2
up,
and
I
thought
of
Alice
in
Wonderland
who
says,
"
I
3
often
give
myself
good
advice,
but
I
very
rarely
take
4
it."
I
really
urge
you
to
take
your
own
advice
in
5
the
Staff
Scientists'
reports.
6
And
then,
of
course,
in
addition
to
7
scientific
and
medical
reasons,
which
I've
looked
at
8
myself,
of
course,
there
are
moral
reasons
to
have
9
high
standards
for
air
quality.
Basically,
coming
10
down
here,
I
thought
there's
nothing
more
basic
than
11
the
air
you
breath.
And
so
I
think
that,
as
a
12
country,
we
share
the
air
and
that
we
really,
really
13
have
a
moral
obligation
to
make
it
safe
for
every
14
single
person
who
breathes
it,
especially
the
most
15
vulnerable,
babies,
older
people
and
people
who
16
already
have
underlying
disease
are
counting
on
us
to
17
assure
that
they
have
safe
air
to
breath.
18
And,
you
know,
just
the
images
of
Eastern
19
Europe
when
I
was
growing,
up,
I
mean
that
was
­­
20
that
was
the
bad
guys
had
the
smoke
stacks,
and
they
21
were
the
people
who
were,
you
know,
harming
their
own
22
citizens.
And
so
I
don't
want
us
to
be
the
bad
guys.
23
And
so,
of
course,
it's
a
moral
issue,
24
health
issue
and
it
is
also
an
economic
issue,
I
25
397
realize.
And
basically
I'm
here
to
tell
you
that
I'm
1
voting
for
not
paying
for
this
with
our
health,
okay?
2
That
there
may
be,
I
realize,
some
economic
3
consequences
in
requiring
industries
to
meet
a
high
4
standard.
And
I
think
that's
an
important
thing
to
5
acknowledge.
And
that
we
have
to
pay
it.
That
we
6
can't
put
it
on
our
kids
in
asthma
or
in
our
parents
7
or
ourselves
as
heart
attacks.
I
think
that's
a
very
8
poor
set
of
economics.
9
I
don't
want
to
put
it
on
my
neighbors.
I
10
know
that
people
in
low­
income
communities
suffer
11
more
from
these
kind
of
diseases,
in
part,
because
of
12
the
environmental
conditions
that
they
live
in,
which
13
we're
forcing
on
them,
basically,
forcing
them
to
14
breath
that
air.
15
So
it's
a
wealthy
country.
I
think
we
can
16
afford
clean
air.
So
in
conclusion
I
think
a
great
17
nation
doesn't
cause
disease
and
premature
death
18
among
its
citizens.
I
know
that
the
current
emission
19
standards
are
harmful
and
that
we
have
to
act
20
according
to
that
knowledge.
21
So
I
believe
common
­­
common
decency,
22
common
sense
and
the
law
demand
that
we
change
the
23
standards,
and
so
do
I.
24
Thank
you.
25
398
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
1
Is
Kathleen
Foree
or
Foree
here?
2
Okay.
I
think
at
this
point
we
will
take
a
3
dinner
break,
which
we
were
scheduled
to
do
at
six
4
o'clock.
And
it's
just
about
6:
00
now.
5
We
will
resume
the
public
hearing
at
7:
30.
6
Thank
you.
7
(
Dinner
break
taken.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
399
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Welcome
back
to
the
1
Public
Hearing.
I
thank
all
of
you
who
have
been
2
here
and
have
participated
so
far
and
those
who
are
3
going
to
participate
this
evening.
I
would
very
much
4
appreciate
everybody
coming
and
taking
the
time
to
5
talk
with
us
today.
6
I
think
most
people
know
what
the
drill
is.
7
We
have
two
people
come
forward.
Each
person
gets
8
five
minutes
and
we
ask
both
people
to
stay
up
until
9
the
second
speaker
has
completed
his
or
her
10
testimony.
And
we
may
ask
clarifying
questions
as
we
11
go
along.
12
So
why
don't
we
begin.
Actually,
I
13
suppose,
for
those
who
are
new,
I
should
introduce
14
myself
again.
15
I
am
Lydia
Wegman.
I'm
with
the
16
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
as
are
we
all.
I
17
work
out
of
our
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
18
Standards
in
North
Carolina.
And
Susan
Stone
does
as
19
well,
as
does
Tim
Hanley
and
John
Hannon
is
from
the
20
Office
of
General
Counsel
in
Washington,
D.
C.
21
So,
Dr.
Harold
Farber
and
­­
is
Kathleen
22
Foree
or
Foree
here?
23
Do
­­
do
you
want
to
­­
okay.
24
DR.
FARBER:
Let's
see,
which
way
do
we
25
400
handle
this?
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
we
have
the
2
lights,
which
will
start.
And
then
there's
a
3
five­
minute
set
of
lights.
And
yellow
means
that
you
4
have
got
two
minutes
left
and
red
means
your
time
is
5
up.
So
we'll
­­
so
and
everybody
gets
five
minutes.
6
And,
please
use
both
microphones.
One
­­
7
the
smaller
one,
is
for
our
court
reporters,
who
are
8
over
here.
And
I
think
­­
do
you
have
any
other
9
questions
about
how
the
process
works?
10
DR.
FARBER:
I
­­
otherwise
we
go
through
11
here
and
­­
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
13
DR.
FARBER:
­­
and
it's
not
like
the
14
Oscars,
we
can't
just
keep
talking
over
the
­­
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You
can,
but
you'll
16
hear
me
say
please
cease
your
remarks.
17
DR.
FARBER:
All
right.
Well,
thanks
so
18
much.
So
shall
I
start?
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
please.
20
DR.
FARBER:
All
right.
I
want
to
thank
21
you
so
much
for
having
me
here
today.
22
And
I'm
Dr.
Harold
Farber.
I'm
a
pediatric
23
pulmonologist
in
Vallejo,
California,
that's
a
24
specialist
in
child's
lung
disease,
and
the
author
of
25
401
the
book
called
Control
Your
Child's
Asthma.
1
Again,
as
a
pediatric
pulmonologist,
I
see
2
the
affects
of
air
pollution
on
children's
health.
3
And
one
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
point
out,
one
of
4
the
things
that
we
commonly
take
care
of
as
pediatric
5
pulmonologists
is
cystic
fibrosis,
which
is
the
most
6
common
inherited
lung
disease
of
­­
among
the
7
Caucasian
population.
And
a
modest
10­
microgram­
per­
8
meter­
squared
increase
in
PM2.5
has
been
shown
using
9
CF
registry
data
to
lead
to
a
21­
percent
increase
in
10
the
risk
of
two
or
more
pulmonary
exacerbations
11
needing
intravenous
antibiotics
and
a
loss
of
about
12
155
MLs
of
FED1.
And
that
was
published
in
the
13
American
Journal
of
Respiratory
and
Critical
Care
14
Medicine
in
2004.
15
And
if
you
need
me
to,
I
can
give
you
the
16
­­
I
can
give
that
to
you,
printed.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
than­
­­
yeah.
18
And,
actually,
let
me
note,
if
you
are
going
to
cite
19
other
studies
if
you
can
give
us
copies
of
those
20
studies
at
some
point.
You
don't
have
to
do
it
21
today.
That
would
be
­­
22
DR.
FARBER:
Okay.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
very
helpful.
24
DR.
FARBER:
That
­­
that'll
be
fine.
25
402
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
1
DR.
FARBER:
Yeah.
Also,
again,
looking
at
2
the
study
from
Dr.
Pope,
who
I
believe
had
spoken
3
here
earlier
today,
it's
very
clear
that
particulate
4
pollution
increases
asthma
hospitalizations,
5
especially
among
preschool
children.
6
And
this
very
prominent
study
in
the
Utah
7
Valley
where
one
steel
mill
was
a
major
source
of
8
particulate
pollution,
and
when
it
was
shut
down,
9
respiratory
illness
hospitalizations
among
10
preschoolers
decreased
by
half.
The
rates
doubled
11
when
the
mill
went
back
into
operation.
Similar
12
changes
were
not
seen
in
neighboring
communities.
13
You
could
­­
they
also
saw
changes
relating
14
to
asthma
relating
to
school
absences,
et
cetera.
15
And
this
was
certainly
one
of
the
landmark
studies
16
that
did
establish
the
harm
of
particulate
pollution.
17
Many,
many
other
studies
have
had
similar
18
findings,
and
this
is
just
a
small
list
of
them
on
a
19
quick
little
Medline
search.
But
the
main
point
here
20
is
that
the
science
is,
I
think,
very,
very
clear,
21
fine
particulate
air
pollution
is
the
nations'
22
deadliest
air
pollutant.
23
Fine
particulates
can
lodge
in
deep
in
the
24
lungs,
can
enter
the
bloodstream,
do
cause
severe
25
403
problems
for
the
lungs,
heart
and
circulation,
and
1
the
most
vulnerable
among
us
are
the
most
at
risk,
2
that's
the
very
young,
the
very
old
and
those
of
us
3
with
chronic
illnesses.
4
There
has
been
more
than
2,000
5
peer­
reviewed
scientific
research
articles
confirming
6
the
relation
between
particulate
pollution
and
health
7
problems.
And
this
is
at
levels
well
below
current
8
air
quality
standards.
9
Current
air
quality
standards
for
10
particulate
pollution
do
not
sufficiently
protect
the
11
public
health.
12
Fine
particulate
pollution,
as
I'm
sure
you
13
know,
causes
asthma
flare­
ups,
lung
cancer,
heart
14
attacks,
strokes
and
premature
death.
And
among
15
children,
additionally
it's
been
shown
to
increase
16
risk
for
infant
mortality
and
to
decrease
lung
17
growth.
And
this
is
­­
these
are
problems
that
I
see
18
as
a
practicing
pulmonologist
every
day.
19
I
see
the
kids
who
have
problems
breathing
20
when
pollution
is
high.
I
see
the
chronic
cough.
I
21
see
the
recurrent
pneumonia.
And
we
see
the
effects
22
of
the
reduced
lung
growth.
23
Certainly,
a
mining
and
agricultural
24
exemption
for
air
pollution
standards
makes
no
sense
25
404
at
all.
California's
Central
Valley
has
high
levels
1
of
air
pollution
and
the
highest
level
of
childhood
2
asthma
in
the
state
of
California.
3
Agriculture
is
a
major
industry.
Crop
4
burning
is
a
common
practice
in
agriculture,
both
5
within
the
Central
Valley
as
well
as
within
the
Napa
6
Valley
where
­­
and
I
take
care
of
folks
both
places.
7
I
consult
among
patients
in
Napa
and
in
Fresno.
And
8
I
get
a
lot
­­
my
patients
will
tell
me
that
"
When
9
they
burn
crops,
my
asthma
flares.
I
can't
breathe,
10
I
can't
go
outside.
I
can't
play
outside."
11
We
also
know
that
diesel
smoke
both
causes
12
and
triggers
asthma
and
is
a
common
pollutant
in
13
agricultural
areas.
I
think
it's
very
clear
that
14
particulate
pollution
created
by
agricultural
15
activities
harms
children's
breathing.
16
And
there
are
cost­
effective
methods
to
17
reduce
this
pollution.
I
think
that
with
what
is
18
proposed,
the
EPA
is
taking
a
head­
in­
the­
sand
19
approach
to
public
health.
The
Clean
Air
Scientific
20
Advisory
Committee
concluded
that
standards
for
fine
21
particulate
pollution
need
to
be
substantially
22
strengthened.
And
this
conclusion
is
based
on
23
well­
established,
solid
science.
24
The
EPA
rejection
of
the
case
act
25
405
recommendations
is
unprecedented.
The
determination
1
that
children
who
live
in
agricultural
and
mining
2
communities
should
tolerate
higher
levels
of
3
pollution
is
outrageous.
4
I
see
gobs
of
lung
disease
in
agricultural
5
communities,
both
in
my
practice
that
involves
6
patients
from
Napa
and
patients
from
Fresno
and
7
Central
Valley
areas,
which
are
predominately
8
agricultural
areas.
9
I
want
to
quickly
just
go
through
the
10
Doonsbury
cartoon
that
came
out
recently
in
the
11
Chronicle,
and
that
says
"
Drat
these
pesky
scientific
12
facts
won't
line
up
behind
my
beliefs."
Of
course
13
the
other
guy
is
saying,
"
Then
challenge
them,
14
Stewie."
And
the
recent
editorial
in
the
San
15
Francisco
Chronicle
that
had
a
couple
of
key
points,
16
"
This
is
a
head­
in­
the­
sand
approach
by
the
17
Administrations'
top
leaders
on
a
critical
public
18
health
issue.
Instead
of
facing
the
facts,
Bush
19
appointees
have
adopted
weak
rules
that
neglect
a
20
dangerous
source
of
disease."
21
Thank
you
so
very
much.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
23
DR.
FARBER:
And,
again,
these
are
my
24
conclusions.
25
406
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
You're
­­
okay.
1
DR.
FARBER:
And,
again,
that
the
EPA
2
should
follow
recommendations
of
CASAC,
ALA,
ATS
and
3
other
respected
and
scientific
leaders
and
adopt
4
standards
for
fine
particulates,
no
higher
than
12
5
micrograms
per
meter,
a
Daily
Standard
no
higher
than
6
25
and
a
strong
Coarse
Particle
Standard
and
7
monitoring
that
protects
all
Americans,
urban
and
8
rural.
9
And
this
is
an
important
recommendation.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Okay.
11
DR.
FARBER:
Thank
you.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
thank
you
very
13
much.
And
if
you
can,
provide
the
other
studies
you
14
have
­­
the
older
studies
we
already
have.
But
that
15
­­
the
one
­­
the
ones
you
talked
about
in
your
first
16
slide
on
cystic
fibrosis,
that
would
be
helpful.
You
17
had
some
statistics
there.
18
DR.
FARBER:
I'll
be
very
happy
to
provide
19
those.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
21
DR.
FARBER:
Just
let
me
know.
Do
you
want
22
them
email
or
­­
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
actually
have
­­
24
up
front
there's
a
page
that
talks
about
how
to
25
407
submit
materials
to
the
docket
­­
1
DR.
FARBER:
Okay.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
for
this
3
rulemaking.
So
if
you
could
do
that.
4
DR.
FARBER:
I'll
be
very
pleased
to.
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
6
DR.
FARBER:
And
­­
I've
got
the
side
chart
7
there.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you
very
9
much.
10
DR.
FARBER:
Thanks
so
much.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Great,
thank
you
for
12
your
time.
13
Anyone
have
any
questions?
14
Okay.
15
MS.
FOREE:
I'm
Kathleen
Foree.
I'm
a
16
member
of
the
Social
Responsibility
Committee
at
17
Epiphany
Parish
in
San
Francisco.
18
And
I'm
here
as
a
person
of
faith
because
I
19
believe
we
are
accountable
to
a
higher
authority
if
20
we
allow
children
to
­­
and
our
brothers
and
sisters
21
to
get
sick
and
sometimes
die
from
asthma
and
a
host
22
of
other
respiratory
disease
and
all
the
other
23
diseases
that
have
been
talked
about
today.
24
My
brothers
and
sisters
of
Hunters
Point
in
25
408
San
Francisco
have
a
little
less
than
double
the
1
national
asthma
rate
of
around
­­
the
figure
I
have,
2
which
is
a
little
old,
is
10
percent
versus
5.6
3
percent.
For
children,
the
rate
is
about
one­
in­
six
4
or
15
percent.
5
It
is
so
prevalent
that
a
number
of
6
community
organizations
are
trying
to
deal
with
it.
7
They
even
have
programs
in
school
teaching
children
8
how
to
deal
with
asthma.
9
In
fact,
a
particularly
poignant
story
10
which
I
think
I
read
in
the
San
Francisco
Chronicle,
11
but
it
was
some
time
ago,
talks
about
a
parent
12
bringing
in
her
child
time
after
time
with
all
sorts
13
of
horrible
respiratory
illnesses
and
asking
the
14
doctor,
"
What
can
I
do?"
You
know,
because
nothing
15
is
really
working.
And
he
told
her
to
take
the
child
16
out
of
the
neighborhood.
And,
fortunately,
she
was
17
able
to
do
so
and
the
child
got
better.
18
But
since
this
neighborhood
is
full
of
poor
19
people,
that's
not
always
an
option,
especially
with
20
San
Francisco's
high
cost
of
living.
21
And
incidentally,
since
I'm
a
tax
payer
in
22
San
Francisco,
I'm
also
paying
for
their
care
at
San
23
Francisco
General,
because
since
they're
poor,
they
24
probably
don't
­­
in
most
cases,
don't
have
health
25
409
insurance.
1
I
certainly
don't
begrudge
them
good
2
medical
care,
but
I
just
really
wish
it
wasn't
3
necessary.
4
The
hospitalization
rates
in
1994
to
1996
5
were
491
per
100,000
for
the
Bay
View,
Hunters
Point
6
residents
versus
300­
­­
355
per
100,000
overall.
7
And
781
per
100,000
were
children.
8
This
neighborhood
has
lots
of
diesel
9
refueling
areas,
industry
and
a
PG&
E
power
plant
that
10
they've
been
trying
to
shut
down
for
several
years.
11
It
is
supposed
to
close
down
at
the
end
of
this
year.
12
Well,
that
was
the
latest,
but
I
don't
know.
13
I
find
this
situation
fairly
horrifying.
14
Little
kids
should
not
have
to
get
sick
and
sometimes
15
die
because
we
don't
have
decent
air
quality.
And
16
old
people
shouldn't
have
to
get
sick
and
sometimes
17
die
because
of
poor
air
quality.
18
I
am
sure
that
there
are
many
other
19
neighborhoods,
and
we
heard
from
the
man
from
20
Richmond,
is
kind
of
in
the
same
situation
here.
21
And,
therefore,
it
was
really
disappointing
to
find
22
that
the
proposed
regulations
don't
go
far
enough
and
23
that
there
were
exemptions
for
agricultural
and
24
mining,
which
I
didn't
quite
understand
how
that
got
25
410
in
there.
1
I'm,
therefore,
speaking
for
the
more
2
stringent
regulations
that
are
up
there
­­
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Um­
hum.
4
MS.
FOREE:
­­
and
hope
you
will
implement
5
them
rather
than
the
higher
ones.
Thank
you.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
7
Any
questions?
8
Well,
thank
you
both
for
coming.
We
very
9
much
appreciate
your
time.
10
Scott
Nester
and
Tamara
Thies.
11
MR.
NESTER:
Are
you
ready?
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
13
MR.
NESTER:
Good
evening.
I'm
Scott
14
Nester.
I'm
the
planning
director
for
San
Joaquin
15
Valley
Unified
Air
Pollution
Control
District.
16
My
comments
tonight
are
focused
on
the
17
proposed
standard
for
coarse
particulate
matter,
18
specifically
the
urban
and
rural
distinction
and
the
19
exemption
for
emissions
from
agriculture
and
mining
20
operations.
21
First
let
me
tell
you
about
the
San
Joaquin
22
Valley
and
the
Valley
Air
District.
The
valley
23
covers
seven
and
a
half
counties
in
inland
central
24
California.
The
Valley
Air
District
is
about
25,000
25
411
square
miles,
making
it
larger
than
10
of
the
states.
1
In
2000,
the
population
was
about
3.2
2
million,
giving
it
a
larger
population
than
21
of
the
3
states.
Five
of
the
ten
most
agriculturally
4
productive
counties
in
the
U.
S.
are
located
in
the
5
San
Joaquin
Valley.
6
Dr.
Farber
mentioned
asthma
in
the
Central
7
Valley.
It's
true,
we
have
some
of
the
highest
rates
8
in
the
country.
9
According
to
the
2000
census,
the
Valley
10
has
six
urban
areas
with
at
least
100,000
people.
11
And
these
areas
would
be
protected
by
the
new
coarse
12
standard.
But
the
problem
is
the
way
the
PM
stand­
13
­­
the
coarse
PM
standard
is
proposed,
43
percent
of
14
the
district's
population
would
be
left
unprotected.
15
That's
1.4
million
people.
16
This
would
include
two
entire
counties,
17
Kings
County
and
Madera
County
as
well
as
six
smaller
18
urban
areas
and
all
of
the
folks
in
the
rural
areas.
19
Here
are
the
Census
Bureau
maps
for
two
of
20
the
urban
areas
in
the
Valley.
The
one
on
the
left
21
is
Bakersfield
at
the
southern
end
of
the
Valley.
22
And
the
one
on
the
right
is
the
Merced­
Atwater
area
23
in
the
northern
end
of
the
Valley.
It's
about
two
24
hours
from
San
Francisco.
25
412
We
invite
you
down
if
you
want
to
make
the
1
trip.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Um­
hum.
3
MR.
NESTER:
Just
outside
most
of
those
4
jagged
Census
Bureau
lines
are
growing
housing
5
developments,
intermixed
with
agriculture,
right
next
6
to
each
other.
7
Now
we
all
know
that
air
pollution
doesn't
8
really
respect
political
boundaries
like
city
limits
9
and
state
lines.
My
point
here
is
that
air
pollution
10
does
not
stay
contained
in
the
census
tract
where
it
11
originated.
12
A
recent
study
confirms
that
agricultural
13
operations
are
a
major
contributor
to
coarse
particle
14
concentrations
in
the
Valley's
urban
areas.
15
The
study
was
conducted
in
downtown
16
Bakersfield,
which
is
the
second
largest
city
in
the
17
San
Joaquin
Valley.
And
it
shows
that
particulate
18
matter
that
originated
on
local
farms
precipitates
19
onto
urban
roads
and
is
being
reintrained
by
passing
20
vehicles.
Therefore,
the
material
measured
from
an
21
urban
roadway
actually
contains
both
urban
and
rural
22
material.
23
We
understand
EPA's
desire
to
reduce
24
exposure
of
the
largest
populations
to
the
most
25
413
harmful
concentrations.
We
think,
however,
that
EPA
1
can
focus
attention
and
efficiently
reduce
overall
2
exposure
through
population
based
ambient
monitoring,
3
siting
criteria
and
by
establishing
sensible,
4
nonattainment
areas
as
evidenced
by
violating
5
monitors.
6
This
is
how
most
previous
standards
have
7
been
implemented.
8
The
District
has
worked
very
closely
with
9
the
agriculture
industry
in
recent
years
and
the
10
result
has
been
that
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
has
11
recently
come
into
attainment
of
the
PM10
standard.
12
It
was
the
District's
regulations
mostly
on
13
rural
sources
that
are
effective
in
reducing
urban
14
concentrations
of
PM10.
Exempting
agriculture
and
15
mining
operations
and
the
emissions
from
those
16
operations
now
could
undermine
the
considerable
17
progress
that
we've
made
and
prevent
future
progress
18
for
coarse
particulate
matter.
19
I
would
mention
that
we
do
have
very
20
significant
regulations
and
a
smoke
management
21
program
for
agricultural
burning.
22
EPA
has
stated
that
it
has
no
studies
23
linking
coarse
particulates
in
rural
areas
to
health
24
impacts.
One
of
the
results
we've
seen
through
the
25
414
California
Regional
Particulate
Air
Quality
Study,
1
which
is
about
a
$
30
million
study,
is
that
the
2
primary
difference
between
particulates
from
the
soil
3
and
those
from
the
roadways
is
the
amount
of
4
bio­
aerosols
which
have
a
greater
health
impact
and
5
are
more
prevalent
in
the
rural
areas.
6
If
EPA
is
concerned
about
states
and
7
districts
somehow
overregulating
benign
particulate
8
matter,
EPA
would
be
better
served
with
an
ambient
9
standard
and
monitoring
program
that
requires
actual
10
speciation
and
not
a
gross
assumption
of
particulate
11
chemical
composition
based
on
population
densities.
12
We
have
other
concerns
with
EPA's
proposal.
13
We're
concerned
with
the
complexities
of
the
14
proposed
monitoring
network
and
the
cuts
in
federal
15
funding
for
them
­­
for
the
monitoring
effort.
16
We're
also
concerned
about
the
regulatory
17
impact
analysis
for
the
PM2.5
standard
which,
in
18
several
places,
refers
to
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
as
a
19
single
urban
area,
comparing
it
to
large
cities.
20
In
closing
I
would
remind
EPA
staff
that
21
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
Air
District,
in
partnership
22
with
EPA
Region
9,
the
California
Air
Resources
23
Board,
industry,
stakeholders
and
the
community
24
groups
you've
heard
from
earlier
today
have
made
a
25
415
lot
of
progress
in
removing
particulate
matter
from
1
the
San
Joaquin
Valley's
air,
and
we
want
to
continue
2
that
success.
3
I'll
summarize
the
Valley
Air
District's
4
main
concerns:
First,
the
preemption
for
certain
5
industries
emissions
could
make
attaining
the
coarse
6
particulate
standard
in
the
San
Joaquin
­­
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
you
could
try
to
8
finish
up.
9
MR.
NESTER:
­­
I've
got
about
10
seconds.
10
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Great.
11
MR.
NESTER:
It's
going
to
make
it
very
12
difficult
to
attain
with
those
exemptions.
And
also
13
when
it
comes
to
particulate
matter
in
the
San
14
Joaquin
Valley,
the
city
folks
breathe
pretty
much
15
the
same
air
as
the
people
who
live
in
the
country.
16
And
we
think
they
should
all
be
protected
by
the
same
17
standard.
18
Thank
you.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
20
MR.
HANNON:
Do
you
need
this?
21
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
22
And
the
question
I
have
is
­­
I
want
to
23
make
sure
I
understand
your
comment
regarding
24
population­
based
monitoring.
25
416
Population­
based
monitoring
is
one
of
the
1
criteria
that
was
identified
in
the
proposal,
but
am
2
I
to
understand
your
suggestion
was
to
make
that
3
applicable
to
areas
outside
of
the
Census
Bureau
4
definition
that
was
provided?
5
MR.
NESTER:
Yeah.
I
think
we
would
­­
we
6
would
prefer
to
see
a
standard
that
applies
7
throughout
the
nation
with
­­
with
nonattainment
8
areas
based
on
violating
monitors
instead
of
9
establishing
standards
only
for
large
areas
­­
10
densely
populated
areas.
11
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
Thank
you.
12
MR.
HANLEY:
You
mentioned
the
Bakersfield
13
study,
and,
I
think,
some
other
­­
other
information
14
on
the
­­
for
example,
the
regulations
in
the
15
District
on
rural
sources
leading
to
the
control
of
16
the
sources
in
the
urban
areas,
­­
17
MR.
NESTER:
Um­
hum.
18
MR.
HANLEY:
­­
sort
of
a,
necessary,
­­
19
your
experience
was
that
it
was
a
necessary
tool
for
20
coming
into
compliance
in
the
urban
areas.
21
I
just
don't
know,
personally,
whether
we
22
have
all
that
information
in
our
docket
already.
To
23
the
extent
that
you
want
us
to
consider
the
details
24
of
that
study,
for
example,
or
the
specifics
of
the
25
417
control
strategies
of
San
Joaquin
Valley,
perhaps
in
1
written
testimony
you
could
submit
more
information
2
on
those
details.
3
MR.
NESTER:
Sure.
We're
planning
to
4
submit
extensive
comments
by
April
17th.
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Good.
And
just
one
6
question.
You
mentioned
all
the
regs
that
are
in
7
place
now,
and
you
­­
8
MR.
NESTER:
Um­
hum.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
are
concerned
that
10
our
proposal,
if
final,
would
undermine
your
program.
11
In
your
comments,
or
if
you
have
anything
12
to
say
now,
any
thoughts
you
have
about
how
we
can
­­
13
if
we
should
finalize
these
standards,
how
we
could
14
avoid
that
outcome.
15
MR.
NESTER:
Okay.
We'll
cover
that
too.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
That
would
be
17
helpful.
18
MR.
NESTER:
Okay.
Thanks.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
20
MS.
THEIS:
My
name
is
Tamara
Theis.
And
I
21
am
Director
of
Environmental
Issues
for
the
National
22
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association.
23
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
24
you
tonight
about
coarse
particulate
matter.
25
418
The
National
Cattleman's
Beef
Association
1
represents
tens
of
thousands
of
America's
farmers,
2
ranchers
and
cattlemen
who
provide
much
of
the
3
nations
food
supply.
Our
members
are
proud
of
their
4
tradition
as
stewards
and
conservators
of
America's
5
land
and
good
neighbors
to
their
community.
6
They
support
dust
control
measures
and
use
7
them
every
day
of
every
year
in
supplying
America
8
with
the
food
it
needs.
None
of
our
members
seek
to
9
roll
back
dust
controls.
Indeed,
they
seek
to
10
maintain
and
improve
them.
11
The
amounts
of
fugitive
dust
remaining
12
after
using
best
management
practices
from
farm,
13
ranch
and
cattle
operations
have
never
been
14
demonstrated
to
have
adverse
impacts
on
health
at
15
ambient
levels.
16
It
is
for
this
reason
that
over
the
last
17
more
than
30
years
the
EPA
has
excluded
these
dusts
18
in
making
determinations
of
ambient
compliance.
The
19
proposed
rules'
exclusion
of
coarse
PM
from
20
agriculture
from
the
coarse
PM
NAAQS
continues
this
21
historic,
scientifically­
based
policy
and
practice.
22
The
fact
is
the
NAAQS
is
a
health­
based
23
standard,
and
the
NCBA
does
not
believe
the
science
24
shows
that
coarse
PM
causes
adverse
health
effects.
25
419
A
cattle
producer
will
address
that
issue
1
in
a
couple
of
minutes.
I
would
like
to
focus
my
2
comments
on
the
basis
for
the
PM
NAAQS.
3
The
critical
feature
of
the
particulate
4
matter
NAAQS,
namely
it's
concentration
term,
has,
5
from
its
inception,
been
based
on
a
measurement
of
6
British
smoke.
It
is
not
based
on
coarse
PM
data
and
7
should
not,
scientifically,
be
applied
to
coarse
PM
8
or
used
as
a
metric
for
determining
the
concentration
9
at
which
coarse
PM
in
the
ambient
air
may
be
harmful.
10
None
of
the
PM
NAAQS
adopted
prior
to
1997
11
recognized
the
fundamental
distinction
between
fine
12
and
coarse
PM.
In
1997,
the
EPA
created
a
fine
PM2.5
13
standard
in
recognition
of
the
difference.
14
While
EPA
initially
proposed
not
to
adopt
a
15
24­
hour
coarse
PM
standard
in
the
final
rule
it
did
16
adopt
such
a
standard.
That
coarse
PM
standard
was,
17
however,
set
at
150­
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
a
18
concentration
level
derived
from
fine
PM
British
19
smoke
data,
not
coarse
data.
20
The
only
concentration
data
discussed
as
21
the
basis
for
this
standard
was
that
at
a
22
concentration
levels
well
above
1,000
micrograms
per
23
cubic
meter
and
included
both
fine
and
coarse
PM.
24
That
was
a
Heflin
and
Gordian
studies.
25
420
The
1997
coarse
PM
standard
was
vacated
by
1
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
and
set
aside
as
2
confounded
because
it
included
both
fine
and
coarse
3
PM.
4
The
only
reason
PM10
is
being
regulated
5
today
is
because
on
December
22nd
of
the
year
2000,
6
the
EPA
brought
back
the
1987
PM10
standard
which
has
7
the
exact
same
concentration
term
and
was
equally
as
8
confounded
as
the
1997
PM10
standard.
9
No
one
noticed
it
because
everybody's
10
getting
ready
for
Christmas
that
year,
and
under
the
11
Clean
Air
Act,
if
you
don't
appeal
a
final
rule
12
within
60
days
of
its
promulgation
in
the
final
­­
in
13
the
Federal
Register,
it
becomes
final
and
14
unappealable.
So
EPA
has
been
regulating
using
an
15
invalid
standard
ever
since
then.
16
There
has
­­
there
has
­­
I
­­
and
oh,
an
17
attempt
­­
okay.
18
There
has
never
been
a
valid
coarse
PM
19
standard
based
on
coarse
PM
evidence.
And
any
20
attempt
to
regulate
coarse
PM
at
an
equivalent
level
21
as
PM10
is
equally
invalid.
22
The
NCBA
urges
the
EPA
to
not
adopt
a
23
standard
in
urban
or
rural
areas
until
the
science
24
shows
that
one
is
necessary.
25
421
Thank
you.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
So
I
­­
I
2
take
your
testimony
to
be
that
you
want
us
to
have
no
3
coarse
particle
standard
or
PM10
standard;
is
that
4
correct?
5
MS.
THEIS:
Well,
PM10
is
invalid.
It's
6
been
vacated
by
the
Court
because
it
contains
PM2.5.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
one
of
our
8
proposals
was
to
consider
keeping
the
current
PM10
9
standard
­­
I
should
say
"
one
of
our
proposals,"
one
10
of
our
options
that
we
offer
as
an
alternative
was
11
keeping
the
PM10
standard.
So
your
opposed
to
that
12
or
to
a
new
coarse
particle
standard;
is
that
13
correct?
14
MS.
THEIS:
That's
correct.
That
science
15
does
not
indicate
that
a
coarse
particle
standard
is
16
warranted
and
the
PM10
is
confounded
with
PM2.5,
so
17
it
doesn't
­­
it's
invalid.
18
I
mean,
any
health
effects
data
that
is
out
19
there
on
PM10
could
be
attributed
to
the
PM2.5
part
20
of
the
­­
part
of
the
fraction.
So
it's
not
a
valid
21
standard.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
23
Any
Questions?
Yeah,
John.
24
MR.
HANNON:
I
didn't
hear
you
discuss
at
25
422
all
the
science
that's
not
based
on
PM10
or
PM2.5,
1
but
on
PM10­
minus­
2.5?
The
epi
studies,
the
primary
2
basis
for
studying
the
standard
proposing
a
coarse
3
standard
was
­­
as
described
in
our
proposal,
an
epi
4
studies
generated
on
PM10­
minus­
2.5.
5
It
was
subtraction
method
to
come
up
with
6
it.
But
that
was
the
­­
the
primary
basis,
7
recognizing
that
­­
the
primary
position
was
that
8
those
studies
made
it
­­
when
­­
when
­­
perhaps
were
9
not
useful
to
come
up
with
the
level
of
the
standard,
10
but
were
scientifically
supportable
and
were
the
main
11
evidence
­­
scientific
evidence
we
have
for
proposing
12
to
have
a
standard
to
protect
against
the
risks
from
13
coarse
stand­
­­
coarse
particles
in
the
form
of
a
14
10­
minus­
2.5.
And
then
looking
at
what
were
the
PM10
15
levels
in
the
areas
where
those
epi
studies
were
16
conducted
and
then
coming
up
with
an
equivalence
on
17
that.
18
Did
you
­­
do
you
have
any
comments
on
that
19
science
that
was
the
­­
the
main
support
for
the
20
proposal?
21
MS.
THEIS:
Well,
we
­­
as
far
as
the
22
science
is
concerned,
I
understand
that
the
EPA
based
23
its
coarse
PM10
­­
­
10­
minus­
2.5
proposal
mainly
on
24
four
epi
studies.
25
423
And
we
­­
my
understanding
is
that
those
1
are
single
pollutant
studies
and
they
did
not
take
2
into
account
the
confounding
factors
of
­­
of
the
3
PM2.5
as
well.
4
And
so
those
are
­­
those
studies,
we
5
believe,
are
fatally
flawed
as
far
as
providing
a
6
basis
for
regulating
coarse
particulate
matter
in
the
7
same
way
that
any
PM10
studies
are.
8
MR.
HANNON:
Okay.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
10
MS.
THEIS:
Sure.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Margaret
Gordon
and
12
Karen
Lindholdt.
13
MS.
GORDON:
Good
evening.
I
know
it's
14
kind
of
late
and
I've
had
a
full
day.
15
My
name
is
Margaret
Gordon.
I'm
from
west
16
Oakland.
I'm
­­
that's
my
neighborhood.
I'm
from
17
the
city
of
Oakland.
I'm
with
an
organization
called
18
the
West
Oakland
Environmental
Indicators
Project.
19
And
my
organization
is
an
organization
that
uses
20
indicators
to
deal
­­
to
deal
with
different
21
campaigns
around
air
quality,
air
pollution,
land
22
use,
diesel,
rerouting
trucks
out
the
neighborhood,
23
look
at
how
planning
is
dealt
­­
done,
and
within
our
24
community
and
also
the
health
effects
of
what
does
25
424
diesel
do
to
our
neighborhood.
1
Where
I
live
at
I
am
surrounded
­­
West
2
Oakland
is
surrounded
by
three
freeways,
580,
880
and
3
980.
To
the
left
­­
the
left
of
880
is
the
Port
of
4
Oakland.
To
the
right
of
880,
of
West
Oakland,
is
5
the
army
base.
Further
left
­­
further
left
out
to
6
the
water
we've
got
the
Bay
Bridge.
7
So
one
­­
one
of
the
captures
about
­­
what
8
I'm
trying
to
get
you
to
capture
is
that
we
are
9
constantly
inundated
with
diesel
from
trucks,
planes,
10
ships,
trucks
and
the
railroad.
11
And
the
next
10
years,
from
this
drawing
I
12
have
here,
West
Oakland
will
be
surrounded
by
the
13
Port
of
Oakland
expansion.
We
will
have
the
railroad
14
­­
a
new
railroad
and
a
mobile
facility.
We
will
15
have
an
Greenfield
development
of
1,500
unit
houses
16
and
we
will
have
an
army
base
redevelopment
that's
17
been
reused.
We'll
have
a
Bay
Bridge
Project
that
18
will
be
going
on,
and
we
will
have
a
BART
19
transportation
project
that's
going.
And
in
the
20
middle
­­
and
on
top
of
that
we
have
climate
change.
21
To
­­
to
up
diesel
it'd
be
crazy
for
our
­­
22
my
community.
We
are
already
number
two
in
23
hospitalizations
in
the
Bay
Area
for
asthma.
We
have
24
­­
we
have
cancer
­­
we
have
cancer
questions
in
my
25
425
neighborhood.
We
have
COP.
We
have
premature
death
1
and
the
income
is
under
$
20,000
for
25,000
people
who
2
live
in
that
area.
3
So
to
reduce
diesel
would
be
crazy.
Based
4
on
­­
based
on
just
these
projections
for
the
next
10
5
years.
Just
for
the
next
10
years.
All
right.
6
So
reducing
­­
reducing
any
kind
of
7
emissions
­­
reducing
­­
adding
more
additional
to
8
the
soot
that's
already
out
there
­­
what
should
be
9
talking
about
how
you
reduce
the
PM,
how
you
reduce
10
the
NAAQS
to
the
lowest
level
of
there's
­­
that's
11
what
we
need
for
my
community;
to
reduce
it.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
I
think
we
13
understand.
Thank
you
very
much
for
­­
14
MS.
GORDON:
You're
welcome.
15
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
for
coming
in
and
16
taking
the
time.
17
MS.
LINDHOLDT:
Thank
you.
Good
evening.
18
My
name
is
Karen
Lindholdt.
I
just
arrived
19
from
Spokane,
Washington.
I
am
here
as
a
20
representative
for
a
group
called
Safe
Air
for
21
Everyone.
Safe's
members
reside
in
north
Idaho,
22
eastern
Washington,
Montana
and
British
Columbia.
23
Safe
is
headquartered
in
Sand
Point,
Idaho
24
and
was
incorporated
in
2001,
exclusively
to
address
25
426
the
health
crisis
arising
from
the
air
pollution
1
resulting
from
field
burning
in
north
Idaho.
2
In
response
to
this
crisis,
300
physicians
3
up
and
down
the
Idaho
panhandle
called
for
an
end
to
4
field
burning
because
of
the
health
hazard.
In
spite
5
of
this,
thousands
of
acres
of
fields
are
still
6
burned
in
north
Idaho
today.
7
This
last
year
40,000
were
burned
on
the
8
Coeur
d'Alene
Reservation,
40,000
acres
were
burned
9
on
the
Nez
Perce
tribe,
and
100,000
were
permitted
by
10
the
State
of
Idaho.
11
This
burning,
unquestionably,
results
­­
I
12
think
anyone
who
is
familiar
with
air
pollution
in
13
very
high
levels
of
particulate
matter.
14
Up
north
we
call
the
smoke
produced
by
15
field
burning
"
hit
and
run
pollution"
because
what
it
16
is
is
extremely
high
levels
on
an
hourly
basis,
17
upwards
of
150,
160.
But
the
problem
is
when
you
18
average
it
over
a
24­
hour
period
against
background
19
levels,
there
has
not,
amazingly
enough,
been
a
NAAQS
20
violation.
Of
course.
If
one
only
has
five
monitors
21
in
a
very
large
area,
it's
going
to
be
pretty
22
difficult
to
catch
these
numbers,
but
the
fact
is
we
23
have
very
high
levels.
24
One
of
the
hurdles
the
public
health
25
427
advocates
have
come
up
against
is
the
continued
1
assertion
that
there's
no
NAAQS
violation,
so,
gee,
2
there's
no
problem.
3
But,
in
fact,
there
has
been
problems.
In
4
fact,
in
reality,
we
have
had
two
deaths
in
our
5
community
as
a
result
of
field
burning,
specifically
6
on
September
13th,
2000,
5,800
acres
of
blue
grass
7
were
burned
on
the
Couer
d'Alene
reservation,
and
623
8
acres
were
burned
on
the
Rathdrum
Prairie.
A
woman
9
by
the
name
of
Marsha
Mason
passed
away
early
in
the
10
morning.
The
monitors
that
existed
found
a
peak
of
11
161
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
PM2.5,
however,
12
there
was
no
NAAQS
violations
in
that
24­
hour
period.
13
The
coroner
wrote
in
the
death
certificate
14
the
cause
of
her
death
was
status
asthmaticus
brought
15
on
by
severe
air
pollution.
16
In
addition
to
the
deaths,
each
fall
17
between
August
and
October,
we're
talking
about
eight
18
weeks
that
people
with
asthma,
COPD,
cardiovascular
19
problems
are
imprisoned
in
their
home,
are
forced
out
20
of
the
region,
miss
work,
miss
school,
must
take
21
additional
medications
and
other
­­
other
22
prescriptions
to
deal
with
this
smoke.
But
in
spite
23
of
all
of
this
there
have
been
no
NAAQS
violations.
24
I
submit
to
you
that
the
EPA
should
go
down
25
428
­­
should
come
down
and,
in
fact,
should
go
below
35,
1
should
follow
the
recommendation
of
the
25
on
a
2
24­
hour
basis.
3
That
might
begin
to
stop
the
problem
we
are
4
experiencing.
And
it
is
severe
and
I
cannot
5
underscore
it.
6
Several
epidemiologists
and
toxicologists
7
have
studied
and
worked
with
Safe
Air
for
Everyone
8
over
the
years,
and
I
will
be
submitting
into
the
9
record
­­
Safe
will
be
submitting
the
studies
they
10
have
found.
11
The
bottom
line
is
we
know
health
impacts
12
begin
about
15
micrograms
on
up,
and
these
­­
so
many
13
people,
thousands
of
people,
are
exposed
to
this
14
smoke.
15
So
in
sum,
I
would
just
­­
I
would
urge
a
16
12
microgram
per
cubic
meter
Annual
Standard
and
a
25
17
24­
hour.
And
I
also
want
to
plant
the
seed
that
we
18
are
in
desperate
need
of
help
on
the
hourly
standard.
19
Something's
got
to
change
up
where
we
are.
And
20
anyone
who
deals
with
this
field
burning,
it
is
21
lethal.
22
Thank
you.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
24
for
coming
and
for
giving
us
your
testimony.
We'll
25
429
look
forward
to
getting
the
­­
1
MS.
LINDHOLDT:
Thank
you.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
materials
you're
3
going
to
provide.
4
Larry
Alba
and
is
Mike
Byrne
or
Darrel
5
Sweet
here?
6
MR.
ALBA:
Did
you
want
to
go
first?
7
MR.
SWEET:
Nah,
go
ahead.
8
MR.
ALBA:
Okay.
My
name
is
Larry
Alba,
9
and
I
know
it's
not
quite
the
right
place
to
mention
10
this
and
I
won't
even
take
five
minutes.
11
But
I
did
kind
of
brief
you
all
what
I
had
12
on
my
mind
is
that
I
certainly
appreciate
that
the
13
EPA
is
going
to
be
changing
the
regulations,
and,
14
hopefully,
cleaning
up
the
air.
15
But
I
wanted
to
report
that
in
the
state
of
16
New
Mexico
we've
got
a
very
serious
problem
over
17
there
with
the
fact
that
they're
issuing
air
permits
18
­­
they
call
them
"
Air
Quality
Permits,"
and
they're
19
issuing
them
without
the
proper
public
notices
that
20
even
have
the
address
of
the
­­
the
street
address
of
21
the
location
of
the
place
that
will
be
emitting
air
22
pollution.
23
So
­­
and
then
also
in
the
permits,
they're
24
also
not
even
telling
the
name
of
each
pollutant
25
430
involved.
They
are
using
acronyms.
And
it's
some
1
sort
of
a
­­
it's
tricks
and
games
so
that
the
public
2
doesn't
know
what
really
is
going
to
be
polluting.
3
And
so
I
would
like
to
be
invited
when
will
4
they
make
a
rulemaking­
type
hearing
that
would
show
5
the
public
permit
guidelines
that
are
supposed
to
be
6
followed
because
I
went
to
the
EPA
website
and
I
7
couldn't
find
what
does
a
sample
public
notice
look
8
like
that's
supposed
to
be
followed.
9
And
because
New
Mexico
has
a
sample
that
­­
10
that
they
use.
They
show
a
sample,
but
that's
­­
but
11
then
they
don't
­­
their
guidelines
are
one
thing,
12
and
their
sample
is
another.
And
they
end
up
letting
13
­­
letting
the
people
who
want
to
pollute
go
ahead
14
and
abbreviate
everything
and
don't
even
put
an
15
address.
And
I
­­
and
I
said,
"
There's
only
a
16
township
and
a
section
on
there."
And
they
­­
they
17
said,
"
Oh,
you
can
figure
it
out
that
way."
18
And
that
­­
and
so
I'd
like
a
chance
to
19
describe
this
to
the
proper
authorities.
And
I
20
appreciate
Lydia
and
­­
and
John
Hannon
over
here
21
today
to
try
and
give
me
some
guidance
who
to
call.
22
So
­­
I
­­
and
I
thank
you
for
the
23
opportunity
to
at
least
say
we've
got
problems
with
24
the
New
Mexico
Environment
Department.
And
I
hope
25
431
they'll
­­
that
we
can
get
an
investigation
over
1
there.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Alba.
3
MR.
SWEET:
I
guess
that's
close
enough.
4
Is
that
okay?
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
That
should
do
it.
6
Thank
you.
7
MR.
SWEET:
My
name
is
Darrel
Sweet,
and
8
I'm
a
fifth
generation
cattle
rancher
from
Livermore,
9
California.
Livermore
is
about
45
miles
east
of
San
10
Francisco,
right
on
the
urban
edge.
11
I'm
the
immediate
past
president
of
the
12
California
Cattlemen's
Association.
I've
heard
from
13
a
number
of
groups
and
organizations
today
that
14
believe
that
ag
dust
should
be
regulated
even
though
15
EPA
staff
and
outside
review
panel
have
said
that
16
coarse
evidence
is
weak
or
limited
or
uncertain
or
17
not
even
adequate
to
support
a
health
risk
18
assessment.
19
It's
also
true
that
EPA
acknowledges
these
20
flaws
in
the
proposed
rule,
but
chose
to
apply
21
regulation
anyway.
If
EPA
regulation
is
somehow
22
applied
to
cattle
operations
in
the
arid
west
our
23
industry
will
suffer
severe
financial
consequences
24
and
the
public
health
will
not
benefit.
25
432
Creating
a
huge,
heavy­
handed,
expensive
1
regulatory
burden
on
the
cattle
industry
based
on
2
poor,
weak
or
nonexistent
science,
in
my
opinion,
is
3
unfair
to
my
family's
ranching
operation.
4
Our
ranch
is
now
in
its
seventh
generation.
5
We're
in
an
urban
area
near
Livermore,
and
our
ranch
6
provides
open
space
and
wildlife
habitat
as
well
as
a
7
home
for
our
cow­
calf
operation
and
ourselves.
8
I
know
we've
heard
that
­­
complaints
9
against
feed
lots,
but
our
family
ranch
relies
on
10
these
feeding
operations
as
a
market
for
our
calves.
11
This
is
our
main
source
of
income
for
the
ranch.
12
Without
these,
we
would
not
be
competitive,
as
­­
as
13
ranchers.
14
I
believe
EPA
should
base
its
decisions
to
15
impose
regulations
on
my
industry
based
on
sound
16
science.
I
support
continued
research
on
the
public
17
health
effects
of
dust
and
research
on
reasonable,
18
cost­
effective
measures
to
improve
our
ability
to
19
control
dust.
20
Thank
you.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much,
22
Mr.
Sweet.
23
MR.
SWEET:
Sure.
Thanks.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
25
433
MR.
SWEET:
Can
I
turn
that
in?
That
way
1
they'll
know
what
I'm
­­
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay,
actually,
if
3
you
could
give
it
to
the
folks
up
front,
because
4
they're
taking
papers.
Thank
you.
5
Gordon
Matassa
and
Cosette
Dudley.
6
MR.
MATASSA:
Hi,
I'm
Gordon
Matassa.
I'm
7
here
to
speak
on
­­
on
­­
as
a
committee
member
of
8
the
Mono
Lake
Committee.
And
I
have
a
little
speech
9
prepared.
10
Since
the
time
that
William
Mulholland
11
unethically
acquired
the
water
rights
and
engineered
12
the
Los
Angeles
aqueduct,
that
subverted
the
Owens
13
river
from
spilling
into
what
used
to
be
the
Owens
14
Lake.
15
The
ecosystems
of
Owens
Valley
has
been
16
significantly
altered,
resulting
in
may
horrific
17
consequences.
One
such
consequence
is
a
destroyed
18
economy
for
the
residents
of
Inyo
County.
Without
19
rights
to
the
local
water,
primarily,
the
Owens
20
River,
the
farming
industry
has
dried
up.
But
if
21
Inyo
County
still
had
the
rights
to
natural
water
22
sources
in
its
jurisdiction,
there
would
still
be
23
water
in
Owens
Lake
and
Mono
Lake
would
not
currently
24
be
in
danger
right
now.
25
434
Economically,
with
water
in
Owens
Lake
and
1
the
towns
of
Lone
Pine
and
Olancha
could
have
easily
2
become
thriving
lake
resorts.
The
orchards
of
the
3
town
of
Bishop
could
still
be
growing
in
great
4
abundance,
providing
profitable
produce
that
could
5
have
brought
more
money
into
these
towns
thus
6
allowing
these
cities
and
their
residents
to
prosper
7
in
ways
that
they
will
never
know
while
Los
Angeles
8
still
sucks
the
Owens
River
dry
and
threatens
the
9
same
to
Mono
Lake.
10
And
to
add
insult
to
injury,
not
only
are
11
the
economies
surrounding
Mono
Lake
and
the
former
12
Owens
Lake
in
danger,
if
not
already
altered
beyond
13
repair,
but
changing
the
national
ambient
air
quality
14
standards
for
particulate
matter
will
endanger
the
15
lives
of
those
individuals
who
are
residents
of
Inyo
16
and
Mono
Counties
as
well
as
to
the
surrounding
17
areas.
18
The
dust
contains
toxics
­­
toxins
such
as
19
arsenic,
cadmium,
nickel
and
sulfate
salts.
20
Scientific
studies
find
that
exposure
to
this
dust
21
has
potential
to
cause
aggravated
asthma,
chronic
22
bronchitis,
reduced
lung
function,
irregular
23
heartbeat,
heart
attack
and
premature
death
in
people
24
with
heart
and
lung
disease.
25
435
And
I
ask
why
would
the
EPA
want
to
1
endanger
both
the
peoples'
lives
and
the
environment?
2
I'd
understand
how
this
proposed
revision
of
the
3
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
as
a
protection
4
of
the
environment.
5
I
have
a
person
story
to
tell.
6
As
a
young
boy
I
remember
how
hazy
the
7
Owens
Valley
would
look
on
windy
summer
days
from
all
8
the
dust
blowing
off
the
dry
lake
bed.
I
also
9
remember
going
to
the
interagency
visitors
center
10
just
south
of
Lone
Pine
on
Highway
395
prior
to
1994,
11
and
listening
to
a
U.
S.
Forest
Ranger
discuss
the
12
problem
that
was
threatening
California.
13
Yes,
not
just
the
Owens
Valley,
but
14
California
in
general.
15
This
ranger
stated
that
the
dust
blowing
16
off
Owens
dry
lakebed
had
been
recorded
to
reaching
17
as
far
south
as
San
Diego,
California.
If
such
is
18
true,
then
not
only
are
Mono
and
Inyo
Counties
19
endangered
by
the
dust,
but
so
to
are
Kern,
Los
20
Angeles,
San
Bernardino,
Orange,
San
Diego
and
other
21
counties
of
southern
California.
22
This
means
that
not
only
are
the
lives
of
23
Mono
and
Inyo
Counties
endangered,
but
so
is
the
24
health
of
those
individuals
in
these
other
counties
25
436
and
to
a
lesser
degree,
the
visitors
to
the
Owens
1
Valley
and
Mono
basin.
2
The
dust
coming
off
Los
­­
the
dust
coming
3
into
Los
Angeles,
Orange
and
San
Diego
counties,
4
although
obviously
not
as
high
in
concentration
in
5
Inyo
and
Mono,
is
affecting
highly­
populated
areas,
6
perhaps
not
to
the
same
extent
as
in
the
rural
Inyo
7
and
Mono
Counties,
but
combined
with
the
other
health
8
hazards
in
urban
air,
this
dust
will
merely
add
to
9
the
already
existing
hazardous
material
millions
of
10
people
in
California
are
breathing
every
day.
11
Both
the
Owens
Valley
and
the
Mono
basin
12
have
very
strong
places
in
my
heart
and
my
family
13
history.
I
visit
both
these
places
annually
and
14
still
do
to
this
day.
When
I
was
a
child
my
whole
15
family
would
go
to
the
mono
basin
for
a
week's
16
vacation
every
summer.
In
addition
to
that
I'd
go
17
camping
with
my
grandparents
in
Lone
Pine,
not
too
18
far
from
the
Owens
dry
lakebed
in
Inyo
County
for
one
19
to
two
weeks.
20
My
happiest
memories
from
childhood
all
21
took
place
during
these
vacations.
I
remember
going
22
fishing
with
my
grandpa
in
Loan
Pine
Creek
and
23
feeding
the
seagulls
at
Mono
Lake
with
my
parents,
24
much
more
clearly
than
I
ever
remember
typical
25
437
childhood
memories
such
as
going
to
Disneyland.
1
The
beauty
of
this
terrain,
the
history
of
2
the
towns,
the
utter
magnificence
of
something
as
awe
3
inspiring
and
beautiful
as
the
salty
Mono
Lake
where
4
there
is
islands
and
amazing
tufa
formations,
and
so
5
many
other
aspects
have
been
highly
influential
in
6
making
me
who
I
am
today,
hence
why
I'm
here
talking
7
to
you
now.
8
But
it's
not
just
me,
it's
also
my
family
9
history.
My
grandfather
lived
in
many,
many
parts
of
10
California,
and
he
can
fondly
remember
how
beautiful
11
Owens
Lake
was,
complete
with
steamships,
believe
it
12
was
sucked
dry
by
Los
Angeles.
13
I
grew
up
hearing
him
tell
me,
every
time
14
we
drove
by
Mono
Lake,
how
he
could
remember
when
the
15
water
used
to
come
almost
to
the
highway.
16
I'm
not
alone
with
such
stories.
I
am
sure
17
you
have
heard
many
other
people
tell
you
about
their
18
personal
experiences
and
love
of
Mono
Lake.
But
both
19
the
mono
­­
I'm
sorry.
Both
the
Mono
basin
and
Owens
20
Valley
are
central
aspects
of
our
California
cultural
21
heritage.
From
being
immortalized
in
Mark
Twain's
22
Roughing
It
to
essentially
representing
the
23
mythologized
wild
west
frontier
atmosphere
that's
so
24
inexplicably
American,
to
the
California
gold
rush
25
438
and
gold
fever
in
Bodie
and
Mammoth
to
having
the
1
bragging
rights
to
being
the
home
of
the
tallest
2
mountain
in
the
contiguous
United
States,
we
cannot
3
turn
our
backs
on
these
lands
and
allow
them
to
4
become
dusty,
unhealthy,
uninviting
wastelands.
5
Not
only
for
our
own
human
culture
and
6
history,
but
for
the
local
wildlife
and
thousands
of
7
wild
fowl
that
rely
on
Mono
Lake
for
their
yearly
8
migrations.
9
If
these
air
quality
standards
are
changed
10
according
to
the
EPA's
proposal,
what
will
stop
Los
11
Angeles
from
diverting
or
stealing
more
water
from
12
the
eastern
Sierras,
and
therefore,
increasing
the
13
amount
of
toxic
particulate
matter
in
the
air?
14
Nothing.
Los
Angeles
has
already
decimated
Owens
15
Valley.
Do
not
let
it
destroy
the
Mono
basin
as
16
well.
17
Please
keep
in
mind
all
the
health
of
18
Californians
and
the
wildlife
and
everything
else
you
19
have
heard
today
when
you
are
making
your
decision.
20
Thank
you.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
22
Ms.
Dudley.
23
And,
please
take
both
microphones,
since
24
one
is
for
the
court
reporter.
Thank
you.
25
439
MS.
DUDLEY:
This
will
be
a
very
brief,
1
basic
statement.
2
I'm
an
interested
resident,
though
I
don't
3
­­
and
I
don't
belong
to
any
organizations
except
the
4
American
Lung
Association
and
I
read
their
5
literature.
6
I
have
no
statistics
at
hand,
only
personal
7
observations.
8
My
grandmother
was
born
in
San
Francisco
in
9
the
1880s,
and
she
lived
to
98
years
of
age.
And,
in
10
fact,
soon,
I'll
be
going
to
the
centennial
of
the
11
great
earthquake,
which
she
talked
endlessly
about.
12
She
never
had
any
respiratory
problems
or
13
asthma.
No
one
in
my
family,
going
back
four
14
generations
had
such
problems.
I'm
now
the
oldest
15
remaining
family
member.
And
during
the
past
15
16
years
I've
developed
asthma
and
other
serious
17
respiratory
problems
such
as
frequent
pneumonias,
18
also
fibrillation
has
become
a
problem
for
me.
And
I
19
now
have
to
use
oral
medications
and
inhalers.
20
Two
of
my
grandsons
also
have
asthma.
We
21
have
all
lived
in
California
our
entire
lives,
going
22
back
four
generations.
23
So
my
own
very
nonscientific
experience
24
indicates
to
me,
very
simply,
that
the
air
is
getting
25
440
drastically
worse,
year­
by­
year,
day­
by­
day,
and
that
1
it
is
killing
us.
And
that
it
is
idiotic
to
weaken
2
controls
on
any
aspect
of
air
quality;
in
this
case,
3
particulate
matter.
4
It
is
worse
than
idiotic.
In
my
opinion,
5
as
a
sufferer
from
ever
more
degraded
air
inflicted
6
upon
us,
it
is
criminal.
7
And
that's
my
statement.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Thank
you
9
very
much
for
sharing
that
with
us.
10
Any
questions?
11
Okay.
And
if
there
are
any
other
folks
12
that
have
spoken
today
about
that
Mono
and
Owens
13
Lake,
and
we've
asked
them
for
any
studies
that
exist
14
about
the
dust
coming
off
the
lake.
So
if
there's
15
anything
additional
that
you
have,
we
would
like
to
16
have
that
for
the
record.
17
MR.
MATASSA:
I
don't
have
it
with
me
now,
18
but
I
can
find
some.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
The
comment
period
20
closes
April
17th.
And
­­
21
MR.
MATASSA:
Okay.
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
out
front
we
have
23
a
sheet
that
explains
how
to
submit
things
to
our
24
docket.
So
­­
25
441
MR.
MATASSA:
Great,
thank
you.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
if
you're
able
to
2
do
it,
that
would
be
helpful.
3
Thank
you.
4
Steve
Ziman
and
Marcie
Pinkard.
5
DR.
ZIMAN:
Good
evening.
6
I
know
it's
been
a
long
day
for
you
people,
7
and
it
will
be
over
soon.
8
My
name
is
Dr.
Steve
Ziman.
I'm
here
9
representing
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
at
this
10
hearing.
I've
previously
done
work
for
Chevron
11
before
I
retired.
I've
worked
in
air
quality
for
12
about
25
years.
13
And
my
comments
today
are
going
to
briefly
14
address
health
and
then
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
15
bit
about
the
impacts
of
a
lowering
of
the
24­
hour
16
standard
from
the
current
one.
17
The
American
Petroleum
Institute
has
18
provided
comments
before
on
CDs,
on
the
staff
paper
19
and
you
certainly
will
get
comments
from
them
on
this
20
proposed
rule.
21
We've
pointed
out
the
problems,
at
least
22
that
we
think,
with
the
assumptions
and
methodologies
23
that
have
been
used
that
­­
for
the
basis
for
24
providing
information
that
led
to
the
proposal
of
the
25
442
24­
hour
standard,
at
least
a
primary
alternative
of
1
the
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
2
EPA's
also
proposed
­­
one
of
the
other
3
alternatives
to
maintain
the
current
standard,
and
4
API
supports
that
maintenance
of
that
current
5
standard,
65
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
6
One
of
the
primary
analyses
that
EPA
7
presented
in
the
staff
papers
supporting
the
lower
8
stand
was
a
quantitative
health
risk
assessment.
9
And
I
realize
that
has
been
removed
in
the
10
end.
But
it
was
there
and
many
of
our
comments
were
11
raised
about
that,
and
particularly
we've
talked
12
about
concentration
response
curve,
we've
talked
13
about
no
thresholds
and
about
the
statistical
14
methodology.
15
We
note,
at
least
in
the
Federal
Register
16
notice
now
that
EPA
agrees
with
these
comments
and
17
there's
been
­­
stated
­­
and
there's
a
quote,
18
"
Significant
uncertainties
continue
to
underlie
the
19
resulting
risk
assessment."
Furthermore,
the
20
administrator
has
also
dated
again,
quote,
"
he
judges
21
that
it"
­­
that
is
the
risk
assessment
­­
"
does
not
22
provide
a
reliable
basis
to
determine
what
specific
23
quantitative
revisions
are
­­
are
appropriate.
24
Now
given
this,
as
well
as
the
recognition
25
443
by
the
administrator
of
any
risk
assessment
is
even
1
more
uncertain
due
to
the
complexities
of
the
2
composition
of
fine
particles,
we
believe
that,
at
3
this
point,
there's
not
a
technical
basis
for
4
proposing
a
reduction
of
the
current
standards
of
35
5
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
­­
or
any
other
lower
6
level.
7
What
I'd
like
to
do
now
to
sort
of
switch
8
gears
and
focus
on
the
impacts
of
a
new
24­
hour
9
Standard,
if
it
were
set
at
35
micrograms
per
cubic
10
meter
in
terms
of
the
impacts
that
it
can
have
and
11
the
effects
on
both
large
and
small
businesses
and
12
the
economy.
13
It's
important
to
realize
that
with
the
14
lowering
of
the
24­
hour
Standard,
if
it
were
to
go
to
15
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
now
we
would
have
the
16
first
time
in
which,
for
the
most
nonattainment
17
areas,
we
would
­­
that
would
be
the
controlling
18
standard.
19
Heretofore,
the
controlling
standard
has
20
been
the
Annual
Standard.
A
shift
of
the
24­
hour
21
Standard
will
basically
have
large
impacts
on
22
planning
and
also
require
very
significant
reductions
23
of
going
from
35
­­
or,
excuse
me,
65
to
35.
It's
24
about
a
50
percent
reduction.
25
444
If
we
look
at
the
current
nonattainment
1
areas
and
potential
nonattainment
areas,
it's
evident
2
that
many
of
these
new
areas
would
be
in
the
west
and
3
others
would
surround
areas
that
are
already
4
nonattainment.
5
For
those
areas
that
currently
attain
the
6
PM
and
the
ozone
standard
they
have
little
history,
7
really,
of
doing
planning
and
they
would
yet
be
8
required
to
adopt
measures
that
would
impact
both
9
existing
facilities
and
new
ones,
regardless
of
10
whether
or
not
these
facilities
were
major
11
contributors
to
PM
mass.
12
More
stringent
PM
standard
­­
24­
hour
13
standard
would
have
the
following
effects:
First
of
14
all,
it
would
require
the
adoption
of
additional
15
requirements
to
implement
the
more
stringent
controls
16
for
new
sources
­­
new
major
sources
and
major
17
modification
of
existing
sources
is
this
layer
with
18
the
top­
down
approach
of
layer.
19
Nonattainment
permitting
requirements
would
20
require
additional
pollutants
be
controlled
for
the
21
sites
directly
emitting
PM
so
the
source
will
have
to
22
implement
more
costly
controls
for
sulphur
dioxide,
23
nitrogen
dioxide,
possibly
hydrocarbons
as
well
as
24
directly
emitted
particulate.
25
445
The
permitting
requirements
for
35
1
microgram
per
cubic
meter
standard
would
be
expected
2
to
be
even
more
complex
­­
excuse
me
­­
complex,
time
3
consuming
and
costly
based
on
the
complexity
of
at
4
least
the
proposed
implementation
rule
for
the
5
current
PM2.5
standard.
And
I
say
"
proposed,"
I
6
don't
know
what
the
final
would
look
like.
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Um­
hum.
8
DR.
ZIMAN:
So
already
noted
adoption
of
a
9
new
24­
hour
standard
would
require
a
sea
change
for
10
the
regulatory
agencies
and
these
new
nonattainment
11
areas,
as
almost
everything
they've
done
has
been
12
PSD.
So
they
have
no
history.
13
Agencies
would
have
to
develop
new
14
expertise
in
emissions
and
emissions
inventories
and
15
modeling
and
control
technologies
and
planning
things
16
that
they
didn't
do
under
PSD.
It's
not
clear
how
17
easily
they're
going
to
do
it
or
how
they're
going
to
18
secure
the
funds
to
do
that.
19
Presently,
funding
is
a
fairly
serious
20
issue
for
many
of
these
agencies.
For
companies
that
21
are
looking
to
either
locate
or
expand
in
some
of
22
these
areas
the
cost
of
controls
and
requirements
for
23
offsets
could
well
lead
them
to
look
at
surrounding
24
areas
and
thus
move
­­
or
never
establish
there
and
25
446
this
has
impacts
on
the
local
economy.
It
also
moves
1
things
into
clean
areas.
2
For
businesses
that
are
currently
in
the
3
nonattainment
areas,
the
impacts
of
the
new
standard
4
would
be
­­
first
of
all,
they're
already
heavily
5
controlled
­­
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Your
time
is
up.
7
DR.
ZIMAN:
Okay.
8
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
you
could
try
to
9
wrap
up.
10
DR.
ZIMAN:
I
will
wrap
up.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
12
DR.
ZIMAN:
I'll
go
right
for
the
end
here
13
and
say
in
summary:
Given
the
uncertainty
of
the
14
current
science
and
the
societal
costs
that
would
15
require
to
attain
the
PM
standards,
EPA
should
focus
16
on
attaining
the
current
standards
first
before
17
considering
new
standards.
18
Thank
you
very
much.
19
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
And
I
20
assume
in
­­
that
you'll
be
providing
more
extensive
21
written
testimony
­­
22
DR.
ZIMAN:
Oh,
there'll
be
lots
of
written
23
testimony.
Yeah.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah.
25
447
DR.
ZIMAN:
Okay.
1
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
2
Any
questions?
3
Okay.
4
MS.
PINKARD:
Thank
you.
5
My
name
is
Marcie
Pinkard.
And
I'm
a
6
concerned
citizen.
I
do
get
alerts
from
a
watchdog
7
group
called
Environment
California.
And
they
told
8
whoever
subscribes
to
their
email
list
to
show
up
9
with
testimony.
Well,
here's
mine.
10
I'm
an
asthmatic.
I'm
an
adult­
onset
11
asthmatic.
And
like
your
previous
tester
­­
12
testifier,
I
have
problems
that
I
didn't
have
before.
13
It
does
affect
the
heart
too.
I
recently
recovered
14
from
a
flu,
and
the
heart
­­
my
heart
was
racing
the
15
entire
time.
It's
a
struggle
to
breathe.
And
so
I
16
oppose
any
changes
to
air
quality
standards
that
17
would
lower
the
standard
of
the
quality
of
air.
18
Current
scientific
studies
prove
that
19
present
standards
are
too
weak,
in
fact,
instead
of
20
too
strong.
And
I'm
amazed
at
the
Bush
21
Administration
not
taking
the
advice
of
it's
own
­­
22
let's
see
what
it
says
here:
The
Bush
Administration
23
rejected
the
recommendations
of
its
own
Independent
24
Clean
Air
Science
Advisors.
Instead
it
should
adopt
25
448
those
standards
and
that
advice.
1
I
live
in
Contra
Costa
County.
It's
one
of
2
the
10
dirtiest
counties
in
the
country.
Recently
3
moved
there
because
the
neighborhood
was
better
than
4
where
I
was
living
before.
But,
anyway.
5
I
think
that's
about
it
for
me.
I
do
­­
I
6
do
oppose
it
and
I
would
like
to
speak
on
behalf
of
7
­­
of
wildlife
and
children
and
elderly
people
as
8
well,
because
I'm
fairly
healthy
in
terms
of
­­
9
except
for
what
this
­­
this
asthma­
type
thing.
And
10
if
it
affects
me,
then
it's
bound
to
affect
people
11
that
are
weaker
and
it
­­
and
it
absolutely
has
an
12
effect
on
­­
on
the
environment
and
the
wildlife
as
13
well.
Demonstrable.
Yeah.
14
Thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
my
15
testimony.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much
17
for
coming
to
give
us
your
testimony.
18
Tommaso
Boggia
and
Diane
Vornoli.
19
MR.
BOGGIA:
My
name
is
Tommaso
Boggia,
20
T­
o­
m­
m­
a­
s­
o
and
my
last
name
is
B­
o­
g­
g­
i­
a.
21
Let's
go?
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
please.
23
MR.
BOGGIA:
All
right.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
can
you
just
make
25
449
sure
both
mics
­­
the
other
microphone
as
well.
No,
1
he
needs
both
of
them
because
­­
2
MR.
BOGGIA:
All
right.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
one
is
for
the
4
court
reporter
and
one
is
for
the
room.
5
MR.
BOGGIA:
All
right.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
7
MR.
BOGGIA:
So
my
name
is
Tommaso
Boggia.
8
I
am
the
Student
Chair
for
the
California
Public
9
Interest
Research
Group.
We
are
a
student
group
10
which
focuses
on
protecting
the
public
interest,
11
especially
focusing
on
environmental
protection
and
12
consumer
rights.
13
I'm
here
representing
the
30,000
students
14
that
pledged
their
support
to
CALPIRG
and
are
15
concerned
about
the
state
of
environment
today.
16
Already
95
percent
of
Californians
live
in
17
areas
that
are
­­
have
been
deemed
by
the
EPA
to
be
18
unsuitable
for
breathing.
19
This
is
a
statistic
that
the
EPA
itself
20
came
up
with,
and
it
is
just
wrong
for
the
EPA
to
cut
21
down
on
the
restrictions
to
air
pollution.
22
The
EPA's
duty
is
to
protect
the
public.
23
It
is
to
make
sure
that
the
environment
in
which
we
24
live
in
is
safe
and
clean
and
to
make
sure
that
the
25
450
public
health
is
­­
and
the
public
health
always
has
1
to
be
the
first
priority
of
their
legislation.
2
My
generation,
the
people
that
I'm
3
representing,
are
the
ones
that
are
going
to
have
to
4
deal
with
the
problems
that
are
going
to
be
created
5
if
policies
such
as
these
are
not
made
stronger.
And
6
especially
the
policies
such
as
these
are
even
7
weakened.
8
Already
one
out
of
seven
children
in
9
California
is
asthmatic.
And
the
most
common
reason
10
for
children
not
going
­­
for
children
missing
school
11
days
is
for
asthma
attacks.
12
I
am
afraid
of
what
is
going
to
happen
once
13
things
like
this
are
going
to
­­
when
legislation
14
such
as
these
are
going
to
be
weakened.
15
My
children,
the
children
of
the
all
of
the
16
people
that
I'm
here
to
represent
and
the
children
of
17
their
children
are
going
to
have
such
a
worse
18
situation
if
by
now
already
one
out
of
seven
is
19
asthmatic.
20
Once
again,
the
EPA
stands
­­
must
base
its
21
policy
solely
on
the
health
effects
of
particle
22
pollution
especially
­­
the
clean
air
policy,
I'm
23
talking
about
­­
must
base
them
on
the
health
effects
24
of
particle
pollution.
It
is
just
not
right
for
the
25
451
EPA
to
accept
compromises
with
oil
industries,
coal
1
industries,
mining
industries,
just
industry
in
2
general
when
it
puts
the
health
of
its
constituents
3
­­
constituency
in
hazard.
4
And,
yeah,
that
is
my
report.
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
6
And
I
think
­­
if
you
could
spell
your
name
7
for
the
court
reporter.
8
MS.
VORNOLI:
Sure.
Can
you
hear
me?
9
It's
Diane
Vornoli,
V­,
as
in
victor,
10
­
o­
r­
n­
o­
l­
i.
11
Okay.
I'm
representing
myself
as
a
12
concerned
citizen.
But
also
I'm
a
member
of
the
Mono
13
Lake
Committee.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Um­
hum.
15
MS.
VORNOLI:
And
I
wanted
to
just
give
you
16
a
little
bit
of
a
taste
or
a
feeling
of
what
the
Mono
17
Lake
and
the
Owens
basin
area
means
to
us,
may
18
family.
19
I've
been
going
to
that
area,
camping
and
20
recreating
for
all
my
life,
but
especially
the
last
21
12
years,
my
husband
and
I
­­
we
work
full
time,
and
22
so
we
get
our
two
weeks'
vacation.
And
we
are
very
23
choiceful
where
we
spend
it,
as
you
can
imagine,
and
24
we
always
go
to
the
eastern
Sierra,
the
Mono
Lake
25
452
area,
Lundy
Canyon.
We
camp,
hike,
enjoy
the
1
environment,
bird
watch.
2
And
we've
seen
the
lake
change
in
the
last
3
16
years
or
so.
And
positively
the
last
10.
And
4
it's
very
gratifying
to
go
and
walk
along
the
5
boardwalk
at
the
county
park
or
at
the
south
Tufa
6
area
at
Mono
Lake
and
see
the
lake
higher
levels,
and
7
see
the
birds
and
the
animals
and
­­
it's
awesome.
8
Well,
five
years
ago
when
our
son
was
born,
9
his
very
first
camping
trip
at
10
weeks
old
was,
of
10
course,
at
Mono
Lake,
Lundy
Canyon
in
September,
when
11
it
was
below
freezing
at
night,
but
he
did
great.
12
His
very
first
hike
in
his
whole
life
was
at
the
Tufa
13
at
the
south
Tufa
formations.
And
also
his
first
14
picnic
was
at
the
county
park
at
the
northern
part
of
15
the
lake.
16
And
so,
as
you
can
see,
this
is
a
very
17
important
area
for
us,
not
only
because
we
enjoy
18
camping
there,
but
it's
extremely
unique,
beautiful,
19
one­
of­
a­
kind
place.
And
the
eastern
Sierra,
there's
20
nowhere
like
it
in
the
world.
21
And
the
reason
why
I'm
here
is
because
I
am
22
concerned,
and
I'm
very
worried
that
if
the
air
23
quality
­­
the
current
air
quality
mandates
are
24
changed
and
especially
in
the
Mono
basin
with
the
25
453
alkali
dust
from
the
lakes
being
very
­­
very
bad.
1
And
my
son,
particularly,
was
born
with
a
congenital
2
heart
defect
and
small
particulates
are
really
bad.
3
And
I
would
hate
so
much
for
us
to
have
to
say,
"
You
4
know
what,
son?
This
part
of
California
is
polluted
5
and
you
cannot
be
here
for
your
health."
And
so,
you
6
know,
we're
really
trying
to
teach
him
from
day
one
7
to
respect
and
enjoy
and
appreciate
the
environment
8
in
its
natural
state
and
it
would
be
a
crime
to
have
9
to
say
"
You
cannot
be
here
anymore
because
of
the
air
10
pollution."
11
So
I'm
very
concerned.
12
And
that's
it.
Thank
you
for
listening
to
13
me
at
the
end
of
a
very
long
day,
I'm
sure.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
thank
you
for
15
coming
­­
16
MS.
VORNOLI:
Sure.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
at
the
end
of
your
18
work
day
or
whatever
else
you've
been
doing.
19
MS.
VORNOLI:
Okay.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
We
very
much
21
appreciate
your
coming.
22
MS.
VORNOLI:
Thank
you.
23
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
24
Mercedes
Corbell
and
Audrey
Stone
­­
I'm
25
454
sorry,
Aubrry
Stone.
1
MR.
STONE:
I've
been
called
worse.
2
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
I
need
to
be
more
3
careful.
4
MS.
CORBELL:
Hi,
Mercedes
Corbell.
5
I'm
here
representing
myself.
I
live
in
6
Oakland,
California.
And
just
in
a
nutshell,
I
7
oppose
any
reduction
in
the
standards
in
terms
of
8
whether
it's
fine
particulates
or
coarse.
I
oppose
9
any
reduction
in
the
air
quality
standards.
10
I
grew
up
in
Los
Angeles
in
the
'
60s
and
11
'
70s.
We
had
smog
alert
days,
and
I
think
they
12
probably
still
do.
I
haven't
asked
my
family.
13
On
those
days,
we
were
encouraged
to
not
go
14
outside,
to
not
exercise,
and,
in
general,
to
somehow
15
stay
indoors.
Clearly
this
is
an
impractical
request
16
of
children.
And
I
remember
during
­­
I
was
on
a
17
cross­
country
team,
on
certain
days
it
was
literally
18
painful
to
exercise.
My
chest
hurt,
my
lungs
ached
19
and
I
could
physically
feel
it.
20
This
is
an
unacceptable
result
of
our
21
reliance
on
automobiles
and
the
other
sources
of
the
22
particulate
matter.
It's
insane
that
we
engage
in
so
23
much
of
this
and
that
we
would
even
consider
reducing
24
the
standards.
25
455
Are
you
good
with
these
technical
things?
1
Should
I
just...
2
[
SPEAKER]:
I
would
just
­­
3
MS.
CORBELL:
I
can
speak
up.
4
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
No,
that's
all
right.
5
I
was
just
checking.
6
Why
don't
you
try
it
again
and
we'll
see
if
7
it's
working.
8
MS.
CORBELL:
Hello?
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Maybe
the
­­
battery
10
­­
go
out?
11
Check.
12
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
I'm
sorry
about
that.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Here's
our
loyal
AV
14
man.
15
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
Sorry
about
that.
16
MS.
CORBELL:
That's
okay.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
If
you
can
just
wait
18
one
minute
so
folks
can
hear
what
you're
saying.
19
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
It's
either
the
power
or
20
the
battery.
21
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
It's
the
22
battery.
That
is
the
power
of
the
battery,
23
fortunately
we
seem
to
have
­­
24
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
No,
but
it
had
the
power
to
25
456
cut
you
off.
1
(
Pause.)
2
MS.
CORBELL:
Great,
thank
you.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
4
MS.
CORBELL:
Sure.
5
MR.
[
SPEAKER]:
Sorry
about
that.
6
MS.
CORBELL:
So,
I
mean,
that's
my
7
personal
experience.
My
two
brothers
have
asthma.
8
Two
of
my
three
nieces
that
live
in
Los
Angeles
have
9
asthma.
And,
you
know,
I'm
no
scientist
and
I'm
no
10
doctor,
but
I
don't
really
think
it's
a
coincidence
11
that
they're
growing
up
in
an
area
with
a
lot
of
­­
12
quite
a
bit
of
smog
and
­­
and
there's
a
high
level
13
of
that.
14
In
any
case,
in
my
opinion
it's
the
job
of
15
the
government,
democracy
or
no,
to
­­
and
I
mean
16
that
in
the
sense
of
any
government,
whatever
their
17
structure
is.
In
our
case,
obviously,
we
have
a
18
democracy
­­
to
protect
the
interests
of
the
people.
19
The
interests
of
the
people
are
simply
not
served
by
20
a
degradation
in
their
health.
And,
in
fact,
I
feel
21
that
this
current
standard
from
­­
from
the
reading
22
that
I've
done,
are
­­
are
considered
too
low
by
a
23
lot
of
health
experts.
24
I,
frankly,
don't
understand
why
we
are
25
457
even
having
these
hearings.
I
think
it's
kind
of
a
1
waste
of
time.
If
you
get
studies
that
say
that
2
there
is
a
link
between
what
we
have
now
and
our
3
problems
with
health,
and
you
consider
lowering
them,
4
that,
to
me
is
just
­­
it's
really
a
waste
of
time,
5
it's
a
waste
of
taxpayer
dollars.
6
And
I'm
not
saying
this
to
insult
any
of
7
you
sitting
here,
but
simply
a
comment
on
­­
you
8
know,
we
should
be
using
this
time
and
resources
to
9
actually
help
improve
some
of
the
quality
of
life
and
10
the
quality
of
­­
of
the
ecosystem.
11
So,
I
guess,
in
a
nutshell,
just
to
repeat,
12
I
do
not
support
the
lowering
of
the
standards;
I,
in
13
fact,
strongly
oppose
it.
And
I
would
ask
that
the
14
Environmental
Protection
Agency
serve
the
people
of
15
the
country
rather
than,
in
this
case,
the
interests
16
of
an
administration
who
seems
to
be
much
more
17
lenient
in
lowering
the
standards
for
­­
for
whatever
18
reasons.
19
Thank
you.
20
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
21
Mr.
Stone.
22
MR.
STONE:
Oh
it's
sometimes
awkward.
23
Good
evening.
I'm
Aubrry
Stone.
That's
24
A­
u­
b­
r­
r­
y.
25
458
And
I'm
currently
the
present
CEO
of
the
1
California
Black
Chamber
of
Commerce,
representing
2
approximately
300­
­­
3,500
members
across
the
State
3
of
California.
4
And
I
don't
really
feel
that
we,
you
know,
5
we
need
to
change
the
standards
as
they
are.
I
6
request
that
any
decision
that
you
make,
you
know,
7
moving
forth
on
this
critical
issue,
you
know,
be
8
done
with
a
degree
of
balance.
9
I
also
believe
that
anyone
who
violates
the
10
current
standards
should
be
severely
punished
11
regardless
of
whether
they're
small
or
large
business
12
or
individuals.
And
that
any
change
be
based
on
13
sound
scientific
data
that
should
be
adopted.
14
However,
I'm
also
­­
I
can
say
that
I'm
15
proud
to
be
in
California,
and
I'm
proud
of
16
California's
aggressive
EPA
approach.
And
in
many,
17
many
cases
other
than
clusters
­­
and
we
do
have
18
clusters,
I'm
­­
this
is
not
paradise
­­
we
meet
or
19
exceed
the
federal
standards.
20
That's
why
I
simply
request
a
balanced
21
approach
to
every
decision
because
every
decision
22
that
you
make
has
a
significant
ripple
effect
23
throughout
the
economic
structure
of
this
state
and,
24
in
my
case,
severely
affecting
small
business,
25
459
especially
in
minority­
owned
small
business.
1
In
summary
I
would
just
simply
say
in
2
international
affairs,
it
would
probably
be
stated
3
that,
you
know,
when
America
sneezes,
that
the
rest
4
of
the
world
catches
pneumonia,
but
just
to
bring
it
5
just
a
little
closer
to
home,
when
you
guys
sneeze
6
small
and
minority
business
catch
pneumonia.
So
7
please,
be
careful
in
your
decisions.
8
Thank
you.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
Just
one
10
quick
question.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
11
understand.
So
you
would
prefer
that
we
not
change
12
the
standard.
13
MR.
STONE:
Yes,
ma'am.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
15
MR.
STONE:
Good.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
17
MR.
STONE:
Thank
you.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Neal
Desai
and
Teresa
19
DeAnda.
20
Is
Ms.
DeAnda
here?
21
What
about
Lauri
Tanner?
22
If
you
could
just
wait
one
minutes
­­
23
MR.
DESAI:
Sure.
24
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
so
they
can
come
25
460
forward.
1
Okay.
And
use
both
microphones,
please.
2
MR.
DESAI:
Use
both?
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes,
please.
One
is
4
for
the
court
reporter
and
one
is
for
the
room.
5
Thank
you.
6
MR.
DESAI:
How's
this?
7
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Great.
8
MR.
DESAI:
Five
minutes?
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yes.
10
MR.
DESAI:
Okay.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
And
there's
a
­­
a
12
little
­­
13
MR.
DESAI:
Oh,
great.
14
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
machine
there
that
15
you
can
watch.
16
MR.
DESAI:
That's
good
to
know.
17
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yellow
means
there's
18
two
minutes
left
and
red
means
your
time
is
up.
19
MR.
DESAI:
Okay.
All
right.
20
Well,
thanks
for
having
me.
21
My
name
is
Neal
Desai.
I'm
here
on
behalf
22
of
the
Nonpartisan
National
Parks
Conservation
23
Association
and
its
300,000
members
to
testify
with
24
regard
to
EPA's
proposed
secondary
standard
for
fine
25
461
particulate
matter.
1
For
the
record,
I
would
like
to
first
note
2
that
NPCA
joins
hundreds
of
leading
air
quality
3
scientists
and
physicians
and
public
health
and
4
environmental
communities
in
supporting
a
primary
5
standard
of
12
micro
grams
per
cubic
meter
for
the
6
Annual
Standard
and
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
7
the
Daily
Standard.
8
Adopting
these
low
air
quality
­­
excuse
9
me,
lower
primary
standards
is
necessary
in
order
to
10
protect
the
health
of
all
Americans.
11
The
EPA
has
requested
comments
on
whether
12
to
set
a
secondary
fine
particle
standard
designed
to
13
address
visibility
within
the
range
of
20
to
30
14
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
15
We
urge
the
EPA
to
follow
the
16
recommendations
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Scientific
17
Advisory
Committee
and
that
of
its
own
expert
staff
18
by
adopting
a
secondary
standard
of
20
micrograms
per
19
cubic
meter.
20
This
standard
is
the
minimum
necessary
to
21
protect
urban,
rural,
Class
1
areas
such
as
our
22
treasured
national
parks
from
harm
caused
by
this
23
pollution.
24
I'd
like
to
talk
about
haze
and
national
25
462
parks.
1
Nearly
30
years
after
Congress
called
for
a
2
return
to
natural
visual
air
quality
in
America's
3
premier
parks
and
wilderness
areas,
many
remain
4
plagued
by
unsightly
haze
pollution.
5
According
to
the
National
Park
Service,
air
6
pollution
currently
impairs
visibility
to
some
degree
7
in
every
national
park.
8
Air
pollutants
at
Joshua
Tree
National
Park
9
here
in
California
reduce
ability
for
visitors
to
10
enjoy
the
park's
beauty.
For
example,
at
Keys
11
Viewpoint,
a
popular
area,
on
clear
days
you
can
see
12
100
miles
out,
but
when
it's
plagued
by
haze,
only
17
13
miles.
14
And
Sequoia
and
Kings
Canyon
National
Park,
15
this
summer,
air
quality
was
so
bad
that
they
had
to
16
display
"
Take
Caution"
signs
to
the
visitors
advising
17
them
of
risks
from
hiking
or
biking,
the
sole
reason
18
­­
the
main
reason
why
folks
go
to
the
park.
19
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
economic
20
benefits
of
reducing
haze.
21
EPA
rightly
acknowledges
that
fine
particle
22
matter
is
the
most
significant
cause
of
disability
23
impairment
throughout
the
U.
S.
and
that
reducing
it
24
will
provide
enormous
benefits.
25
463
Research
cited
by
EPA
shows
that
80
percent
1
or
more
of
respondents
are
aware
of
poor
visual
air
2
quality
and
the
benefits
associated
with
improving
3
views
are
estimated
to
be
in
the
multi­
billion
dollar
4
range
annually.
5
Good
visibility
is
important
to
visitors
of
6
our
national
parks.
They
consistently
rank
clean,
7
clear
air
as
one
of
the
most
features
when
visiting
8
parks.
9
Research
by
the
National
Park
Service
shows
10
that
visitors
would
be
willing
to
spend
more
time
and
11
money
if
visibility
conditions
in
parks
were
better.
12
A
2000
ABT
Associates
study
finds
that
13
increases
in
visibility
could
raise
park
visitation
14
by
as
much
as
25
percent,
which
could
yield
15
approximately
$
30
million
in
increased
fee
collection
16
and
$
160
million
in
additional
concession
sales.
17
This,
in
turn,
would
add
nearly
700
million
18
in
retail
sales
to
the
economies
around
the
park.
19
$
53
million
in
local
tax
revenues
and
create
nearly
20
16,000
jobs.
21
The
evidence
supports
a
stronger
secondary
22
fine
particle
standard.
23
EPA
proposes
to
set
the
secondary,
24­
hour
24
fine
particle
standard
at
a
level
identical
to
the
25
464
primary
standard
of
35
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
1
This
proposed
standard
is
significantly
weaker
than
2
that
recommended
by
its
own
expert
staff
and
3
scientific
advisors
and
will
leave
our
skies
4
unacceptably
hazy.
5
Instead,
EPA
should
adopt
the
standard
of
6
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
Studies
in
Denver,
7
Phoenix
and
British
Columbia
cited
by
EPA
demonstrate
8
that
the
public
finds
visual
ranges
within
40
to
60
9
kilometers
to
be
acceptable.
10
A
secondary
standard
set
at
20
micrograms
11
per
cubic
meter
reflects
a
visual
range
of
about
35
12
kilometers.
13
Staff's
recommendation
that
a
4­
hour
14
averaging
time
be
used
for
the
standard
is
15
appropriate
because
it
represents
a
practical
16
compromise
between
the
short
­­
the
very
short
period
17
over
which
visual
air
quality
is
experienced
and
the
18
need
for
reasonably
stable
averaging
period.
19
We
urge
EPA
to
require
that
the
standard
be
20
met
at
least
98
percent
of
the
time.
A
lower
21
compliance
level
would
simply
allow
too
many
bad
air
22
days.
23
I
have
nine
seconds
left.
24
Well,
our
nation
deserves
cleaner
air
for
25
465
our
cities
and
parks.
And
we'll
be
submitting
formal
1
comments.
2
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
4
MR.
HANNON:
Lydia?
5
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Oh,
yes,
John?
6
MR.
HANNON:
Just
one
question.
I
just
7
don't
remember
the
study
that
you
mentioned,
the
2000
8
ABT
study
or
the
research
showing
that
the
park
9
visitors
are
willing
to
pay
more
dollars
for.
10
Could
­­
would
you
just
make
sure
that
in
11
your
written
comments
you
reference
those
studies
if
12
they're
not
already
references
in
the
criteria
13
document?
14
They
may
be.
I
just
don't
remember
the
15
details
of
­­
of
­­
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Right.
17
MR.
DESAI:
So,
in
the
­­
18
MR.
HANNON:
­­
the
three
you
mentioned
­­
19
MR.
DESAI:
Sure.
20
MR.
HANNON:
­­
I
know
is
the
document.
I
21
­­
they're
discussed
­­
22
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Right,
yeah.
23
MR.
HANNON:
­­
in
the
preamble.
But
the
24
others
I'm
just
not
sure.
So
if
you
want
us
to
­­
to
25
466
consider
those
studies,
you
need
to
reference
them
in
1
your
written
comments
and
submit
them,
actually.
2
MR.
DESAI:
Sure.
3
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah,
the
ABT
study
4
that
you
mentioned,
I
­­
I
think
we
may
have
that.
5
MR.
DESAI:
Okay.
6
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
But
­­
well,
­­
but
7
in
case,
not
­­
8
MR.
DESAI:
Reference
it.
9
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
reference
it.
10
MR.
DESAI:
Sure.
11
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Yeah.
Okay,
please.
12
MR.
DESAI:
Sure.
13
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
14
Ms.
Tanner?
15
MS.
TANNER:
Hi.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Hi.
17
MS.
TANNER:
Thank
you.
18
My
name
is
Lauri
Tanner,
L­
a­
u­
r­
i,
19
T­
a­
n­
n­
e­
r.
20
I'm
a
private
citizen.
And
­­
however,
I'm
21
also
speaking
on
behalf
of
about
100
different
22
friends
and
family
members
around
the
United
States,
23
colleagues
and
associates
who
I
told
them
that
I
was
24
coming
here
today
and
by
­­
I
received
dozens
­­
more
25
467
than
100
emails
from
everyone
saying
"
Please
say
1
you're
speaking
on
our
behalf."
2
So,
I'm
going
to
be
going
to
law
school
3
next
year,
working
in
public
interest
environmental
4
law.
And
I
just
hope
that
the
work
that
I
do
­­
I'd
5
love
to
come
to
work
with
the
EPA
if
you
have
any
6
summer
internships,
I'll
be
contacting
you.
7
But
I
hope
that
the
place
that
I
would
be
8
coming
to
work
would
be
within
the
context
of
an
EPA
9
that
is
supported
by
the
Administration
rather
than
10
destructed
by
the
Administration.
11
I'm
really
shocked
by
the
Administration's
12
proposal
which
doesn't
take
into
account
public
13
health.
I've
worked
in
programs
in
public
health
for
14
years
and
I
find
it
also
shocking
that
the
15
Administration
has
rejected
the
recommendations
of
16
its
own
advisors,
its
own
scientists.
That's
17
unbelievable.
18
And
I
believe,
and
my
colleagues
and
19
friends
and
family
around
the
country
feel
that
the
20
Administration
should
strengthen,
significantly,
the
21
standards
to
protect
the
public,
not
lower
them.
22
I
want
to
share
will
you
a
quick
story.
23
I
lived
in
Mexico
City
a
number
of
years
24
ago,
for
a
year,
working
with
the
Olympic
Committee
25
468
down
there.
I
worked
as
a
trainer.
And
I
­­
and
you
1
­­
if
these
standards
are
not
strengthened
and
are
2
lowered,
this
country
could
end
up
looking,
3
especially
in
our
urban
areas,
like
the
year
that
I
4
lived
in
Mexico
City,
where
every
day
I
had
nose
­­
5
nose
bleeds
and
dirt
accumulating
in
my
nose.
I
6
could
barely
breath.
And
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
7
the
altitude
level.
8
I'll
never
forget
the
day
that
the
birds
9
dropped
dead
on
the
lawn
of
the
White
House
in
Mexico
10
City
where
the
president
lived.
And
I
was
just
11
envisioning
as
I
was
sitting
here
preparing
to
talk
12
with
you,
it
came
back
and
it
­­
it
hit
me
that
I
13
remembered
that
it
was
not
until
then
that
the
14
President
of
the
country
of
Mexico
took
action
to
15
strengthen
air
pollution
standards
to
reduce
air
16
pollution
in
Mexico
City
and
throughout
the
country.
17
When
he
walked
out
on
the
lawn
and
saw
the
18
dead
birds
and
said
"
What's
going
on
here?"
I
­­
19
somehow
they
must
have
been
in
a
bubble
or
something,
20
but
I
was
just
envisioning
President
Bush
walking
out
21
on
the
lawn
and
­­
and
seeing
dead
birds
dropping.
22
I
went
to
graduate
school
in
D.
C.
and
I
can
23
­­
I
can
just
visualize
what
this
will
be
like
if
we
24
don't
take
care
now
and
if
we
allow
these
things
to
25
469
happen.
1
And
I
­­
it's
like
it
can
just
get
away
2
from
us
because
when
the
Administration
wants
to
take
3
care
of
people
that
have
donated
to
its
campaigns
who
4
are
the
agencies
and
companies,
the
corporate
5
polluters,
that
ones
that
run
the
power
plants
and
6
the
diesel
engines
which
create
soot
pollution
which
7
is
killing
people.
There's
a
number
of
children
in
8
my
family
and
elderly
people
who
have
respiratory
9
problems,
asthma
and
that
sort
of
thing.
And
it's
10
deeply
exacerbated
every
time
that
there's
a
­­
a
11
pollution
alert,
a
smog
alert,
whatever
part
of
the
12
country
they
live
in,
I
have
family
in
Florida
and
13
Boston
and
California,
all
over
the
place.
And
I'm
14
really
concerned
for
them.
15
I'm
concerned
for
my
86­
year­
old
father
who
16
has
lung
problems
and
can't
go
out
without
the
­­
the
17
breath­
­­
the
oxygen
and
other
things.
And
it's
­­
18
he
can't
go
out
at
all
when
it's
a
day
with,
you
19
know,
smog
alerts.
20
And
I
­­
I
really
urge
you
to
support
the
21
standards
and
­­
and
that
an
annual
standard
of
no
22
higher
than
12
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
a
daily
23
standard
no
higher
than
25
micrograms
per
cubic
24
meter.
25
470
But
please
consider
doing
something
even
1
greater
than
that
so
that
we
can
be
leaders
in
the
2
world.
If
we're
talking
about
being
leaders
in
3
democracy
in
the
world,
let's
be
leaders
in
4
environmental
aspects
of
that,
environmental
5
democracy.
6
Thank
you
very
much
for
letting
me
share
7
this
with
you.
If
you
can
visualize
what
I
8
experienced
living
in
Mexico,
I
was
­­
after
one
year
9
there,
it
was
as
if
I
had
been
15
years
living
next
10
to
a
power
plant.
It
was
horrible.
11
Thank
you.
12
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Well,
thank
you.
You
13
gave
us
a
very
graphic
description
of
it.
Thank
you
14
for
­­
15
MS.
TANNER:
Yeah,
okay.
16
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
­­
for
that.
17
MS.
TANNER:
Thanks.
Yeah,
okay.
18
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
19
MS.
TANNER:
And
I'm
a
member
of
his
20
organization.
A
dues­
paying
member,
so
listen
to
21
them
too.
22
Yeah.
We
­­
what
will
happen
to
our
parks?
23
Our
­­
you
know
­­
okay.
24
Thank
you.
25
471
THE
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
1
Is
there
anyone
else
in
the
room
who
would
2
like
to
offer
any
testimony
today?
3
Okay.
Well,
thank
you
all
for
coming.
We
4
very
much
appreciate
the
time
and
effort
you
put
in
5
to
coming
to
the
hearing
today.
6
And
thank
you
very
much.
7
(
The
public
hearing
was
concluded
at
9:
03
8
o'clock
p.
m.
­­
o0o­
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
