




        1

        2

        3

        4

        5

        6

        7

        8               Public Hearing on EPA Proposed Rule:

        9       Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality

       10                   Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide

       11

       12                      Los Angeles, California

       13                     Thursday, August 6, 2009

       14

       15

       16

       17

       18

       19

       20

       21   REPORTED BY:  J'NEL ERSKINE, CSR No. 11746 &
                          TIMIANNE BOURELL, CSR No. 2845
       22

       23

       24

       25

                                                                       1

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   PANEL MEMBERS:

        2

        3        DAVID ORLIN, Attorney-Advisor for EPA's Office of

        4   General Counsel

        5        SCOTT JENKINS, Office of Air Quality Planning and

        6   Standards' Ambient Standards Group

        7        NEALSON WATKINS, Office of Air Quality Planning and

        8   Standards' Ambient Air Monitoring Group

        9        STEVEN JOHN, Associate Director of Region 9's Southern

       10   California Field Office

       11

       12

       13   LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR LOS ANGELES NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS

       14   PUBLIC HEARING:

       15

       16        JEAN OSPITAL, South Coast Air Quality Management

       17   District

       18        ROBYN PRUEITT, American Petroleum Institute

       19        MIKE WANG, Western States Petroleum Association

       20        LUIS CABRALES, Coalition for Clean Air

       21        ERICA FICK, Environmental Defense Fund

       22        LIZ deGRAFFENREID, Annapolis Center for Science-Based

       23   Public Policy

       24        MIKE ROGGE, California Manufacturers & Technology

       25   Association



                                                                       2

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR LOS ANGELES NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS

        2   PUBLIC HEARING (cont.):

        3

        4        ERROL VILLEGAS, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

        5   Control District

        6        ADRIAN MARTINEZ, Natural Resources Defense Council

        7        MARA BURSTEIN, Environment Now

        8        PETER MATHEWS, Long Beach resident

        9        GWENDOLYN YOUNG, American Lung Association

       10        CARLA TRUAX, Southern California Environmental Health

       11   Sciences Center

       12        OTANA JAKPOR, American Lung Association volunteer

       13        KAREN JAKPOR, American Lung Association volunteer

       14        JIBIANA JAKPOR, California resident

       15        ROBERT VINETZ, Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles County

       16        JESSE JOHNSON, American Lung Association volunteer

       17        DEREK ZUPANCIC, Hydroelectricic Power

       18        RACHEL APPELBAUM, American Lung Association volunteer

       19   and California resident

       20        KATIE VAN CLEAVE, Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles

       21   County

       22        JIM STEWART, Sierra Club Los Angeles Chapter

       23        ROBINA SUWOL, California's Safe Schools

       24        RYAN WIGGINS, End Oil

       25        MARTHA COTA, Long Beach resident



                                                                       3

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR LOS ANGELES NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS

        2   PUBLIC HEARING (cont.):

        3

        4        ELENA RODRIGUEZ, Long Beach Alliance for Children with

        5   Asthma

        6        ERIN HUFFER, Long Beach Alliance for Children with

        7   Asthma

        8        IAN MacMILLAN, LAUSD, Office of Environmental Health &

        9   Safety

       10        TERESA TRUJILLO, Long Beach Alliance for Children with

       11   Asthma

       12        MARIA de JESUS "CHUY" TRUJILLO, Long Beach resident

       13        JENNYFFER VELASQUEZ, American Lung Association

       14        JUAN GARIBAY, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       15        VERONICA TRUJILLO, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       16        SOFIA CARRILLO, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       17        JESSE MARQUEZ, Coalition for a Safe Environment

       18        DAVID HOLTZMAN, Los Angeles resident

       19        FARAMARZ NABAVI, Sierra Club Los Angeles Chapter

       20        DAVID GREENE, Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports

       21        DeANN McEWEN, California Nurses Association/National

       22   Nurses Organizing Committee

       23

       24        ALSO PRESENT:

       25             CARLOS DIAZ DeLEON, Spanish Interpreter



                                                                       4

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1                      Los Angeles, California

        2                     Thursday, August 6, 2009

        3                             9:00 a.m.

        4

        5        DAVID ORLIN:  Good morning, and thank you for attending

        6   the Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing on a

        7   proposed rule for nitrogen dioxide, NO2.  My name is David

        8   Orlin and I am an attorney-advisor for EPA's Office of

        9   General Counsel.  I will be chairing today's hearing.  We

       10   are here today to listen to your comments on EPA's proposed

       11   rule revising the Primary National Ambient Air Quality

       12   Standards or NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide.

       13             I recognize that many people have traveled quite a

       14   distance and made significant efforts to be here, and I

       15   appreciate your efforts.  As a reminder, this is a hearing,

       16   an opportunity for the public to comment on the EPA's

       17   proposed rule.  The panel members may answer questions that

       18   seek to clarify what we propose or ask questions to clarify

       19   your comments, but the purpose of this hearing is to listen

       20   to your comments, not to discuss or debate the proposal.

       21             Before we move to the comment period, I'd like to

       22   briefly describe the proposed rule that is the subject of

       23   today's hearing.  The proposed rule is published in the

       24   Federal Register on July 15, 2009.

       25             In the notice of proposed rule making, EPA



                                                                       5

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   proposes to make revisions to the primary NO2 NAAQS in order

        2   to provide requisite protection of public health.

        3   Specifically, EPA proposes to supplement the current annual

        4   standard by establishing a new short-term NO2 standard based

        5   on the three-year average of the 99th percentile or 4th

        6   highest of the annual distribution of one-hour daily maximum

        7   concentrations.  EPA purposes to set the level of this new

        8   standard within the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion,

        9   ppb, and solicits comment on standard levels as low as 65

       10   ppb and as high as 150 bbp.  Also, EPA proposes to establish

       11   requirements for an NO2 monitoring network that will include

       12   monitors within 50 meters of major roadways.  In addition,

       13   EPA is soliciting comment on an alternative approach to

       14   setting the standard and revising the monitoring network.

       15   Consistent with the terms of a consent decree, the

       16   Administrator will sign a notice of final rule making by

       17   January 22, 2010.

       18             Now let me turn to the comment portion of today's

       19   hearing.  This hearing is the second public hearing held on

       20   this proposed rule.  The first hearing was held earlier this

       21   week on Monday, in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the

       22   proposed rule making.  We will be preparing a written

       23   transcript of each hearing.  The transcription will be

       24   available as part of the official record for each rule.  We

       25   are also accepting written comments for the proposed rule



                                                                       6

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   until September 14, 2009.  We have a handout available in

        2   the registration area with detailed information for

        3   submitting written comments.

        4             At this time, I would like to outline how today's

        5   hearing will work.  I will call the scheduled speakers to

        6   the microphone in pairs.  Please state your name and your

        7   affiliation.  It will help our court reporter if you spell

        8   your name.  In order to be fair to everyone, we are asking

        9   that you limit your testimony to five minutes each and to

       10   remain at the microphone until both speakers in a pair have

       11   finished.  After you finish your testimony, a panel member

       12   may ask clarifying questions.  As I mentioned, we are

       13   transcribing today's hearing and each speaker's oral

       14   testimony will become part of the official record.  Please

       15   be sure to give a copy of any written comments to our staff

       16   at the registration table.  We will put the full text of

       17   your written comments into the docket for you.

       18             We have a timekeeping system consisting of green,

       19   yellow, and red lights.  When you begin speaking, the green

       20   light will come on.  You will have five minutes to speak.

       21   The yellow light will signal that you have one minute left

       22   to speak.  We will ask you to stop speaking when the red

       23   light comes on.

       24             We intend to stay into the evening until everyone

       25   has an opportunity to comment.  If you would like to



                                                                       7

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   testify, but have not yet registered to do so, please sign

        2   up at the registration table.  Let us know if you need

        3   translation services, and we will do our best to accommodate

        4   you.

        5             For those who have already registered to speak, we

        6   have tried to accommodate your requests for specific time

        7   slots.  We ask for your patience as we proceed through the

        8   list.  We may need to make some minor adjustments as the day

        9   progresses.

       10             Now I'd like to introduce the EPA representatives

       11   on our panel.  Scott Jenkins, with the Office of Air Quality

       12   Planning and Standards' Ambient Standards Group; Nealson

       13   Watkins, with the Office of Air Quality Planning and

       14   Standards' Ambient Air Monitoring Group; and Steven John,

       15   Associate Director of Region 9's Southern California Field

       16   Office.

       17             I would like to thank you all again for

       18   participating today.  Let's get started.

       19             Our first two witnesses are Jean Ospital and Robyn

       20   Prueitt.

       21        JEAN OSPITAL:  Good morning.  My name is Jean Ospital.

       22   I spell the first name J-E-A-N, last name O-S-P-I-T-A-L.

       23   And I serve as the health effects officer for the South

       24   Coast Air Quality Management District.

       25             On behalf of the South Coast Air Quality



                                                                       8

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   Management District, I want to thank you for the opportunity

        2   to comment on the proposed air quality standards for

        3   nitrogen dioxide.  I will be relaying our staff comments on

        4   the proposed standard.

        5             The South Coast A.Q.M.D. is the air pollution

        6   control agency for Orange County and the urbanized portions

        7   of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.  We

        8   are home to some over 16 million-plus people, which are

        9   about 5 percent of the U.S. population.  Although we've made

       10   dramatic improvements in air quality over the last few

       11   decades, our residents of the South Coast are still exposed

       12   to some of the highest levels of ozone and fine particulates

       13   in the country and they bear a disproportionate share of

       14   adverse effects from poor air quality.

       15             I recognize that the decision on setting an

       16   ambient air quality standard is a policy judgment made by

       17   the Administrator and that the standard is to be set at a

       18   level that protects public health with an adequate margin of

       19   safety.  It's a longstanding policy of the South Coast

       20   A.Q.M.D. that ambient air quality standards should be based

       21   on the best available findings.  We strongly support

       22   establishing air quality standards that are consistent with

       23   the advice and recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific

       24   Advisory Committee as well.

       25             In our review of the proposed standard and the



                                                                       9

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   science backing it up, the proposed one-hour daily maximum

        2   standard and the range proposed by EPA is consistent with

        3   the best available science and also consistent with the

        4   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's recommendations

        5   and conclusions.  Specifically with regard to CASAC's

        6   conclusion, the current standard, as they concluded, is not

        7   adequately protective of public health and should be

        8   revised.  The new standard should be based on a one-hour

        9   maximum no higher than 100 parts per billion and that the

       10   current annual standard should be retained.  I understand

       11   that CASAC will be meeting next week to review the proposed

       12   standard and we encourage the Administrator to establish the

       13   final standard that would be consistent with any additional

       14   recommendations that CASAC might make in their upcoming

       15   deliberations.

       16             Given the air quality in our region, it's a high

       17   challenge to achieve healthful air quality.  However, the

       18   record shows that great improvements in air quality are

       19   achievable if the will to do so is there.

       20             Again, I thank you for the opportunity to

       21   expressing our staff views.  We stand willing to work with

       22   the Agency in implementing the new health protective

       23   standard for nitrogen dioxide.

       24        SCOTT JENKINS:  Thank you.

       25             Any questions from the panel?



                                                                      10

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1        SCOTT JENKINS:  Do you have a position on the other

        2   part of the proposal, which specifically relates to the

        3   monitoring network and placing the monitors close to roads.

        4        JEAN OSPITAL:  I don't have a specific opinion on it at

        5   this time, but I think there is some information that levels

        6   may be higher in air and on roadways.  We probably should

        7   get some more information on that.

        8             As you may know, our district has started some

        9   monitoring near one of our heavily-traveled freeways.  So

       10   we'll have some more information on that as well in the next

       11   few months.

       12        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.  Any other questions?

       13             Ms. Prueitt.

       14        ROBYN PRUEITT:  I am Dr. Robyn Prueitt, R-O-B-Y-N,

       15   P-R-U-E-I-T-T, a toxicologist at Gradient Corporation, and I

       16   am speaking on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute.

       17   Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

       18             After careful analysis of EPA's rationale for the

       19   proposed short-term NO2 standard, my Gradient colleagues and

       20   I do not agree that the epidemiology and controlled human

       21   exposure studies relied on by EPA support a link between

       22   short-term NO2 exposure and respiratory effects or that a

       23   short-term NO2 standard is even necessary.

       24             First, we feel that EPA did not consider all of

       25   the epidemiological data equally in order to support the 100



                                                                      11

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   parts per billion upper end of the range for the short-term

        2   standard.  EPA focused on the results of key epidemiology

        3   studies regardless of whether they were statistically

        4   significant or not.  Several of the single-pollutant models

        5   in these studies did not produce statistically significant

        6   effects, and when they did, the risk estimates were either

        7   zero or very close to zero.  Almost all of the studies using

        8   multi-pollutant models produced results that were not

        9   statistically significant.  We at Gradient think that EPA

       10   did not weigh this evidence appropriately and that EPA

       11   should put more emphasis on data from multi-pollutant models

       12   to better determine the specific contribution of NO2 to

       13   adverse health effects.

       14             Second, we must note that most people who study

       15   air pollution epidemiology agree that the cofounding of

       16   results for a specific pollutant, such as NO2, by

       17   co-pollutants and other factors is a key challenge in the

       18   field.  My colleagues and I have found that many of the key

       19   epidemiology studies did not adjust for potential

       20   confounders such as temperature, humidity, several hazardous

       21   air pollutants, allergens, and day-to-day variation in

       22   people's activity and stress.  Because of this, it is

       23   unclear to us how these studies can be considered reliable

       24   enough to tease out very small risk signals for a specific

       25   pollutant from within a large universe of atmospheric



                                                                      12

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   pollutant noise.

        2             Third, EPA's reliance on one epidemiology study by

        3   Delfino, et al., to set the lower end of the range for the

        4   short-term standard is not appropriate.  The major issue

        5   with this study is that the NO2 concentrations were

        6   statistically significantly correlated with many independent

        7   factors such as other pollutants, temperature, relative

        8   humidity, and allergen levels.  Because of this, we believe

        9   that any statistically significant results from this study

       10   may have been due to one of these other factors.  In fact,

       11   the authors of this study reported that the risk estimates

       12   for NO2 decreased after adjustment for allergen levels, and

       13   that multi-pollutant models indicated that PM10, not NO2,

       14   was the air pollutant of concern in this study.  They also

       15   reported greater effects in children not taking asthma

       16   medication, and these results are contradictory to other

       17   studies, including a key study by Mortimer, et al., that EPA

       18   placed high reliance on in their ozone NAAQS review.  Given

       19   all of the uncertainties I have just described, we feel that

       20   this study is not appropriate for determining the lower end

       21   of the range of the short-term NO2 standard.

       22             Fourth, all of the key epidemiology studies used

       23   NO2 measurements from ambient central monitors to represent

       24   the personal exposures of the study subjects.  Because most

       25   people move from place to place during the day, this



                                                                      13

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   practice can misrepresent the NO2 concentrations that a

        2   given individual is actually exposed to.  The resulting

        3   misclassification of exposure, as well as measurement error,

        4   are sources of uncertainty that can bias risk estimates to

        5   be higher than they would be otherwise.  This is

        6   particularly important for NO2, because many exposure

        7   studies have shown essentially no correlation between

        8   ambient and personal NO2 exposures.  My Gradient colleagues

        9   and I do not believe that these and other issues are

       10   adequately accounted for in the key epidemiology studies.

       11   We feel that these studies are not robust enough to support

       12   a linear no-threshold dose-response model for short-term NO2

       13   exposure and respiratory effects or a short-term standard in

       14   the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion.

       15             EPA also used controlled human exposure studies to

       16   justify the short-term standard.  Based on a prior analysis

       17   by Folinsbee, EPA conducted a meta-analysis of such studies,

       18   which is a common way to look at multiple, similar studies

       19   to see if overall conclusions can be reached.  But EPA and

       20   Folinsbee did not follow the current methods and framework

       21   for conducting such an analysis.  My Gradient colleagues

       22   conducted a more rigorous meta-analysis, following

       23   currently-accepted protocols and investigating a larger

       24   number of studies than EPA did.  We assessed dose-response

       25   relationships and the levels of the observed effects, which



                                                                      14

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   EPA did not do.  While EPA concluded from their analysis

        2   that short-term exposure to 100 parts per billion NO2 can

        3   cause small increases in adverse health effects in people

        4   with asthma, we found no evidence to suggest that NO2 leads

        5   to adverse effects at any of the exposures tested, up to 600

        6   ppb.  Gradient's analysis also indicates that a non-linear,

        7   threshold dose-response model best describes the data from

        8   controlled exposure studies.

        9             In conclusion, my Gradient colleagues and I do not

       10   agree that the studies relied on by EPA in the proposed rule

       11   support a link between short-term NO2 exposure and

       12   respiratory effects or that a short-term NO2 standard is

       13   needed.  According to EPA, the current annual NO2 standard

       14   of 53 ppb protects the public against short-term exposures

       15   of 400 ppb and higher.  If a short-term standard for NO2

       16   must be set, it should be at 600 parts per billion or

       17   higher, because it is our opinion that setting a lower

       18   standard will not result in fewer adverse health effects,

       19   even in sensitive populations such as individuals with

       20   asthma.

       21             Thank you.

       22        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.  Any questions from the panel?

       23             Thank you.

       24             Our next speaker will be Mr. Mike Wang from

       25   Western States.



                                                                      15

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1        MIKE WANG:  Good morning.  My name is Mike Wang, and

        2   I'm with the Western States Petroleum Association, also

        3   known as WSPA.  WSPA represents 28 companies explore, pull

        4   forth, develop, refine, transport, and market petroleum,

        5   petroleum products in the western states of Washington,

        6   Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii.

        7             WSPA has had a long history of research and

        8   comment on issues such as changes to the NO2 standard.  WSPA

        9   and its predecessors, the Western Oil and Gas Association

       10   conducted research and comment that helped start state and

       11   regional urban airshed modeling, known as U.A.M., on COV 1

       12   and 2 through 4; was supposed to be an active participant

       13   and cofunder with EPA in the regional PM2.5 and ozone

       14   modeling in the central valley; and in research and modeling

       15   and monitoring of air quality in the South Coast, including

       16   projects with the acronyms C.C.O.S., SCCAMP, S-C-C-A-M-P,

       17   and, in general, on other technical and air quality issues.

       18   As the previous speaker knows, WSPA has been working with

       19   the South Coast and ARB on a number of issues for at least

       20   the last two decades.

       21             As you may expect, our members face a variety of

       22   regulatory requirements when operating in such varied

       23   environments.  Facilities operating in California are all

       24   faced with difficult and challenging and sometimes

       25   overlapping and sometimes conflicting federal, state, and



                                                                      16

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   local requirements.  So too are facilities operating in

        2   other western states where requirements mirror and sometimes

        3   exceed their federal counterparts.

        4             When talking about EPA's proposed short-term NO2

        5   standard, this is clearly the case.  Facilities in

        6   California must comply with California's one-hour NO2

        7   standard of 180 parts per billion not to be exceeded.  WSPA

        8   member facilities in other states are faced with the current

        9   federal annual average of 53 parts per billion.  The range

       10   of short-term NO2 levels being proposed by EPA would further

       11   challenge all emission sources, stationary, commercial,

       12   residential area, and indirect sources.  Virtually all

       13   persons would require to reduce emission levels to far below

       14   levels of today.  The levels propose to be more stringent

       15   than even the existing California short-term standard and

       16   dramatically more stringent than the existing federal annual

       17   standard.  And, as we'll discuss in a moment, NO2 levels

       18   have already been addressed indirectly through existing NOx

       19   regulations.

       20             As you are aware, NO2 is a precursor for two key

       21   pollutants, ozone and PM2.5.  Focus has been placed on NOx

       22   emissions because of the reaction to the volatile organic

       23   compounds, which can produce ozone and nitrogen's role in

       24   the formation of nitrates and nitrites leading to formation

       25   of PO2.5.  In terms of any risk to human health and



                                                                      17

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   environment associated with NO2, most health professionals

        2   and agencies focused attention on ozone and PM2.5.  And

        3   while we may disagree with the individual risk estimates, we

        4   do agree that ozone and PM2.5 are issues for many of the

        5   regions involved.

        6             What is also true is that the control of NOx

        7   emissions for ozone and PM2.5 will also result in reduced

        8   ambient levels of NO2.  In fact, the very stringent ozone

        9   standard that EPA promulgated in March of 2008 held .075 as

       10   an eight-hour standard.  And the standards that exist

       11   locally, for example, California's eight-hour standard, have

       12   contributed to reduced NO2 levels in the atmosphere.  WSPA

       13   members have already invested in clean diesel, clean

       14   gasoline both regionally and nationwide, and these new fuels

       15   are producing significant air quality benefits.

       16             An unresolved issue we would therefore encourage

       17   EPA to evaluate is the extent to which the NO2 proposal may

       18   be made moot by efforts to reduce ozone PM10 or, perhaps

       19   just as important, what more would be needed to achieve the

       20   proposed standards.  In fact, the incremental benefit of

       21   reducing NO2 levels beyond those that would require to

       22   achieve existing ozone PM2.5 levels is worthy of some

       23   research.

       24             While we understand the EPA's proposal is

       25   health-based, we would encourage the EPA to review the



                                                                      18

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   actual reduction of risk that it believes would be achieved

        2   through this proposal.  This is especially true given the

        3   limitations in the underlying data you heard previously

        4   relative to the benefits and incremental benefits that may

        5   be accrued.  EPA cites data that may not be reflective of

        6   range of the short-term NO2 concentrations that may exist

        7   upon achieving the ozone and the PM2.5 standards.

        8             We support the A.P.I. position that you've heard

        9   in the past and we would like EPA to revisit the

       10   substantiating documentation under which their proposal is

       11   based.

       12             Thank you.

       13        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       14             Any questions?

       15             Thank you.

       16             Our next speaker is Luis Cabrales.

       17        LUIS CABRALES:  Thank you very much.

       18             My name is Luis Cabrales.  I represent Coalition

       19   for Clean Air.  The Coalition for Clean Air is the only

       20   statewide organization advocating for clean air in

       21   California.  I am here today to speak on behalf of Coalition

       22   for Clean Air and its thousands of members who wish to

       23   breathe cleaner, safer air in California.

       24             I'm sure by now you have heard everything there is

       25   to know about NO2, including industries' claims that they



                                                                      19

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   cannot comply with stronger air standards.  I'm sure you

        2   have also heard by now everything there's to know about the

        3   health impacts of these air pollutants and by now you are

        4   aware of the -- NO2's widespread and dangers to public

        5   health.  That's why we are supporting a stronger national

        6   air quality standard, to protect us from these pollutants.

        7   We also support setting up a national system to monitor NO2

        8   along major highways.  We agree with the EPA and with the

        9   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that the current

       10   standard fails to protect public health, including the

       11   health of our families.  The Clean Air Act says national air

       12   quality standards must protect health of public people who

       13   are most at risk from breathing nitrogen dioxide, including

       14   children, our elders, and anyone with asthma.  We support

       15   the EPA's proposal to set a one-hour standard to limit

       16   short-term exposures to nitrogen dioxide.  This short-term

       17   standard is needed to protect the health of people with

       18   asthma and other respiratory diseases from spikes in

       19   nitrogen dioxide levels.

       20             However, we disagree with the EPA's proposal to

       21   select the one-hour standard from the range of 80 to 100

       22   parts per billion.  That range fails to protect the health

       23   of millions of children, adults, and people with lung

       24   disease, including workers at the industries where those

       25   emissions are being expelled.



                                                                      20

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             We recommend the EPA set the one-hour standard at

        2   50 parts per billion to provide the margin of safety needed

        3   to protect health of those most at risk.  EPA's draft

        4   analysis shows that an hourly standard of 50 parts per

        5   billion would provide the greatest benefit to public health

        6   by reducing asthma attacks, hospital admissions, and

        7   emergency room visits for respiratory causes.  We agree that

        8   an annual standard is needed to provide protection from

        9   long-term day-in and day-out exposures to nitrogen dioxide.

       10   However, we recommend a tighter standard such as the State

       11   of -- such as the ones adopted by the State of California of

       12   30 parts per billion or lower.

       13             California's Children Health Studies found that

       14   long-term exposures to NO2 stunt lung-function growth in

       15   children.  People living near freeways are exposed to

       16   traffic emissions such as NO2 on a long-term basis.

       17             We support EPA's proposal for a roadside

       18   monitoring network to identify where levels are the highest

       19   and to monitor the effective of controlled measures.

       20   The proposed roadside monitoring network should be installed

       21   regardless of the level of the standard selected.  EPA and

       22   the states need to take every opportunity to expand the

       23   monitoring of pollutants from traffic.  In addition to this

       24   proposal, an excellent opportunity is coming up in the rule

       25   making for the particulate matter national air quality



                                                                      21

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   standard.

        2             We reject the alternative that would set a tighter

        3   standard only if the EPA does not adopt the monitoring

        4   network.  The standards should be based solely on what is

        5   needed to protect public health, not whether a monitoring

        6   network exists.  We need to be both protective of standards

        7   and a national -- nationwide monitoring network.

        8             Thank you very much.

        9        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       10             Any questions?

       11             Thanks.

       12             Looks like we don't have any speakers waiting to

       13   testify.  So unless someone wishes to testify who hasn't

       14   already signed up, we will take a short break.  Thanks.

       15             (Recess taken.)

       16        DAVID ORLIN:  I think we will get started again.  We

       17   have a couple of people who are ready to testify.  Erica

       18   Fick and Liz Haney deGraffenreid.

       19             So just to recap, we have a light system for

       20   trying to spending -- generally trying to keep people at 5

       21   minutes, because we do have a fairly full schedule.

       22   Although, we just took a break.  So the green light will go

       23   on when you start speaking, the yellow light goes on at 1

       24   minute, and red light you need to wrap it up.

       25             Thank you very much.



                                                                      22

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1        ERICA FICK:  Thank you very much for the opportunity to

        2   be here today.  My name is Erica Fick.  I'm here on behalf

        3   of Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonprofit

        4   organization that has for over 40 years linked science,

        5   economics, and law to create innovative and cost-effective

        6   solutions to society's most pressing environmental problems.

        7             I am pleased that we are here today to discuss the

        8   revision of EPA's national health-based ambient air quality

        9   standard for nitrogen dioxide, a historic moment that has

       10   taken over 35 years to emerge as a public health priority.

       11   It is hoped that today's presentation of numbers, scientific

       12   evidence, and personal testimonies of those directly

       13   affected by this harmful pollutant will reflect the urgency

       14   of strengthening our nation's NOx pollution standards and

       15   improving EPA's air monitoring systems.

       16             Nitrogen dioxide is a widespread and dangerous air

       17   pollutant that affects our health in many ways.  EPA found

       18   that NOx worsens coughing and wheezing, increases asthma

       19   attacks, hospital admittances, lung inflammation, and

       20   decreases lung function in children, making them more

       21   susceptible to lung disease throughout their lives.  Los

       22   Angelinos are particularly at risk to these harmful effects

       23   as they are victim to the nation's highest rates of

       24   ground-level ozone.  Since nitrogen oxides are a precursor

       25   to the formation of ground-level ozone and particulate



                                                                      23

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   pollution, it is especially important that the EPA

        2   strengthen its standards on this chemical so as to avoid

        3   these and other more indirect health defects in the future.

        4             That's why we support the EPA's proposal to set a

        5   one-hour standard to limit short-term exposures to nitrogen

        6   dioxide.  However, we disagree with their proposal to

        7   implement the standard from the range of 80 to 100 parts per

        8   billion.  This range fails to protect the health of people

        9   with asthma and other respiratory diseases from harmful

       10   spikes in NOx levels.  Instead, we recommend that the EPA

       11   set the one-hour standard to 50 parts per billion or lower

       12   to provide the margin of safety needed to protect the health

       13   of those most at risk.

       14             We also agree that an annual standard is needed to

       15   provide protection from long-term exposures to nitrogen

       16   dioxide.  However, we recommend a tighter standard, such as

       17   the one the State of California has adopted of 30 parts per

       18   billion or lower.  In addition, we support EPA's proposal

       19   for a roadside monitoring network to identify where levels

       20   are highest and to monitor the effectiveness of control

       21   measures.  However, the proposed roadside monitoring network

       22   should be installed regardless of the level of annual

       23   standard selected.

       24             The historic success of the Clean Air Act makes a

       25   compelling and urgent case for strengthening our nation's



                                                                      24

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   NOx standards.  Since the Act's adoption in 1970, nitrogen

        2   oxides have been lowered by nearly a quarter.  Between the

        3   years of 1970-1990, the health and economic benefits are

        4   staggering.  There were well over 200,000 premature deaths

        5   avoided, over 650,000 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis,

        6   more than 200,000 fewer hospital admissions, more than 200

        7   million fewer respiratory ailments, and the avoidance of

        8   more than 22 million lost work days.  Overall, the monetary

        9   benefits to society have outweighed the costs by a factor of

       10   four to one.  Time after time, the implementation of tougher

       11   air quality standards has proven less costly than industry

       12   estimates.

       13             Yet, there are still those that argue that

       14   strengthening air quality standards will weaken the national

       15   economy.  EPA is bared by law from considering the costs of

       16   varying standards.  But still, industry has insisted on

       17   making the economic argument for over 30 years, and it has

       18   been debunked time after time.

       19             For example, in the 1970s the automakers warned of

       20   grave economic consequences if they were required to place

       21   catalytic converters in new cars.  Today every car

       22   manufactured is equipped with a catalytic control device to

       23   reduce tailpipe emissions.  Selective catalytic-reduction

       24   technologies deemed infeasible in the early 1990s are now

       25   broadly achieving 90 percent NOx reduction from existing



                                                                      25

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   coal plants in the East; thereby, lowering ozone and

        2   particulate pollution.  In 1994 automobile manufacturers

        3   estimated the cost of advanced low-emission vehicles would

        4   be in excess of $1,500.  One year later Honda placed a Civic

        5   subcompact model on the market that emitted less than half

        6   of what was permitted under California law for $100.

        7             EPA estimates that the deployment of technologies

        8   to meet air quality standards has been a boon to the

        9   nation's pollution control industry generating over $200

       10   billion in revenues and supporting more than 3 million jobs.

       11             Strengthening our nation's ambient air quality

       12   standards for nitrogen dioxide is a huge step in protecting

       13   the future health of our earth, our children, and

       14   generations to come.  I ask that you take heed of the

       15   overwhelming scientific, economic, and historic evidence

       16   available as well as the personal testimonies to follow

       17   today in making your final decision.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Questions?

       19             Thank you.

       20             Ms. deGraffenreid, if you could spell your name

       21   for the court reporter.

       22        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  Liz deGraffenreid,

       23   D-E-G-R-A-F-F-E-N-R-E-I-D.

       24             Hello.  I'm speaking on behalf of the Annapolis

       25   Center for Science-Based Public Policy, an independent,



                                                                      26

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote the use

        2   of sound science in the decision-making process.  We will be

        3   submitting a more detailed analysis of the proposed rule to

        4   EPA before the deadline defined in the National Register.

        5   Thank you for giving me this opportunity today.

        6             Sound science requires careful analysis of data,

        7   which we do not believe has occurred regarding the proposed

        8   rule making for nitrogen dioxide.  A careful analysis of

        9   health data does not provide support for a one-hour national

       10   ambient air quality standard in the range of .065 parts per

       11   million to .15 parts per million.  Based on an evaluation of

       12   literature on nitrogen dioxide health effects, the Annapolis

       13   Center believes that a one-hour standard in the range of .1

       14   to .2 parts per million, the range noted in EPA's own risk

       15   and exposure assessment, would be highly protective of

       16   public health.

       17             The Annapolis Center believes the EPA has not been

       18   transparent in its approach to their evaluation of health

       19   data in their review process and EPA has reinterpreted the

       20   results of the published studies to support this proposed

       21   rule.

       22             The Administrator's rationale for the choice of

       23   level for the standard is too conservative. The three

       24   methods used in the R.E.A. to estimate the risk all

       25   over-estimate the extent of exposures of concern and risk of



                                                                      27

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   health effects.  The choice for the low end of the range of

        2   potential standards was based on, one, a new, unpublished

        3   meta-analysis that improperly contradicts the interpretation

        4   of effects levels from the previous review, and, two, a

        5   single pollutant nitrogen dioxide association with asthma

        6   symptoms on a location with low nitrogen dioxide.  The

        7   authors of this study implicate peak particulate matter

        8   concentrations, not nitrogen dioxide, as the pollutant of

        9   concern in their study.

       10             Clinical studies, when reproducible, represent the

       11   best source of information on nitrogen dioxide effects.  It

       12   is important to note that there are numerous issues with the

       13   existing epidemiological studies.  Significant noise and

       14   variability is often found in data collected and it is

       15   beyond the capability of the current methods to identify

       16   which positive associations may be real health effects and

       17   which are not.  Because of these issues, the epidemiological

       18   data is not particularly useful in establishing nitrogen

       19   dioxide health effects.

       20             The bulk of the nitrogen dioxide discussion of

       21   health effects focuses primarily on epidemiology since most

       22   of the new information from the last review comes from

       23   epidemiology.  The framework used in the I.S.A. of judging

       24   the overall weight of evidence and categorizing health

       25   effects is flawed.  First, the distinction between



                                                                      28

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   categories is too subtle and too suggestive given the many

        2   problems with interpreting epidemiology.  Second, the

        3   application of the framework, though generally applied

        4   throughout the I.S.A. is not as rigorous or complete as it

        5   should be.

        6             The interpretation of clinical studies has not

        7   changed significantly since the previous review.  The

        8   additional studies in this review do not materially change

        9   the understanding of risk assumed in the previous review.

       10   Even though there is no new data establishing clinical

       11   effects at lower concentrations than considered in the last

       12   review, the final I.S.A. inappropriately draws a different

       13   conclusion.

       14             Reliance on the 1976 study in an unpublished

       15   meta-analysis to claim an effect at .1 parts per million is

       16   scientifically unsound.  The rewritten conclusions implying

       17   that the new information showing effects now at point one

       18   parts per million in the final I.S.A. cannot be

       19   scientifically supported and should not be used as evidence

       20   in the regulatory process.  Aside from this unwarranted

       21   change, the interpretation of the controlled studies of

       22   nitrogen dioxide is very similar to that on the previous

       23   review.  Therefore, the standard should remain the same.

       24             EPA's proposal to add nitrogen dioxide monitors

       25   within 50 meters of major roadways is based on the exposure



                                                                      29

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   analysis that indicates a substantial portion of the higher

        2   one-hour nitrogen dioxide exposure occurs in near-roadway

        3   situations.  When a revised exposure analysis that

        4   eliminates the over-prediction of the upper percentiles of

        5   nitrogen dioxide exposures is carried out, the need for

        6   near-roadway monitoring should be revisited.

        7             Thank you.

        8        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

        9             Sorry.  Maybe I missed something listening.  But I

       10   thought you started off saying you thought a one-hour

       11   standard in the range of .1 to .2 ppm was justified, and

       12   then I think I heard later that you thought the current

       13   annual standard should be retained.  I wasn't sure if you

       14   were supporting the one-hour standard in that range or --

       15        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  We -- the Annapolis center believes

       16   that .1 to .2 would be highly protective.  We don't support

       17   a lower one-hour standard.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  Thank you.

       19        SCOTT JENKINS:  Regarding the comments you made at the

       20   very end, I just want a little clarification.  You said when

       21   an exposure analysis was done eliminating the -- I believe

       22   the peak -- the peak exposure estimates, that would not be

       23   cause for reconsideration of the need for a one-hour

       24   standard, is that something that -- are you referring to a

       25   specific analysis there or something you've done, something



                                                                      30

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   that someone else has done?

        2        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  You know, that information will be

        3   covered in our comments.

        4        SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.

        5        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  So we will be getting that into EPA

        6   within the next two weeks.

        7        SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.

        8        NEALSON WATKINS:  And, likewise, on the very last

        9   topic, roadway monitors should be reconsidered, do you have

       10   a position on they should be implemented or they should not

       11   or is that to be provided in your written --

       12        LIZ deGRAFFENREID:  That will be provided in the

       13   written.

       14        NEALSON WATKINS:  Thank you.

       15        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       16             Our next speaker is Mike Rogge.

       17        MIKE ROGGE:  Good morning.  My name is Mike Rogge, and

       18   I'm policy director for the California Manufacturers &

       19   Technology Association, C.M.T.A.

       20             Since 1918, C.M.T.A. has worked with state

       21   government to develop balanced laws, effective regulations,

       22   and sound public policies to stimulate economic growth and

       23   create new jobs while safeguarding the state's environmental

       24   resources.  C.M.T.A. is California's largest trade

       25   association representing over 30,000 small, medium, and



                                                                      31

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   large manufacturing-, processing-, and technology-based

        2   companies in the state.  Combined, C.M.T.A. members provide

        3   direct employment of over 1-1/2 million jobs and generate

        4   more than 250 billion every year into California's economy.

        5   In that regard, C.M.T.A. and its members have an important

        6   interest in EPA's proposed revision to the NO2 standard and

        7   appreciate the opportunity to provide initial comments on

        8   the proposed rule.

        9             Would you excuse me for a moment to get a glass of

       10   water?

       11        DAVID ORLIN:  Yeah.

       12        MIKE ROGGE:  C.M.T.A. is a member of the National

       13   Association of Manufactures, NAM, and C.M.T.A. supports the

       14   comments made by NAM at the hearing in Arlington on August

       15   3rd.  As you may be aware, NAM raised several issues

       16   regarding ensuring transparency in the technical and

       17   scientific data used in EPA's analysis, the process, and

       18   other issues which I will not repeat today.  One comment,

       19   however, that I would like to reiterate is in regard to

       20   NAM's Information Quality Act request.

       21             As noted by NAM, C.M.T.A. also strongly believes

       22   that it is important that all documents, studies, data, and

       23   information is being used by EPA as a basis to set

       24   short-term NO2 standards should be transparently available

       25   to the public and regulated community.



                                                                      32

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             In that regard, we would urge EPA to release the

        2   meta-analysis referenced in NAM's Information Quality Act

        3   request in order for the public to review and understand

        4   fully the basis for EPA's proposed revisions to the NO2

        5   standard.

        6             C.M.T.A. members support clean air and have

        7   contributed significantly to improving the air quality in

        8   California as well as other areas in the nation.  In

        9   California we have lost 30 percent of our manufacturing base

       10   since December of 2000 and our unemployment is 11.5 percent

       11   and destined to rise further.  Although I know you are

       12   supposed to concentrate on health risks and noneconomics, I

       13   think it is more important than ever that your decisions on

       14   this matter be based on science that is both clear and

       15   compelling.

       16             Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

       17        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       18             Any questions?

       19             Okay.  Thank you.

       20             Our next speaker is Errol Villegas.

       21             If you can spell that for the court reporter.

       22        ERROL VILLEGAS:  No problem.  Good morning, my name is

       23   Errol Villegas, E-R-R-O-L, last name is V-I-L-L-E-G-A-S.  I

       24   am the program manager for the San Joaquin Valley Air

       25   Pollutions Control District, and I would like to thank you



                                                                      33

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   for the opportunity to comment today.

        2             Again, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air

        3   District, we appreciate EPA's allowance for the district to

        4   comment on their proposed NO2 standards.  We have some

        5   concerns with the standards at this point.  More

        6   specifically towards the air monitoring network proposal on

        7   the near-road monitors.

        8             The San Joaquin Valley Air District is comprised

        9   of eight counties veering as far north as the San Joaquin

       10   County and as far south as the valley portion of Kern

       11   County.  Basically, we are about 250 miles in length north

       12   to south.  So we have a large air district.  The concern

       13   that we have is the San Joaquin Valley air basin is

       14   comprised of eight different C.B.S.A.s.  And with the

       15   proposed minimum air monitoring network for the San Joaquin

       16   Valley Air District, there are five C.B.S.A.s that trigger

       17   the minimum required greater than the 350,000

       18   population-based.

       19             Again, with the San Joaquin Valley Air District,

       20   we face difficult air quality challenges.  We are extreme

       21   nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone standard.  We are

       22   nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard.  And, again, we are

       23   working on lowering the air quality within the San Joaquin

       24   Valley and doing our best in order to bring our area into

       25   attainment.



                                                                      34

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             The concern that we have is the San Joaquin

        2   Valley's population total is only about 3-1/2 million in

        3   total population.  When you make a comparison with the South

        4   Coast Air Quality Management District where they have

        5   C.B.S.A.s that encompass 12 million population, we feel that

        6   it's disproportionate that the San Joaquin Valley Air

        7   District will be requiring a minimum of five monitoring

        8   stations, where, from what I can tell, as the appendix

        9   shows, that the South Coast would require a minimum of four

       10   monitoring stations.  Again, ours would be about 3-1/2

       11   million in population with five monitoring stations and the

       12   South Coast is over 16 million in population with four

       13   monitoring stations because they triggered -- the two

       14   C.B.S.A.s triggered the second monitoring station greater

       15   than 2.5 million in population.

       16             So we would like the EPA to reconsider their

       17   requirements or their criteria for triggering the minimum

       18   monitoring network.  Again, we would like to see a revision

       19   to the proposed (inaudible) as the EPA would go ahead and

       20   propose to have the C.B.S.A.s with greater than 350,000

       21   total population and have an annual average daily travel of

       22   greater than 150,000.

       23             We did a quick survey within our air district and

       24   there is only one C.B.S.A. that has about 160,000 A.A.D.T.

       25   And so we would feel it appropriate that the other



                                                                      35

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   C.B.S.A.s, which may have a higher population than the

        2   350,000, they are a lot less than the 150,000 A.A.D.T.  So

        3   we would like EPA to take that into consideration.

        4             Also, we would like the EPA to consider possibly

        5   adding language for extensions.  If our requests for the

        6   minimum monitoring stations be denied, having to site five

        7   new near-road monitoring stations within the 2013 start date

        8   would be, basically, what we feel impossible at this point

        9   in time.  To site a monitoring station that is within 50

       10   meters of a federal highway would require a lot of

       11   permitting, a lot of right-of-access, paperwork to go

       12   through.  And in order to be able to site that within the

       13   2013, we would basically supposed to have started today in

       14   order to just to make that in time.  And, again, the issues

       15   with the fiscal impacts with the downturn in the economy, we

       16   don't have the monetary capital in order to begin those

       17   types of projects at this point.  So we would definitely ask

       18   the EPA take into consideration possible extensions for

       19   areas or agencies which will require multiple monitoring

       20   stations.

       21             Also, we would like -- in addition to that, we

       22   would like EPA to take into consideration possible language

       23   for extensions if right-of-ways aren't allowed or are

       24   unattainable because of the issues with being near road --

       25   50 meters near federal highways.



                                                                      36

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             And then, lastly, we would like EPA to take into

        2   consideration possible funding for these monitoring

        3   stations.  A lot of the talks at this point have been to

        4   utilize existing 105 grant monies.  We have already one of

        5   the most extensive air monitoring networks in the nation.

        6   And to have to divert funds from that air monitoring network

        7   in order to put these near-road monitors would be a

        8   detriment to our air quality attainment for ozone and PM2.5

        9   standards.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       11             Just to clarify, your concern about the number of

       12   monitors is a direct result of the funding issue?

       13        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Yes.

       14        DAVID ORLIN:  Or is it broader than that?

       15             Okay.  Thank you.

       16             Any questions?

       17        NEALSON WATKINS:  Would you repeat for me, if you don't

       18   mind, you've got five required monitors --

       19        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Yes.

       20        NEALSON WATKINS:  -- under the current proposal.  Are

       21   any of those C.B.S.A.s required to have two or are they

       22   all --

       23        ERROL VILLEGAS:  They are all single C.B.S.A.s.  Our

       24   highest population C.B.S.A. is only in the 900 to a thousand

       25   total population range.



                                                                      37

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1        NEALSON WATKINS:  Okay.  And then, also, you said you

        2   did a cursory analysis of the -- of your suggestion of

        3   350,000 population and minimum or floor A.A.D.T. of 150,000.

        4   And how many sites did you say that you thought you would

        5   have to have if that were used?

        6        ERROL VILLEGAS:  At this point we would only have one

        7   site.  Again, we would be amicable to any floor A.A.D.T.

        8   requirement, whether you decide that it's 100,000, 50,000,

        9   something like that.  But we feel that the -- just the

       10   population-based requirement for a minimum monitoring site

       11   is inappropriate at this time.

       12        NEALSON WATKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

       13        DAVID ORLIN:  Can I ask?  Are those five C.B.S.A.s all

       14   entirely within the San Joaquin?

       15        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Yes.  They are within the San Joaquin

       16   Valley air basin.  Again, our air basin is comprised as far

       17   north as San Joaquin County, as far south as Kern County.

       18   And so C.B.S.A.s are probably separated by about 50 or 30

       19   miles from each other.

       20        DAVID ORLIN:  But there aren't C.B.S.A.s that are

       21   sharing with other air quality management districts?

       22        ERROL VILLEGAS:  There is a C.B.S.A. -- our Kern

       23   County, I believe, is sharing with the Kern County Air

       24   Pollution Control District.  So in that sense, there could

       25   be a possibility we would have four monitors if the A.A.D.T.



                                                                      38

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   happened to be within the Kern County C.B.S.A.

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  Thank you.

        3             I don't think we have any further questions.

        4   Thank you very much.

        5        ERROL VILLEGAS:  Thank you.

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speakers are Adrian Martinez and

        7   Mara Burstein.

        8        ADRIAN MARTINEZ:  Hello, my name is Adrian Martinez,

        9   and I'm a project attorney with the National Resources

       10   Defense Council, and I'm based in our Santa Monica office.

       11             I have some very brief comments, and at the outset

       12   I want to thank EPA for holding this public hearing in Los

       13   Angeles.  As the agency is well-aware, the air pollution

       14   issues faced here are some of the most intractable in the

       15   nation.  N.R.D.C. will be providing some detailed written

       16   comments before the September 14th deadline.

       17             So today I just want to focus on one issue that I

       18   think is a primary focus for us, but there will be others,

       19   and that's specifically the near-highway monitoring issue.

       20   And as was mentioned before in this ruling, EPA proposes to

       21   establish requirements for NO2 monitor network that will

       22   include monitors within 50 meters of major roadways.

       23   N.R.D.C. is highly supportive of this component of the

       24   proposed rule.  We are pleased to see that EPA is taking

       25   seriously the public health threat that is posed to



                                                                      39

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   residents and other sensitive receptors in the near-highway

        2   environment.

        3             In fact, we recommend that this monitoring of

        4   near-roadway sites be extended to other pollutants of

        5   concern.  The underlying studies that form the foundation

        6   for this requirement cannot exclude the roll the particulate

        7   matter in contributing to monitored health effects.  So it

        8   makes sense for the monitoring network to expand the

        9   pollutants monitored simply beyond NO2.  N.R.D.C. and our

       10   allies have raised this issue of near-highway exposure in

       11   several context and specifically related to PM2.5.  And I'm

       12   submitted some of the relevant documents related to that.

       13   First, I'm going to submit the comments that the Coalition

       14   for Clean Air, Coalition for Safe Environment, Endangered

       15   Habitats League, Environmental Defense Fund, East Yard

       16   Communities for Environmental Justice, and the Natural

       17   Resources Defense Council filed related to the motor vehicle

       18   emissions budgets for the South Coast air basin.  These are

       19   the 2007 PM2.5 budgets.  And second, I'm attaching the brief

       20   that environmental petitioners filed in the case N.R.D.C.

       21   versus EPA, which is related to those budgets.  And,

       22   finally, I'm attaching the letters submitted by E.D.F.,

       23   N.R.D.C., and Sierra Club requesting EPA reconsideration of

       24   the draft nonattainment designations for the revised PM2.5

       25   standard.



                                                                      40

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             Given the need that N.R.D.C. and other groups have

        2   repeatedly asserted to understand and develop clean air

        3   plans to remedy the high concentrations of pollution in the

        4   near-highway environment, we recommend an expansion of the

        5   monitoring to include a more comprehensive set of pollutant

        6   measurements.  The very minimum monitoring requirements must

        7   be set to ensure adaptation to monitor other pollutants in

        8   the near-highway environment in the near future.

        9             This need for additional monitoring is bolstered

       10   by the significant populations that are impacted by

       11   pollution from highways.  The burgeoning system of highways

       12   provide economic benefits, but it also has burdens on these

       13   people.  EPA estimates that 35 million Americans live within

       14   400 meters or four-lane or wider highways and that many

       15   schools are located within the high-pollution zone near

       16   highways across the nation.

       17             Southern California provides an example of a

       18   particularly impacted urban area.  To determine the public

       19   health significance of human exposures to the elevated

       20   concentrations occurring in the near highway environment,

       21   Environmental Defense Fund performed an exposure analysis

       22   that plotted all limited-access highway linked from the

       23   South Coast air basin with annual average daily traffic

       24   greater than 125,000, and then used available 2000 census

       25   data to estimate the population within 300 meters of these



                                                                      41

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   highway links.  The 125,000 A.A.D.T. threshold was selected

        2   based upon EPA's determination that this is an appropriate

        3   traffic threshold for identifying highway projects of air

        4   quality concern.

        5             Ultimately, E.D.F. found that approximately 1.5

        6   million citizens in the South Coast air basin reside within

        7   this 300 meter high-impact zone.  Though, as you can tell,

        8   it's a significant public health issue in Southern

        9   California.

       10             And those are the brief comments I have today and

       11   will follow up with more comments before the written

       12   deadline.  And we look forward to working with EPA on this

       13   important rule.

       14             Thank you.

       15        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       16             Are you reserving comments on the level of the

       17   standard?

       18        ADRIAN MARTINEZ:  We'll submit those via written, but

       19   we'll work with the coalition groups on some of the

       20   comments, though.

       21        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       22             Any questions?

       23             Thanks.

       24        MARA BURSTEIN:  My comments are going to be very short

       25   and sweet.  I will also provide written comments before the



                                                                      42

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   deadline.

        2             Can you guys hear me okay?

        3        THE REPORTER:  No.

        4        MARA BURSTEIN:  Can you hear me now?

        5        THE REPORTER:  And I need the spelling of your name.

        6        MARA BURSTEIN:  Mara, M-A-R-A, Burstein,

        7   B-U-R-S-T-E-I-N.

        8             So I manage the air quality grant-making program

        9   for Environment Now, which is a private foundation located

       10   in Southern California.

       11             Environment Now supports EPA's proposal to create

       12   a one-hour NO2 standard and we believe that that standard

       13   should be set at 50 parts per billion or below.  We think

       14   that it should be set to protect public health independent

       15   from consideration of a monitoring network along roadsides.

       16   We do, however, strongly support the establishment of a

       17   monitoring network along highways to protect those that live

       18   and work close to them.  Additionally, we also recommend

       19   that EPA take this opportunity to strengthen the annual

       20   average standard to protect against long-term exposure of

       21   NO2.

       22             And then I'll have more robust comments before the

       23   date, but thank you so much for this opportunity.

       24        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       25             Any questions?



                                                                      43

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             Thank you.

        2             Unless anyone is waiting to testify, I think we

        3   will take a short break until our next scheduled speaker.

        4   Thanks.

        5             (Recess taken.)

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  I think we will get started.  We have

        7   Mr. Peter Mathews.

        8             If you can just spell your name for the court

        9   reporter and then we're asking people to limit their

       10   comments to 5 minutes.

       11             Thank you very much for coming.

       12        PETER MATHEWS:  My name is Peter Mathews, spelled

       13   P-E-T-E-R, M-A-T-H-E-W-S.  I am a resident of Long Beach

       14   California.  I'm also a professor of political science in

       15   Cypress College, including urban politics and policies.  So

       16   I am extremely interested in what the EPA proposals are

       17   regarding nitrogen dioxide.  We have a lot of residences in

       18   Long Beach and Carson and Compton, the areas around these

       19   cities who are suffering from asthma.  In fact, about five

       20   years ago I was leading a community-organized

       21   demonstration/rally to keep the E.R. open at King-Drew

       22   Hospital, which is in Willowbrook.  Along came a little boy

       23   and his mother.  And the mom said to me, "Peter, if the E.R.

       24   is closed here at King-Drew, my son, who has asthma attacks

       25   and sometimes very severe ones, will have a tremendous



                                                                      44

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   problem having to go to the neighboring hospital miles away

        2   and he could possibly even die or certainly he would suffer

        3   in the asthma attack."  So that really got my attention on

        4   the issue of asthma.

        5             And I have not only been teaching about urban

        6   politics what needs to be done to create cleaner air and

        7   cleaner water in the urban areas, but also I've been

        8   interested from a public policy perspective because I happen

        9   to be also a candidate for Congress.  I'm running for the

       10   37th Congressional District, which includes Long Beach,

       11   Carson, Compton, Willowbrook, and the southern part of

       12   Watts.  And many of my constituents are complaining in the

       13   same way of bad air quality.  We have the ports, the Long

       14   Beach and L.A. harbor ports, are the single largest source

       15   of pollution in this area and including particulate matter

       16   such as nitrogen dioxide.

       17             What I understand is the Lung Association, who I'm

       18   also supporting in their position on this issue, has

       19   actually made a proposal to reduce the levels of nitrogen

       20   dioxide to 50 parts per billion on a one-hour basis and

       21   they're also advocating tests and monitoring equipment that

       22   will be installed on highways and other arteries that are

       23   heavily traveled.  Since we have the ports and lots of

       24   trucks that come up and down the 710 freeway and, in fact,

       25   go through the city streets in Long Beach, we have a



                                                                      45

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   tremendous need to get accurate monitoring of this type of

        2   particulate matter that can cause asthma attacks, ultimately

        3   it can also cause death, early death or premature death, and

        4   it can certainly involve younger people.  Young children,

        5   for example, and older people are the most vulnerable in the

        6   most egregious ways.

        7             So I am here to let the EPA know that while you're

        8   proposing, I think, 80 parts per billion to 100 parts per

        9   billion, I think it's much better to go down to the 50 parts

       10   per billion that the Lung Association is proposing.  And I

       11   believe California has a 30 parts per billion requirement as

       12   well.  So I would like to see nationwide, especially in

       13   urban areas like this that will be affected, to be under the

       14   50 parts per billion proposal by the Lung Association.  And

       15   I'm here to tell you that it's great that the EPA is

       16   actually listening to the public and I encourage you to

       17   continue doing this and we appreciate what you're doing as a

       18   public service.  Thank you so much.  I'm Peter Mathews.  I'm

       19   a professor and a candidate for Congress in the Long Beach

       20   area.  Thanks.

       21        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       22             Any questions?

       23             Thank you.

       24             Our next speaker is Gwendolyn Young.

       25        GWENDOLYN YOUNG:  Good morning.  My name is Gwendolyn



                                                                      46

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   Young, and I serve on the board of directors of the American

        2   Lung Association.  My company, Young Communications Group,

        3   is headquartered here in Los Angeles and I've lived here for

        4   about 30 years.

        5             Los Angeles has struggled for decades fighting the

        6   dirtiest air in the country.  We breathe that air day after

        7   day.  We have heard for years about the enormous health

        8   consequences of the ozone smog and particulate matter from

        9   our notorious traffic, but recently we have learned much

       10   more troubling news; that the levels of pollution found on

       11   and along our highways is many times higher than we had

       12   thought; that 36 million people live near highways,

       13   railroads, and ports in the United States, near enough to

       14   have to breathe those dangerous concentrations of pollution

       15   every day for hours on end.  Even more of us work on or near

       16   these highways, like patrol officers, truck drivers, highway

       17   construction workers.  I do a lot of driving for my clients

       18   using the 405 freeway, the 5, the 710, and I breathe the

       19   pollution firsthand.

       20             I'm really pleased to be hear as a voluntary of

       21   the American Lung Association and to say we support the

       22   efforts the EPA is making to recognize this problem.  We

       23   agree that we need to have tighter, more protective

       24   standards that will limit the amount of nitrogen dioxide

       25   from the exhaust from cars, trucks, buses, and other



                                                                      47

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   sources.  We agree that we need a nationwide monitoring

        2   network to tell us how much of this pollutant there is and

        3   how our effective our solutions are in getting rid of it.

        4   However, we think the EPA is being too cautious and,

        5   consequently, failing to provide the kind of protection from

        6   this pollutant in our communities must have.  Millions of

        7   those who live near or work on or near highways are much

        8   more vulnerable because of their age or health.  Most at

        9   risk are children and teenagers, seniors, and people with

       10   lung disease, like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

       11   heart decease, and diabetes.  People who live near highways

       12   are more likely to have these chronic diseases because they

       13   often have lower incomes or are from disadvantaged ethnic or

       14   racial groups.

       15             I know what living with these diseases can do to a

       16   family.  My mother and brother both died from C.O.P.D.

       17             Breathing nitrogen dioxide can send a person with

       18   C.O.P.D. to the hospital or a child with asthma to the

       19   emergency room.  The California Children's Health Study

       20   warned that children living near major highways, breathing

       21   nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants, can face a lifetime

       22   of higher risk of developing lung disease because the impact

       23   on the growth of their lung function.

       24             We agree with EPA's proposal to add a one-hour

       25   standard to the national air quality standard for nitrogen



                                                                      48

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   dioxide.  However, we urge EPA to adopt a higher one-hour

        2   standard of 50 parts per billion or lower.  We urge EPA to

        3   adopt a tighter annual standard than the one currently in

        4   existence, one closer to the annual standard we have adopted

        5   here in California, 30 parts per billion.

        6             Traffic in Los Angeles is a constant, spewing

        7   pollution into neighbors hour after hour.  Our annual

        8   standard in California recognizes that nitrogen dioxide from

        9   traffic is not an on-again/off-again rush-hour problem, but

       10   a steady source.  We need a national annual standard that

       11   provides that kind of protection.

       12             We urge EPA to make the monitoring proposal the

       13   foundation of a comprehensive system to track other types of

       14   pollutions from vehicle exhaust, especially particular

       15   matter.  The Lung Association will submit much more detailed

       16   information and comments in writing.  As a member of the

       17   board, I can tell you that the American Lung Association

       18   remains committed to the fight for healthy air and I

       19   appreciate this opportunity to share our concerns today.

       20   Thank you very much.

       21        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       22             Questions?

       23        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       24             I think we're going to take another short break.

       25   Thanks.



                                                                      49

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             (Recess taken.)

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  We're going to get started again.  Carla

        3   Truax, the next speaker.  We'd like to hear what you have to

        4   say.

        5        CARLA TRUAX:  Good morning.  My name is Carla Truax and

        6   I work for the Southern California Environmental Health

        7   Sciences Center, which has scientists from USC and UCLA.

        8   Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.

        9             Our center has studies that focus on air pollution

       10   near roadway exposures and I know some of those studies have

       11   been taken into consideration for proposing this standard.

       12   Studies of our center have been published in the New England

       13   Journal of Medicine, Epidemiology - The Lancet, and these

       14   show serious health effects on children from nitrogen

       15   dioxide.  There was a study specifically on nitrogen dioxide

       16   and how it correlated with higher prevalence of asthma and

       17   also a lot of traffic proximity studies showing elevated

       18   rates of asthma and also that children have to use more

       19   medication to control their asthma in those higher pollution

       20   communities.  Children who live within 500 meters of a

       21   freeway or a busy road had significantly reduced lung

       22   function growth compared to children who lived at least 1500

       23   feet away from the freeway.

       24             I support EPA's strengthening NO2 standards and

       25   particularly the adoption of a one-hour standard that would



                                                                      50

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   protect against these peak traffic volumes.

        2             In California, as awareness of the studies have

        3   increased, there's been action to stop putting people next

        4   to freeways such as SB 352, I believe it is, that prohibits

        5   building new schools near freeways.  There is already so

        6   many existing facilities and it is just not possible to move

        7   thousands of people from their homes, schools, daycare

        8   centers, nursing homes.  A surprising amount of these places

        9   with sensitive receptors are very close to freeways.

       10             And research -- it's important to know that the

       11   research has shown not only freeways, but also just busy

       12   roads with high traffic volumes are associated with these

       13   health effects on children.  So that broadens our area that

       14   we have to protect against the NO2.

       15             So this is -- it's a concern for California

       16   because of our high-population density, but we're seeing

       17   very similar things happening all around the nation.  So I

       18   think a national standard for this would be very effective.

       19   I also strongly support EPA's proposal to establish the

       20   highway monitoring network.  And in the future, other

       21   harmful pollutants could be considered to be monitored on

       22   this network, like PM2.5 and ultrafine particles.

       23             Thank you.

       24        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       25             Do you have citations for the studies you



                                                                      51

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   mentioned in your written comments?

        2        CARLA TRUAX:  I do.  I know the journal author and year

        3   offhand, but I can give you a more detailed citation, if

        4   you'd like.

        5        DAVID ORLIN:  Yeah, if you could just submit that, that

        6   would be helpful.

        7        CARLA TRUAX:  Definitely.

        8        DAVID ORLIN:  Any other questions?

        9             Thanks.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Looks like we'll take a short break.

       11             Thank you.

       12             (Recess taken.)

       13        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  I think we are ready to get

       14   started again.  We've got two more speakers, Otana Jakpor

       15   and Karen Jakpor.

       16             Thanks very much.  We will ask you to keep your

       17   comments to about 5 minutes, and the lights will keep you

       18   apprised how the time is going.  Thank you for coming.

       19        OTANA JAKPOR:  Good morning.  My name is Otana Jakpor,

       20   and I am a senior at Woodcrest Christian High School in

       21   Riverside, California, as well as a volunteer with the

       22   American Lung Association.  I have received awards for my

       23   research and activism for clean air from the South Coast Air

       24   Quality Management District, from Action for Nature, and

       25   even from President Bush.  Currently, I am a summer intern



                                                                      52

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   at the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences

        2   Center, which is a collaboration of scientists from both USC

        3   and UCLA.

        4             First of all, I would like to thank the EPA for

        5   considering tightening the national ambient air quality

        6   standard for nitrogen dioxide.  The current standard for

        7   nitrogen dioxide was set way back in 1971.  However, the

        8   vast majority of research on air pollution health effects

        9   was published more than two decades later.  Now there is

       10   much new scientific evidence that shows that the 1971

       11   standard for nitrogen dioxide fails to protect the health of

       12   the public, and so it is imperative that we act on this

       13   evidence.

       14             Not only is nitrogen dioxide a hazardous air

       15   pollutant in and of itself, but it is also a building block

       16   that contributes to the formation of both fine particles and

       17   ozone pollution.  As such, tighter regulation of nitrogen

       18   dioxide would most likely also help to decrease fine

       19   particle and ozone pollution, and that would be a huge,

       20   extra benefit.

       21             Both particulate and ozone pollution cause a vast

       22   array of serious health problems.  One study conducted in

       23   the Los Angeles area found that for every increase of 10

       24   micrograms of particles in the air in a given neighborhood,

       25   the risk of death from any cause rose by 11 to 17 percent.



                                                                      53

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             I, very enthusiastically, support the EPA's

        2   proposal for a roadside monitoring network for nitrogen

        3   dioxide.  Nitrogen dioxide can be thought of as a marker for

        4   tailpipe emissions.  The EPA Web site states that, quote,

        5   "in-vehicle concentrations can be two to three times higher

        6   than measured at nearby, areawide monitors" end quote.  And

        7   monitors close to roads have NO2 concentrations

        8   approximately 30 to 100 percent higher than concentrations

        9   at monitors away from roadways.

       10             I feel especially strongly about this issue

       11   because I live in Riverside, which has three major freeways

       12   running through it.  But I know for a fact that my hometown

       13   is not unique as far as vulnerability to nitrogen dioxide

       14   goes.  Current nitrogen dioxide standards do not protect any

       15   of the people who live near roadways or who spend much time

       16   commuting.  The EPA estimates that approximately 16 percent

       17   of housing in the U.S. is located within 300 feet of a major

       18   highway, railroad, or airport.  That means approximately 48

       19   million people are not protected by current standards

       20   because there are currently no roadside monitors.  Clearly,

       21   establishing a roadside monitoring network could help to

       22   improve environmental, social justice in a major way.

       23             I urge EPA to set the best possible standards

       24   based on public health considerations, and not succumb to

       25   industry pressure to set weaker standards.  Remember, the



                                                                      54

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   economic costs of asthma exacerbations are enormous.

        2   According to a study by David Smith, et al., in the American

        3   Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, in 1987,

        4   the total estimated economic cost of asthma in the U.S. was

        5   approximately $5.8 billion.  Now it is probably much higher

        6   because back then they estimated 15 million asthmatics, and

        7   now there are an estimated 22.9 million asthmatics in

        8   America.  Particularly as we are moving towards health care

        9   reform, we need to keep in mind that health costs are borne

       10   not just by individuals, but by our entire country, and they

       11   have an impact on the economy.

       12             Again, I thank the EPA for considering tightening

       13   the standards, and I very much hope it does.  The decisions

       14   made now will have a lasting impact on the future health and

       15   happiness of today's youth, and so we are depending on the

       16   EPA to make the best decision possible.

       17             Thank you.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       19             Any questions from the panel?

       20             Thank you for coming.

       21        KAREN JAKPOR:  Good morning.  My name is Dr. Karen

       22   Jakpor, and I'm an American Lung Association volunteer as

       23   well from Riverside County, an area with some of the worst

       24   quality in the nation.  I'm a Harvard-trained

       25   obstetrician-gynecologist and I have a master's degree in



                                                                      55

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   Public Health from the University of Michigan, but most of

        2   all I am here to speak as a person who suffers from severe

        3   adult-onset asthma and respiratory muscle weakness as a

        4   result of the treatment for asthma.  I have been in the

        5   hospital or the E.R. approximately 48 times in my life.

        6             When you read through the research reports on the

        7   pulmonary effects of air pollution, I would like you to

        8   imagine what it feels like not to be able to catch your

        9   breath.  It's truly a horrible feeling.  Now picture this:

       10   There are approximately 22.9 million manners with asthma,

       11   including 6.7 million children, according to CDC data.

       12             The current nitrogen dioxide standard does not

       13   protect the health of these millions of asthmatics.  So I'm

       14   very happy that the EPA is holding these hearings in order

       15   to tighten the nitrogen dioxide standard and make it more

       16   protective for all subpopulations.  I am strongly in some of

       17   the EPA establishing a one-hour standard for nitrogen

       18   dioxide, but instead of the proposal of a one-standard in

       19   the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion, I would really

       20   like to see an even lower one-hour standard.

       21             According to the American Lung Association, data

       22   from 19 controlled human exposure studies provide evidence

       23   that 100 parts per billion would not protect asthmatics.  A

       24   synthesis of these studies found that two-thirds of adults

       25   with mild asthma had worsening of asthma and airway



                                                                      56

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   hyper-responsiveness after inhaling nitrogen dioxide for one

        2   hour at the concentration of 100 parts per billion.

        3             As a resident of California, I believe the EPA

        4   should adopt the same annual standard that California has

        5   adopted, 30 parts per billion, compared to the federal

        6   standard of 53 parts per billion.  All states should have

        7   the same level of protection.

        8             Speaking as an obstetrician, I am not only

        9   concerned with the pulmonary effects of nitrogen dioxide.

       10   There is increasing evidence that air pollution adversely

       11   affects pregnancy outcome.  This is easy to understand if

       12   you consider the well-known effects of cigarette smoke on

       13   pregnancy, causing growth retardation and premature births.

       14   Nitrogen dioxide and whatever fumes come out of a tailpipe

       15   are also gases breathed by pregnant women.  It is theorized

       16   that air pollutants may interfere with the development of

       17   the placenta and, therefore, interfere with the delivery of

       18   oxygen and nutrients to the fetus.  Also, air pollutants

       19   might trigger the production of substances called

       20   inflammatory cytokines, which may cause premature delivery.

       21             A very recent study by Dr. Jun Wu published in

       22   Environmental Health Perspectives showed that the risk of

       23   very preterm delivery, at least -- less than 30 weeks of

       24   gestational age, was 128 percent higher in women exposed to

       25   the highest quartile of NOx.



                                                                      57

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             A study by Dr. Beate Ritz published in the Journal

        2   of Pediatrics showed that the risk of an infant dying of

        3   sudden infant death syndrome increased by 15 to 19 percent

        4   per one part per hundred million increase in the average

        5   nitrogen dioxide levels two months before death.

        6             Even a small amount of compromise when you set the

        7   new standard could have serious health consequences.  The

        8   USC Children's Health Study found that the long-term

        9   exposure to nitrogen dioxide was associated with stunted

       10   lung growth in children.  Speaking as a mother, when I look

       11   at my little girl and my older girl, to me her life and

       12   health are priceless.

       13             I would appreciate your work to tighten the

       14   nitrogen dioxide standard and I urge you to set the most

       15   protective standards.

       16             Thank you very much.

       17        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       18             Any questions?

       19        JIBIANA JAKPOR:  I love clean air.

       20        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       21             Okay.  I think we are ready to go.  Our next

       22   person speaking is Dr. Robert Vinetz.

       23             Thank you for coming.

       24        ROBERT VINETZ:  Is this okay if I sit here?

       25        DAVID ORLIN:  That's great.  Use the microphone and



                                                                      58

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   spell your name for the court reporter.

        2        ROBERT VINETZ:  Sure.  My name is Dr. Robert Vinetz, V,

        3   like Victor, I-N, like Nelly, E-T-Z, like zebra.

        4             Well, it's a pleasure to be here and good morning.

        5   I'm a pediatrician here testifying today on behalf of the

        6   Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles County, of which I'm the

        7   co-chair of the steering committee.  The coalition has --

        8   actually, I wrote "over 40," but it's over 60 organization

        9   members and many other individual members here in Los

       10   Angeles County, representing community clinic and provider

       11   organizations, environmental and housing advocacy groups,

       12   university-based research people, and so on.  We're trying

       13   to pull together as many people focusing on asthma and its

       14   antecedents and care as possible.

       15             I'm also a member of the American Lung

       16   Association's health network for clean air.  And as the

       17   pediatrician that directs our community clinics' pediatric

       18   asthma/disease management program, our group cares for over

       19   800 children with asthma out of roughly 7,000 children under

       20   our care.  A lot of kids.  And we see kids with asthma every

       21   day.

       22             When I first read the background information about

       23   this hearing on nitrogen dioxide in the environment, I was

       24   caught, even grabbed, by a particular number, and that was

       25   at 19.4 million metric tons of nitrogen dioxide.  I said,



                                                                      59

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   "Wow, that sounds like a lot, but how much is it?"  I mean,

        2   it was just really hard to get a feeling for.  And, yet,

        3   it's that number, I think, that you are dealing with and

        4   probably forms a lot of the basis for the decisions that you

        5   at the EPA and others studying the situation will make.

        6   Well, if I, as a physician, have a hard time understanding

        7   what that means, my assumption is that many other people

        8   have a difficult time getting a feeling for what 19.4

        9   million metric tons is.  So when I thought, "Well, how can I

       10   kind of de-mystify this number, make it sensible for most of

       11   us," the image of a red brick came into my mind.  I said,

       12   "Okay.  Well, how many red bricks is it going to take to

       13   measure 19.4 million metric tons?"

       14             I did a little arithmetic and had it checked

       15   twice.  I hope I'm right.  It comes up to about

       16   7,178,000,000 of these 2.7 kilo bricks.  If -- I said,

       17   "Okay.  Well, that's a lot, but it's still hard to get your

       18   head around 7,178,000,000.  Let's see how far this could be

       19   stacked up if we had a really good mason stacking these

       20   things up, you know, one on top of each other."  My

       21   calculations told me that that stack of bricks would go from

       22   the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon and

       23   about 6- to 10,000 miles beyond the moon.  That's how much

       24   nitrogen dioxide every year we're putting into our air in

       25   the United States and into every one of us, every living



                                                                      60

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   thing, basically, on the earth that's breathing.  Didn't

        2   seem like good news to me.

        3             Another analogy.  Let's try and forget the bricks

        4   and take a look at this nitrogen dioxide as gas.  So I said,

        5   All right.  Well, volumes.  Let's fill up an Empire State

        6   Building with nothing but nitrogen dioxide.  How many of

        7   those buildings, Empire State Buildings, would we have to

        8   fill up?  Calculations, I was helped out by an

        9   epidemiologist who is more adept at numbers than me.  Six

       10   thousand.  Six thousand Empire State Buildings.  Now, we

       11   kind of calculated that this would be enough Empire State

       12   Buildings to cover virtually the entire surface of

       13   Manhattan.  No other buildings on Manhattan except Empire

       14   State Buildings emptied out and filled with nitrogen

       15   dioxide.  All right.  Well, that's a lot.

       16             Another little analogy is let's empty out those

       17   Empire State Buildings and if we could turn them end to end,

       18   how far would that line of Empire State Buildings and

       19   nitrogen dioxide go?  Well, roughly from Washington, D.C.,

       20   to Denver, Colorado.  And if we made, you know, that a

       21   little bit smaller.  If you imagined a football field and

       22   the perimeter of the football field is like the opening of a

       23   tunnel, that tunnel would go well beyond Denver filled with

       24   nothing but nitrogen dioxide.  That's how much we're dealing

       25   with here.  All right.  Yet, we put this toxic by-product in



                                                                      61

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   our air.  That's what 19.4 million is.

        2             Anyway, I was delighted that you all are holding

        3   this hearing.  It's been a long time since the EPA has

        4   looked at it, roughly 35 years approximately.  And there's

        5   been a lot of research done in-between that last time you

        6   all looked at nitrogen dioxide and now.

        7             There have been -- to my understanding and after

        8   having looked at some over 50 peer-reviewed articles in the

        9   medical and environmental literature looking at breathing

       10   problems associated with levels of nitrogen dioxide and that

       11   show a problem well below the current 53 parts per billion

       12   that is set as the standard.  The standard, to the best of

       13   our knowledge at this point, does not -- is not protective

       14   against the effects of nitrogen dioxide on the human body

       15   and lung and against human disease.  Now, to some extent we

       16   don't know completely whether or not it's purely the

       17   nitrogen dioxide that does this or whether it's the nitrogen

       18   dioxide in combination with the other pollutants, of which

       19   there are plenty that we put in the air, or whether it's the

       20   interaction that nitrogen dioxide causes with these other

       21   pollutants.  But what we do know is that increased levels of

       22   nitrogen dioxide are associated with more premature births,

       23   including fetal and infant deaths.  This nitrogen dioxide

       24   gets in the mothers and it produces problems in the fetus

       25   even before the fetus is born in some cases.  Increased



                                                                      62

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   sudden infant death syndrome, reduced fetal and child

        2   growth.  After kids are born there is a relationship between

        3   their growth and nitrogen dioxide.  It causes permanent

        4   damage to the still developing lungs of children after

        5   they're born.  Lung development isn't complete until about

        6   six years of age.  Increased airway sensitivity, more

        7   asthma, more emergency room visits and hospitalizations

        8   because of asthma, neurodevelopmental problems in children,

        9   more childhood and adult cancers, and so on.

       10             Well, where is most of this nitrogen dioxide

       11   concentrated?  Well, come to L.A.  It's concentrated close

       12   to -- closer to freeways and to high-traffic areas and we

       13   have a lot of that in Los Angeles, a lot in this country.

       14   Because it's produced, as you all know, by burning of fossil

       15   fuels, diesel and gasoline, which -- surprise, surprise --

       16   is generated on our freeways and streets.

       17             A recent study here at USC, and you may have

       18   already heard testimony of this, showed that when a child

       19   lives within 1.4 kilometers, about three-quarters of a mile

       20   from a freeway, they have an 89 percent higher chance of

       21   developing asthma or having asthma symptoms.  You got a lot

       22   of kids in that position here in L.A., and, I assume, all

       23   over the country.

       24             Another study, actually, from Italy recently

       25   showed that they took kids out of the inner, polluted



                                                                      63

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   city -- I'm on red?

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  Yeah.

        3        ROBERT VINETZ:  Can I have another 30 seconds?

        4        DAVID ORLIN:  You can have another 30 seconds.  Some

        5   people are waiting to testify.

        6        ROBERT VINETZ:  When you move the kids out, their lung

        7   function got better within two weeks.

        8             What I'm hoping is that the EPA can do the

        9   following three things:  To invest in a roadside monitoring

       10   network.  We need it.  We can use it.  It will help people.

       11   I recommend that the EPA set a one-hour standard at 50 parts

       12   per billion to protect the health of those who are most at

       13   risk, particularly kids and those with asthma.  And I ask

       14   you to adopt a tighter annual standards of 30 part per

       15   billion or even lower in order to provide protection for

       16   long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide.

       17        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       18        ROBERT VINETZ:  Thank you.

       19        DAVID ORLIN:  Any questions from the panel?

       20             No.  Thank you.

       21        ROBERT VINETZ:  You're welcome.  Actually, I didn't

       22   show a picture, but I had the pictures of our freeways.  Can

       23   I give you this with my testimony?  If you can't carry it or

       24   get it through the -- you know, the system, I have a piece

       25   of paper.  I don't know if the airline system will allow



                                                                      64

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   that, but here's a few copies of my testimony.

        2             Thank you.

        3        DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speakers are Jesse Johnson and

        4   Derek Zupancic.

        5        JESSE JOHNSON:  Good morning, folks.

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  Good morning.  We are trying to keep

        7   comments to 5 minutes or so.

        8        JESSE JOHNSON:  I'm trying to keep my comments to 5

        9   minutes.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Great.

       11             If you could, spell your name for the court

       12   reporter.

       13        JESSE JOHNSON:  J-E-S-S-E, J-O-H-N-S-O-N.

       14             Hi.  Good morning.  I'm Jesse Johnson.  I'm here

       15   as a volunteer on behalf of the American Lung Association to

       16   testify on their behalf with regard your revision -- EPA's

       17   revision of the nitrogen dioxide pollution standard in the

       18   U.S.  I'm a long-time resident of Los Angeles, so it goes

       19   without saying that clean air is a major concern here and it

       20   is imperative that the EPA continues to make advances in the

       21   arena of regulating air pollution.  It's kinda shocking to

       22   think, actually, that the last time we've looked at this

       23   thing was 1971.  I mean, I think that I was negative 11

       24   years old and Richard Nixon was still the President back

       25   then.



                                                                      65

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             So with all the research that's gone on since

        2   then, we've shown that, like, these current standards that

        3   were set then don't really protect the health of children,

        4   people with asthma, and those who live and work near major

        5   highways.  The nation's population has increased by over 100

        6   million people since then.  So that could only mean more

        7   cars, factories, and pollution going on than there was 38

        8   years ago.

        9             So this current proposal aims to set a one-hour

       10   standard to limit short-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide

       11   and, of course, we support those short-term limits, but we

       12   believe that this proposed reduction of 80 to 100 parts per

       13   billion doesn't really go far enough to cut it.  We're kinda

       14   hoping to see the EPA to set a one-hour of 50 parts per

       15   billion to provide the margin of safety needed to protect

       16   those most at risk; namely, children who have asthma, those

       17   who work primarily on our highways, such as highway patrol

       18   officers, truck drivers, and construction workers.  You

       19   know, God forbid it should be another 38 years until we

       20   actually get around to reevaluating this and then, you know,

       21   it seems logical to set a standard that would have a lasting

       22   impact now.  Not to mention there's likely going to be

       23   lobbying groups that represent private interest groups,

       24   representing these major polluters who would be attempting

       25   to strike down this proposed legislation.  So we need to act



                                                                      66

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   as aggressively as we can in order to ensure that we can --

        2   you know, can get the most amount of pollution regulation

        3   taken care of.

        4             And on top of that, hundreds of these studies have

        5   shown, obviously, there's a direct correlation between

        6   living near a traffic roadway and compromised -- and

        7   people's compromised health.  And we don't really have a

        8   national network for monitoring these things.  So as -- the

        9   American Lung Association is urging the EPA to expand the

       10   monitoring pollutants of traffic and then using this ruling

       11   on particulate matter as its platform to implement this kind

       12   of network.  And while there is a suggested alternative to

       13   set a tighter standard only in the absence of these

       14   monitoring networks, we believe the standard should be based

       15   solely on what is needed to protect public health, and not

       16   whether -- not whether a monitoring network really exists.

       17             In short, we need to implement these protective

       18   pollution regulation standards concomitantly with the

       19   ability to monitor emissions nationwide in order to ensure

       20   that the standards are being met.  We can know where these

       21   heavily -- the pollutants in these heavily-traffic areas are

       22   so we can educate the people living in the surrounding areas

       23   and so people, you know, don't end up in the emergency room

       24   for going to work.  That's it.

       25        DAVID ORLIN:  Thanks very much.



                                                                      67

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             If I could just clarify.  EPA has looked at the

        2   standards since 1971, but this is the first time we are

        3   actually proposing to revise it.

        4        JESSE JOHNSON:  Oh, that's good.  I'm all about it.  I

        5   think it's cool.  I just think you got to go all the way for

        6   it because you guys have a whole lot on your plates besides

        7   nitrogen dioxide pollution.  So if it were to take, you

        8   know, this much time to get back to it, let's, like, get the

        9   standard lower.  That's my thought on it.

       10        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

       11             Any other questions from the panel?

       12             Thank you.

       13             Mr. Zupancic.

       14             If you could, spell your name for the court

       15   reporter.

       16        DEREK ZUPANCIC:  Z-U-P-A-N-C-I-C, Derek, D-E-R-E-K.

       17             Good morning, gentleman.  I'm a late arrival here

       18   because I just saw your blurb in the paper this morning.

       19   I'm the CEO of Hydroelectricic Power, and I'm the inventor

       20   of the system that takes water, creates hydrogen gas from

       21   it, and inducts it into the air intake of an automobile.

       22   And as a convince of that, we are getting zero or little

       23   emissions coming out of the tailpipe.

       24             We are approved by California Air Resources Board

       25   for gasoline and diesel vehicles up to 8,000 pounds.  The



                                                                      68

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   problems I'm having is that we cannot get the EPA or other

        2   places to look at our device for emissions lowering because

        3   nobody has ever done it before on a fossil fuel gasoline

        4   engine.  We have all kinds of verifications for diesel.

        5   There's nothing for gasoline.  I would propose that we offer

        6   the EPA several units for testing and see for yourself.

        7   When you look at a tailpipe when you start up a vehicle and

        8   that toxic, poisonous gas comes out -- and I'm an asthma

        9   sufferer and my grandchildren suffer.  And you can't hardly

       10   breathe because it burns your eyes and such.  And then 90

       11   seconds later it's warm, moist air coming out of the

       12   tailpipe.  It's unbelievable that it actually works.  It's a

       13   simple system, no moving parts.  And one of the critical

       14   things is the nitrogen that comes from the air going into

       15   the engine binds with the hydrogen, causes the fossil fuel

       16   molecule to fracture, and then complete burn at

       17   approximately 3,000 degrees.  So there's actually nothing

       18   left to go out the tailpipe.  And it's never been done

       19   before.  And we have proof.  We have customers that we put

       20   units on.  A '99 Lincoln Town Car, 103,000 miles.  Smog

       21   test, zero NOx, zero HC, zero O2.  And we have those.  And

       22   these are certified tests for California.

       23             The problem we have is smog tests are not regarded

       24   as pollution tests.  That is merely something that the

       25   public complies with.  What we need is we need some grants



                                                                      69

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   or something so we can take it to labs and test it because

        2   this actually does work.  Last week we even took a big

        3   Sequoia, 7100 pound vehicle, 2008, out to the drag strip and

        4   we had the first ever green drag race ever heard.  And you

        5   can have your fun and cake and eat it too because you get

        6   better power, better mileage, and cleaner emissions.

        7             Now, we can't 100 percent emission reduction

        8   because we have to prove that, but in some cars we do get

        9   that.  But we can only tell you that on cars we tested on --

       10   and it's the whole realm of cars.  I'm talking about '87

       11   Areostar, 163,000 miles, could never get through a smog

       12   check.  Within 20 minutes after the unit was installed,

       13   passed the smog check with zero emissions.  I mean, these

       14   things are supposedly impossible because nobody has ever,

       15   ever had an emission reduction on a gasoline engine without

       16   touching anything other than the air cleaner.

       17             So we'd like a chance for you guys to test our

       18   product.  I've talked to Ann Arbor.  Ann Arbor has got a

       19   testing lab.  The problem is they only test on enforcement

       20   when there's been a violation.  Okay.  We're not violating

       21   anything.  There's labs around here, but there's no criteria

       22   for a test.  Basically, what we'd like to do is, hey, hook

       23   it up to the exhaust pipe, see what happens.  That's

       24   basically what we do.  Not only that, but we're going to

       25   create thousand of green jobs.  We're getting ready for mass



                                                                      70

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   production.  We have to train installers because it is going

        2   to involve professional installation.  Uses pennies of

        3   waters.  Does not change any of the sensors or emission

        4   equipment in the vehicle.  It actually causes the computer

        5   in the vehicle on a fuel injector car to become smarter and

        6   run leaner.  And on my vehicle coming in today, which was a

        7   Camry hybrid, I averaged over 52 miles per gallon coming on

        8   the highway here and no emissions.  So it's all up to you

        9   guys what you want to do.  I'm willing to do whatever it

       10   takes because I believe in clean air.

       11             I was on the hydrogen tour.  I was -- how can I

       12   say? -- the black sheep there because I did not need to

       13   refill with hydrogen and I did not have to go 50 miles an

       14   hour on the freeway.  I could drive whatever speed I want.

       15   It is very user friendly, uses, as I say, a little bit of

       16   distilled water, and I think it should be mandatory for

       17   every vehicle because we can clean up the emissions.  We can

       18   clean up the brown air and smog that we get.  And we all

       19   know that that stuff is poison.

       20             California Air Resources Board has determined that

       21   the toxic emissions from diesel and automobiles around

       22   freeways and such, and we all know this, is bad for

       23   children, it's bad for people, but it's also bad for our

       24   honeybees.  It's also bad for our butterflies.  It's bad for

       25   critters that breathe through their torsos because the



                                                                      71

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   particulate matter is so minute that when it gets into them,

        2   it acts like asbestos and, therefore, we are seeing that

        3   stuff diminish.

        4             So if you can help us out, we'd appreciate it, and

        5   I'll help you out.  Thank you.

        6        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

        7             Any questions?

        8        SCOTT JENKINS:  I do have one question.  Do you have

        9   contact information you can provide us, a card or something?

       10        DEREK ZUPANCIC:  Sure.  I've got my card.  We have the

       11   car approval is D643 and it's for gasoline and diesel.  We

       12   have our Web site.  I'll give you my card.

       13        SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

       14        DEREK ZUPANCIC:  May I approach?

       15        SCOTT JENKINS:  Yeah.

       16        DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speaker is Rachel Appelbaum.

       17        RACHEL APPELBAUM:  Hi there.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Hi.  Speak into the microphone and spell

       19   your name for the court reporter and try and limit yourself

       20   to 5 minutes.

       21        RACHEL APPELBAUM:  Okay.  My name is Rachel Appelbaum,

       22   spelled R-A-C-H-E-L, the last name is A-P-P-E-L -- not like

       23   the fruit -- B-A-U-M.

       24             So I have nonscientific, personal testimony to

       25   give.  I have been looking for housing in L.A. for the past



                                                                      72

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   six weeks.  I went to USC.  I just graduated.  And I have

        2   spent an inordinate amount of time on the freeway driving

        3   from one neighborhood to the other where I have gotten to

        4   experience my throat just sort of closing up, eyes watering,

        5   things like that.  I'm from Ohio where we don't have nearly

        6   the pollution problem that there is here.  And, yeah, I've

        7   just never experienced the likes of it.  I mean, a lot of

        8   people are in their offices from 9:00 to 5:00.  So they

        9   don't see what I've seen, which is just, you know, a dense

       10   ring of smog as soon as you get over the hill or as soon

       11   as -- I've been looking in Culver City trying to find clean

       12   air and I'm driving and it is just a brown haze.  I can feel

       13   my throat closing.  I can feel my eyes watering.  I can't

       14   figure out which neighborhood to live in because I'm trying

       15   to find clean air in L.A., which is not the easiest thing to

       16   do.  It's actually how I got involved in this.

       17             I called the Lung Association and I asked them

       18   where they thought was best to live.  They didn't have a

       19   very good answer, but, you know, I checked in Los Feliz

       20   thinking that would be a nice, artsy place to be there.  And

       21   I've talked to the people over there and they're just,

       22   like -- you know, they're due east of Hollywood.  And

       23   they -- all this stuff is just blowing over there.  So I'm

       24   talking to these people and they're like, "Yeah.  Well, you

       25   know, in the summer our eyes just tear and we cry a lot and



                                                                      73

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   our throats are sore and that's how it is, and then it gets

        2   better after the summer."

        3             And I'm like, "Okay.  That could be a place to

        4   live."

        5             Then, you know, there's the valley or Burbank at

        6   the top there starting to recede into the valley and I'm

        7   looking over there and I'm talking to folks.  They're like,

        8   "Yeah.  You know, it just sorta sits here, the smoke.  There

        9   is no way for it to go out, the smog."  So, you know -- and

       10   the thing of it is, is that when I'm checking my maps and

       11   trying to be health conscious, there's not even very much

       12   data on this.  You know, there's, like, three data points in

       13   all of L.A. where they have taken information.  So I'm like,

       14   "Okay.  I don't want to live here.  Don't want to live

       15   here."  Apparently Malibu has the same air as Culver City,

       16   which you know can't be true.  But there is not enough

       17   information out there about this.

       18             So in reading that they are trying to monitor

       19   freeways, I think that would be a lovely idea.  In the

       20   housing that I've seen, I mean, you know, the apartments are

       21   by the freeways, the poorer areas are by the freeways.  So

       22   if you are not a high-income person or if you're a person

       23   just starting out or, say, a young couple with a child, then

       24   you probably will be stuck next to the freeways or in some

       25   very smoggy area like the pits of, you know, downtown L.A.



                                                                      74

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   or Hollywood.  And I think that something should be done.  I

        2   think that, you know, 30 parts per billion and, for a year,

        3   50 parts per billion per hour would help that.  And I think

        4   that, yes, freeways should be monitored because we don't

        5   even know exactly how unhealthy it is.  First people are

        6   thinking it's 300 feet away that's bad.  Then it's a mile.

        7   I'm sure it's worse than we know.  I mean, reports show it's

        8   worse than we know, but we don't know very much.

        9             That and then just, like, living in USC housing,

       10   which is, you know, by the 10 and the 110 there.  I have

       11   friends who are living over there who just moved out of that

       12   area.  And people don't talk about this very much, but I

       13   have friends who had chronic cough when they were living

       14   there.  I had one friend, this guy named Tim moves out and

       15   he's over, you know, now north of some of that and in a

       16   better air quality.  And he's like, "Oh, my cough went

       17   away."

       18             I'm like, "Yes.  Of course it did, because you

       19   moved out."  You know, and there were people all in my

       20   building over there in USC on Portland in this particular

       21   area right by the freeway where everyone in that building

       22   was coughing.  But most of them were, like, foreign exchange

       23   students.  They're, you know, people from out of the country

       24   who I knew didn't even realize what was going on to them.  I

       25   have allergies so I'm more in tune with this sort of thing.



                                                                      75

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   And I do take medication.  So, you know, if I'm remarkably

        2   worse, I tend to notice it.

        3             I suppose that's really all I have for my

        4   anecdotal experience of smog and pollution in L.A.  But it

        5   is -- it's a thing and I feel like it should be enforced

        6   around the nation.  I know when I go home to Ohio and I live

        7   out in Kirtland in this area that is basically pretty

        8   pristine, your happier.  You're more productive.  You feel

        9   better.  You don't have headaches.  People around here have

       10   headaches and don't really think about why it is.

       11             And, also, people can't come in, you know, very

       12   often in the middle of their workday to come and share their

       13   experience.  So, yeah.  All right.  I'm done.

       14        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.  We do appreciate

       15   people coming in during their workday to share their

       16   experiences.

       17             Any questions?

       18             Thank you.

       19             Unless there is anyone waiting to speak, we'll

       20   take a short break.

       21             (Recess taken.)

       22        DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  I think we'll get started.  Our

       23   next speaker is Katie Van Cleave.

       24        KATIE VAN CLEAVE:  Great.  Thank you.

       25             Good morning.  My name, as you already mentioned,



                                                                      76

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   is Katie Van Cleave.  I'm speaking today on behalf of the

        2   steering committee of the Asthma Coalition of L.A. County.

        3   I'm also the coordinator of Childhood Asthma Programs for

        4   the American Lung Association, and in this position I teach

        5   children how to manage their asthma because it is a disease,

        6   as most of you know, that can be controlled with proper

        7   management, including avoiding asthma triggers.

        8             As we heard earlier, air pollution is a serious

        9   trigger of asthma attacks and something that is obviously

       10   very hard to avoid in Southern California.  So today I'm

       11   going to discuss the health impacts of nitrogen dioxide,

       12   what's at stake, especially for our children, our

       13   recommendations for the standards, and our recommendation

       14   for a monitoring system.

       15             As you know, nitrogen dioxide worsens cough and

       16   wheezing, it increases the inflammation of the airways, it

       17   increases asthma attacks, and reduces lung function.  It

       18   also increases the likelihood of E.R. visits and hospital

       19   admissions.  It increases people's susceptibility to

       20   respiratory infections, including the flu.

       21             In addition, nitrogen dioxide also contributes to

       22   the formation of ozone smog and particulate matter.

       23   Nitrogen oxides are a building block of ozone smog, a major

       24   respiratory irritant that increases the risk of premature

       25   death and can cause something like a sunburn within the



                                                                      77

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   lungs.  Nitrogen dioxide also contributes to the formation

        2   of fine particles, which causes serious health effects

        3   ranging from respiratory problems to death.

        4             According to the California Air Resources Board,

        5   these pollutants cost the California economy $170 billion

        6   each year and the impacts also include 19,000 premature

        7   deaths.  Many of these lives are lost in Southern

        8   California.  According to a study from Cal State Fullerton,

        9   air pollution costs each Southern California person $1,250

       10   each year.

       11             The people who are greatest at risk are those who

       12   are the least likely to be able to protect themselves.  We

       13   have a great opportunity to save these lives and improve the

       14   economy by setting and achieving health-based standards.

       15   Millions of Americans today are unprotected by the current

       16   nitrogen dioxide standards.  Here in the L.A. region we are

       17   at particular risk.  Our region earned failing grades in the

       18   American Lung Associations State of the Air Report in 2009.

       19   Children, older adults, and people with asthma and other

       20   lung disease or heart diseases are the most vulnerable.  In

       21   addition, people who work, live, and play along major

       22   highways also face an increased risk.

       23             In Southern California we estimate that about 14

       24   percent of children have asthma, and that number can be as

       25   high as 25 percent among African-American children.  These



                                                                      78

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   numbers may seem extraordinarily high, but in many cases of

        2   asthma, especially in low-income and urban areas, the cases

        3   are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed.  The L.A. County

        4   Department of Public Health states that 45 percent of

        5   children have had to limit their physical activities due to

        6   asthma symptoms.

        7             Ships, rail, trucks, and heavy machinery that

        8   support the goods movement system are key source of

        9   emissions that contribute to local and regional air

       10   pollution.  Hundreds of recent studies have reported

       11   associations between living near heavily trafficked roadways

       12   and the harm to the people's health living near those

       13   freeways.

       14             You can see in this graph it illustrates the

       15   elevated pollution levels that are found within a mile from

       16   the freeway.  Millions of people live much closer than a

       17   mile within a freeway.  This is another picture that

       18   demonstrates how community parks and schools are located

       19   within sources of air pollution.  Over here you can see

       20   Hudson School.  It's an elementary school down in Long

       21   Beach.  And this here (indicating) is a community park.

       22   It's just an example of how close people are living,

       23   working, and playing near sources of toxic air pollution.

       24             The American Lung Association supports the

       25   establishment of a one-hour daily maximum standard of 50



                                                                      79

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   parts per billion or lower.  The science is clear that the

        2   short-term standard at this level would reduce the

        3   likelihood that children with asthma would end up in the

        4   emergency room because of a serious asthma attack.  The

        5   American Lung Association also supports strengthening the

        6   annual average standard in order to protect against harm

        7   from long-term exposure, such as the stunted lung function

        8   seen in children tracked in USC's Children's Health Study.

        9   We recommend a tighter standard of 30 parts per billion or

       10   lower.

       11             And, finally, the EPA and the states need to take

       12   every opportunity to expand the monitoring of pollutants

       13   from traffic.  Evidence shows that our current pollution

       14   monitoring system does not accurately or effectively monitor

       15   traffic pollution among these major highways and trade

       16   corridors where millions of people are living.

       17             And here are just a few of the faces I'm asking

       18   you to consider when you make your decision.  These are all

       19   children living with asthma who also attended the American

       20   Lung Association summer camp for education programs.

       21             Thank you for your time.

       22        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       23             Do you have a hard copy of this presentation you

       24   can give us?

       25        KATIE VAN CLEAVE:  I do.



                                                                      80

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1        DAVID ORLIN:  That would be great.

        2             Any other questions?

        3             Thank you.  We will take another short break.

        4             (Recess taken.)

        5        DAVID ORLIN:  We do have another speaker who is ready

        6   to talk, Mr. Jim Stewart.

        7        JIM STEWART:  This is a really great service.

        8        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you for coming today.  Just ask

        9   that you try to keep your comments to 5 minutes.

       10        JIM STEWART:  Oh, it's going to be very brief.  I'm Jim

       11   Stewart, and I'm representing Sierra Club, California's Air

       12   Quality Committee, and I just wanted to speak on behalf of

       13   the 200,000 members of the Sierra Club in California that

       14   this rule is long overdue and that we really appreciate the

       15   kind of things that you guys are doing now under the new

       16   administration to save our lives.  I mean, this is really

       17   important, important stuff, and I want you to know that all

       18   the million members of Sierra Club across the country are

       19   supporting this rule and let's make it happen.  And that's

       20   about it.  You guys know all the details of the rule and I

       21   don't.

       22        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much for coming.

       23        JIM STEWART:  Yeah.  Thank you very much.

       24             (Recess taken.)

       25        DAVID ORLIN:  We're going to break until two o'clock.



                                                                      81

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             (Recess taken.)

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  Good afternoon, and thank you for

        3   attending the EPA's public hearing on the proposed rule for

        4   nitrogen dioxide.  I recognize that many of you may have

        5   traveled quite a distance and made significant efforts to be

        6   here, and I appreciate your efforts.  My name is David

        7   Orlin.  I'm an attorney-advisor for EPA's Office of General

        8   Counsel.  I will be chairing today's hearing.  We are here

        9   today to listen to comments on EPA's proposed revisions to

       10   the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

       11   nitrogen dioxide.

       12             As a reminder, this is a hearing, an opportunity

       13   for the public to comment on the EPA's proposed rule.  The

       14   panel members may answer questions that seek to clarify what

       15   we're proposing or ask questions to clarify your comments,

       16   but the purpose of this hearing is to listen to your

       17   comments, not to discuss or debate the proposal.

       18             I would just like to outline how today's hearing

       19   has been working.  I will call the scheduled speakers to the

       20   microphone in pairs.  Please state your name and your

       21   affiliation.  It helps our court reporter if you can spell

       22   your name.  In order to be fair to everyone, we are asking

       23   that you limit your testimony to five minutes each and to

       24   remain at the microphone until both speakers in a pair have

       25   finished.  After you finish your testimony, a panel member



                                                                      82

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   may ask clarifying questions.

        2             We are transcribing today's hearing and each

        3   speaker's oral testimony will become part of the official

        4   record.  Please be sure to give a copy of any written

        5   comments to our staff at the registration table.  We will

        6   put the full text of your written comments into the docket

        7   for you.  We are accepting written comments for the proposed

        8   rule until September 14, 2009.  We have a handout available

        9   in the registration area with detailed information for

       10   submitting written comments.

       11             We have a timekeeping system consisting of red,

       12   green, and yellow lights.  When you begin speaking, the

       13   green light comes on.  You will have five minutes to speak.

       14   The yellow light will signal that you have one minute left

       15   to speak.  We will ask you to stop speaking when the red

       16   light comes on.

       17             We intend to stay into the evening until everyone

       18   has an opportunity to comment.  If you would like to

       19   testify, but have not yet registered to do so, please sign

       20   up at the registration table.  Let us know if you need

       21   translation services, and we will do our best to accommodate

       22   you.

       23             Now I'd like to introduce the EPA representatives

       24   on our panel.  Scott Jenkins, with the Office of Air Quality

       25   Planning and Standards' Ambient Standards Group; Nealson



                                                                      83

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   Watkins, with the Office of Air Quality Planning and

        2   Standards' Ambient Air Monitoring Group; and Steven John,

        3   Associate Director of Region 9's Southern California Field

        4   Office.

        5             I would like to thank you all again for

        6   participating today.  Let's get started.

        7             Our first speaker this afternoon, Robina Suwol and

        8   Ryan Wiggins.

        9        ROBINA SUWOL:  Hi.  Good afternoon.  My name is Robina

       10   Suwol.  I'm the founder and executive director of

       11   California's Safe Schools.  We're a children's environmental

       12   health organization located here in Southern California.

       13   We're nationally and internationally recognized for

       14   spearheading the most stringent pesticide policy in the

       15   nation for schools.  The policy was the first in the United

       16   States to embrace the precautionary principle and right to

       17   know and today it's become a model for communities and

       18   schools internationally.

       19             I really want to thank you very much for holding

       20   the hearing today and allowing California Safe Schools and

       21   other members of the public and organizations to speak.  Our

       22   14th amendment promises that everyone is entitled to equal

       23   protection under the law, and I thank EPA for their

       24   diligence and their concerns about protecting human health

       25   and the environment of everyone in our ecosystem.  And I



                                                                      84

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   want to thank you for that.

        2             You know, most individuals are very highly

        3   conscious of protecting families, of course, and the

        4   elderly, who are the most vulnerable.  But while all members

        5   of the public are certainly vulnerable -- don't

        6   misunderstand me with that statement.  Everyone is.

        7   Individuals that reside in communities that are known as

        8   environmental justice communities are communities that

        9   oftentime are less affluent than other communities or may

       10   not have health care like other communities do, access to

       11   health care, are really far more vulnerable.  And this rule

       12   we are talking about today -- and we know that nitrogen

       13   dioxide is a dangerous, widespread pollutant.  And we're

       14   here to request that EPA, while this is certainly a step

       15   forward, that they go even further in protecting the health

       16   that's currently being proposed.

       17             One of the issues is that I think we all know that

       18   asthma, cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects are

       19   rampant.  In some cases, even epidemic.  And knowing that, I

       20   think that, you know, it's really important to move forward

       21   and look at any kind of areas where we can reduce threats to

       22   human health and the environment.

       23             Thank you very much for your time and, again,

       24   thank you, and I urge you to please create more stringent

       25   rulings on this particular rule.



                                                                      85

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

        2             Any questions from the panel?

        3             Thank you.

        4        RYAN WIGGINS:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ryan

        5   Wiggins.  I'm here today on behalf of End Oil.  We are a

        6   Southern California advocacy environmental group.

        7             We'd like to express our support for a strong

        8   nitrogen oxide standard -- nitrogen dioxide standard, excuse

        9   me, that protects the health of our communities and

       10   establishes a national network to monitor pollutant levels

       11   along highways.  This is a critical opportunity to

       12   strengthen the national standard that has not changed over

       13   three decades.  And while we agree with the EPA and the

       14   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that the current

       15   standard does not do enough to protect public health, we do

       16   not believe that the proposed standards go far enough.

       17   Specifically, we would request that the EPA establish

       18   respective one-hour and annual standards of 50 parts per

       19   billion and 30 parts per billion and establish a national

       20   monitoring network to gauge the effectiveness of the

       21   standards.

       22             We ask that the EPA recognize a body of studies

       23   and analysis that demonstrate a need for these more

       24   stringent standards.  Doing so will ensure that there is a

       25   margin of safety that will protect sensitive receptors such



                                                                      86

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   as children, the elderly, and existing conditions such as

        2   lung disease and asthma.  The EPA's only draft analysis

        3   establishes that an hourly standard of 50 parts per billion

        4   would be most effective in reducing the negative health

        5   effects resulting from NO2.  Additionally, a long line of

        6   peer-reviewed studies reaching back over the last decade

        7   have found evidence of significant impacts on health at

        8   levels below the current annual standard of 53 parts per

        9   billion.  Regarding the proposed range for the annual

       10   standard, studies have found that at 100 parts per billion,

       11   the top range, adults experience asthma symptoms that were

       12   raised levels.

       13             Almost assuredly, those with moderate or severe

       14   asthma would show symptoms at lower levels.  An annual

       15   standard such as the 30 parts per billion adopted by the

       16   State of California would likely ensure that populations

       17   would not suffer long-term damage as a result of exposure to

       18   NO2.

       19             Finally, we urge the EPA to establish a national

       20   monitoring network along our highways and major

       21   transportation corridors.  Throughout the country, heavily

       22   populated areas can be found concentrated around these

       23   areas.  In California, for example, approximately half of

       24   the population lives within one mile of a freeway.

       25   Monitoring the effectiveness of the newly established



                                                                      87

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   standards will be indispensable in ensuring that the

        2   communities, neighborhoods, and schools located in close

        3   proximity to these corridors are being adequately protected

        4   from the negative health effects of NO2.

        5             Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today,

        6   appreciate your time, and just urge you to establish very

        7   stringent standards.  Thank you very much.

        8        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you for much.

        9             Any questions?

       10             Thanks.

       11             Our next speakers are Martha Cota and Elena

       12   Rodriguez.

       13             The following comments were translated by the

       14   interpreter as follows:

       15        MARTHA COTA:  Good afternoon, everyone.  My name is

       16   Martha Cota, and I'm visiting here from the city of Long

       17   Beach, and this afternoon I will be briefly sharing with you

       18   why I'm here today.  I'm here to tell you about the pain

       19   that we feel as parents because we have children who suffer

       20   from asthma.  I have a son whose name is Jose Miguel, and

       21   since he was one year old he was diagnosed with asthma and

       22   many times he was close to losing his life because of the

       23   very severe asthma attacks that he suffered.  The memories

       24   that I have instilled in my heart and in my brain the most

       25   are watching him with purple lips and purple fingers, unable



                                                                      88

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   to breathe.

        2             And as Ryan and the other lady who spoke before us

        3   already stated, almost always it is low income families who

        4   suffer the most because of the highly polluted environment.

        5   In our case, because of emissions from ships from the Ports

        6   of Long Beach and the hundreds of ships that arrive at these

        7   ports.  These emissions come from burning diesel fuel, which

        8   is exposed to high temperatures contributing to higher

        9   nitrogen dioxide emissions, higher concentrations in the

       10   air.  And the saddest thing is that it gets worse in the

       11   winter for those of us that suffer from respiratory

       12   ailments.  And I'm not just referring just to children.

       13   Also adults.  It was only three years ago I was also

       14   diagnosed with asthma.

       15             Today I am also symbolically representing through

       16   this box -- in case you don't know what is here, inside this

       17   box is a representation of 35 families, each of them

       18   represented by each of these inhalers.  These are our

       19   families.  These are the families that you must, must

       20   protect and that you must help so that all of this can

       21   change.  You, as EPA, need to be aware that these represent

       22   35 families.  Each family may have as many as three or four

       23   children with asthma.  So each inhaler doesn't represent a

       24   single child, but a whole family.

       25             I also wanted to ask you as EPA to take these



                                                                      89

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   inhalers home in your minds.  And although I know you will

        2   be leaving later today, to take this message with you.  And

        3   I want to ask you on behalf of my community and my son.

        4   Because I don't think it's fair that our children and our

        5   families, our communities have to live with medication, that

        6   they have to use devices and medication in order to be able

        7   to breathe normally.  And I also want to ask you as

        8   representatives -- or tell you as representatives, excuse

        9   me, that we deserve better air quality and ask you that you

       10   set real standards, strict and transparent standards so that

       11   we, as a community, can continue believing in you.

       12             So once again, I call upon you to do this and

       13   please take these very seriously in your mind.  We represent

       14   a lot of families.  It's not just Teresa, who brought her

       15   son, and my son and Elena, myself, who came here.

       16   There are thousands of us.  And you are our bridge to convey

       17   this information to others.  Thank you.

       18        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

       19             Are there any questions from the panel?

       20             Thank you.

       21             The following comments were translated by the

       22   interpreter as follows:

       23        ELENA RODRIGUEZ:  Good afternoon.  My name is Elena

       24   Rodriguez, and I'm here from the Long Beach Alliance for

       25   Children with Asthma.



                                                                      90

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1             I live in West Long Beach, close to the freeway

        2   where there are six different schools.  We have the Cabrillo

        3   High School with approximately 4,000 students enrolled,

        4   Hudson Elementary, Stephens High School, Webster Elementary,

        5   John Muir Elementary, and Garfield Elementary.  All of these

        6   schools have an average of 600 to 1200 students each.  Near

        7   these schools are freeways 710 and 103.  And highway 103 is

        8   merely steps away from Hudson and Cabrillo Elementary

        9   Schools.  And when the children go out to play, they're

       10   playing right by the heavy-duty trucks.  If you go out there

       11   and you take a picture or just look around, you'll be able

       12   to see that the children are playing practically next to

       13   these heavy-duty trucks.

       14             West Long Beach has a very high percentage of

       15   children diagnosed with asthma as well as a high percentage

       16   of visits to the E.R. because of asthma attacks as well as a

       17   lower attendance to school.  One of these children is my

       18   daughter who has the beginnings of asthma.  All of these

       19   children are breathing these pollutants every second, every

       20   minute, every hour, and every day.

       21             So on behalf of my daughter, my family, and my

       22   community, I support installing nitrogen dioxide monitors

       23   along the highways and freeways with the highest traffic and

       24   also support establishing national ambient air quality

       25   standards to protect us against a pollutant as dangerous as



                                                                      91

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






        1   nitrogen dioxide.  Thank you.

        2        DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.  We appreciate you

        3   coming and sharing your experience.

        4             Any questions?

        5             Thank you.

        6             We'll take a short break right now.

        7             (This concludes the portion of the proceedings

        8             taken by J'nel Erskine, CSR No. 11746.)

        9

       10

       11

       12

       13

       14

       15

       16

       17

       18

       19

       20

       21

       22

       23

       24

       25



                                                                      92

                       Century Court Reporters (800) 555-0014






            1                  (The hearing resumed at 2:32 p.m.)

            2           DAVID ORLIN:  We're ready to get started again.

            3                  Our next speakers are Erin Huffer and Ian

            4   MacMillan.

            5                  And I will ask you to come up to the

            6   speaker's table, spell your name for the court reporter,

            7   and try and limit yourself to five minutes.

            8                  Thank you very much for coming.

            9           ERIN HUFFER:  Good afternoon.  My name is Erin

           10   Huffer and I am the program manager for the Long Beach

           11   Alliance for Children with Asthma.  We are a partnership of

           12   hundreds of community members, parents, and mothers of

           13   children with asthma, and over 45 organizations working to

           14   improve the health and well-being of children with asthma

           15   in Long Beach and surrounding communities through improved

           16   health care delivery, outreach, education, support systems,

           17   and changes in policy at all levels.

           18                  Through our Community Health Worker Program,

           19   we provide in-home case management services to families to

           20   help them improve and control their child's asthma.  Our

           21   program has had numerous successes, including the provision

           22   of services to over 1,000 families and witnessing a

           23   significant reduction in the amount of emergency room

           24   visits, missed school days, and asthma attacks among the

           25   children we serve.


                                                                           93


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  Nearly 10 years into our program, we are

            2   still seeing an overwhelming need for services for children

            3   with asthma.  Our dedicated staff of community health

            4   workers, outreach liaisons, community members, and

            5   coalition partners work tirelessly so the kids with asthma

            6   in our community are able to enjoy the highest possible

            7   quality of life by teaching and supporting them in efforts

            8   to control and reduce triggers in their immediate

            9   environment.

           10                  Unfortunately, we can only do so much

           11   through our case management and outreach programs as the

           12   majority of asthma triggers in our community come from the

           13   quality of the air we breathe outside.

           14                  Long Beach has some of the highest rates of

           15   childhood asthma in comparison to L.A. County, California,

           16   and the nation as a result of its proximity to major

           17   sources of pollution:  Ports, major roadways, railroads,

           18   and refineries.

           19                  I am asking you today to take an important

           20   step towards ensuring the children of our community are

           21   able to live, learn, and play in an environment with clean

           22   and healthy air by supporting stronger national air quality

           23   standards to limit exposure to NO2 in our community.

           24                  Specifically, as the manager of a children's

           25   asthma program, I support:


                                                                           94


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  The recommendation that the EPA set the

            2   one-hour standard at 50 parts per billion to provide the

            3   margin of safety needed to protect the health of those most

            4   at risk, including children with asthma;

            5                  The recommendation for a tighter annual

            6   standard, such as the State of California adopted, of 30

            7   parts per billion or lower to provide protection from

            8   long-term, day-in and day-out exposures to NO2;

            9                  Lastly, the proposal for a roadside

           10   monitoring network.  Many of our community members live

           11   near major roadways and that is why this is important.  The

           12   proposed roadside monitoring network should be installed

           13   regardless of the level of the standard selected.

           14                  I ask that you take our concerns, and

           15   especially the stories from our community members that

           16   you've heard and may hear some more from today, into

           17   account when considering updating NO2 standards.

           18                  Thank you.

           19           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           20                  Any questions?

           21                  Thank you.

           22                  Mr. MacMillan?

           23           IAN MacMILLAN:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ian

           24   MacMillan, and I am here on behalf of the Office of

           25   Environment Health & Safety within the Los Angeles Unified


                                                                           95


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   School District.

            2                  The LAUSD, as you may or may not know, is

            3   the second largest school district in the nation.

            4   Currently, there are approximately three-quarters of a

            5   million students with about 80,000 employees.  Within the

            6   school district, there are in fact probably about 90

            7   schools located within about 500 feet of a freeway.  Of

            8   those 90 schools, many of those were actually built before

            9   the freeways and some were actually built before cars.

           10                  The air pollution issue that surrounds L.A.

           11   is something we've been grappling with for a long time, as

           12   you can imagine.  There's been a number of initiatives that

           13   the school district has employed to try to address air

           14   pollution.

           15                  One of them, for example, about a year and a

           16   half ago, the Board of Education prohibited siting any new

           17   school within 500 feet of a freeway, as well as to tighten

           18   up the state regulations, which had a little loophole in

           19   it.  And the main concern was for obviously air pollution

           20   reasons, for regulating contaminants like NO2, coarse

           21   particulate matter, fine particulate matter.  There was

           22   also concern about unregulated pollutants, like ultrafine

           23   particles.

           24                  And so there's a number of initiatives like

           25   this where the LAUSD has tried to be a leader in addressing


                                                                           96


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   air pollution.

            2                  What's really become apparent -- and it's

            3   not really a surprise -- is that the majority of these air

            4   pollution issues are something that the school district

            5   needs to address because the children are there and they

            6   are receptors, they are receiving all the pollution.  But

            7   there's only so much a school district can do.  They aren't

            8   the source of the pollution, they are the receptors.

            9   Really what we need to do is work with our regulatory

           10   partners to address the source of the pollution.

           11                  Because of that, we really appreciate what

           12   EPA is doing with its proposed regulation to tighten up the

           13   standards on NO2 and to further increase monitoring near

           14   the sources of the pollution, which we all know are a major

           15   concern.

           16                  We look forward to continue to work with you

           17   all and we are planning on submitting some more formal

           18   comments, as well, in a written brief.

           19                  Thank you.

           20           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           21                  Do you have any further breakdown on the 90

           22   schools within 500 feet?  How many are within 50 meters

           23   versus 100 meters versus?

           24           IAN MacMILLAN:  We do actually have that kind of

           25   information and I can provide you with that offline.  I


                                                                           97


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   don't have that off the top of my head right now.

            2           DAVID ORLIN:  If you have a chance.

            3           IAN MacMILLAN:  We have all the information,

            4   absolutely.

            5           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

            6                  Any other questions?

            7                  Thank you.

            8                  Our next speakers are Teresa Trujillo and

            9   Jesus Trujillo.

           10                  (The following comments were

           11           translated by the interpreter as follows:)

           12           TERESA TRUJILLO:  Good afternoon.  My name is

           13   Teresa Trujillo and I am here from the Long Beach Alliance

           14   for Children with Asthma.

           15                  I have a boy, who is the boy that is

           16   standing to my left, he was diagnosed with asthma from

           17   birth and shortly thereafter he had to be admitted into ER

           18   three different times.  During that time, he developed

           19   bronchopneumonia and pneumonia.  As he grew up, he had

           20   complications with his asthma and allergies.  His asthma

           21   causes coughing and constant and copious nosebleeds.  I am

           22   concerned that his health will get worse because of the

           23   constant pollution that we are breathing in.

           24                  My son attends the Cesar Chavez Elementary

           25   School, which is located between the on and off ramps of


                                                                           98


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   the 710 freeway.  We are also very close to the port where

            2   we can see the large number of heavy-duty trucks that load

            3   all of the imports that come from the hundreds of ships

            4   that arrive every day polluting our community with fuels

            5   that are hazardous to our health.  Many times, my son has

            6   had to miss school because of these reasons.

            7                  I am a very concerned mother because of this

            8   serious issue, asthma, as well as other mothers who are

            9   going through the same thing.  So I beg and plead with you

           10   to join with all other mothers who suffer because they have

           11   a family member with asthma.

           12                  Nitrogen dioxide is a very hazardous air

           13   pollutant and, as you can see, it is causing very serious

           14   damage to my family.  I therefore strongly support national

           15   ambient air quality standards to protect us against this

           16   pollutant.  And I also support the establishment of a

           17   nitrogen dioxide monitoring system along highways.

           18                  Thank you very much.

           19           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           20                  Any questions?

           21                  (The following comments were

           22           translated by the interpreter as follows:)

           23           MARIA DE JESUS "CHUY" TRUJILLO:  Good afternoon.

           24   My name is Chuy Trujillo.  I am a Long Beach resident and I

           25   suffer allergies and asthma.  My seven-year-old grandson


                                                                           99


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   also suffers from asthma and so he cannot enjoy playing

            2   sports or other games like other children.

            3                  What caused this illness for me was the

            4   pollution in this city since I live very close to the port

            5   and to the 710 freeway.  In addition, there are also two

            6   schools nearby, which are the Cesar Chavez and Edison

            7   schools.

            8                  So I ask you if there is anything that you

            9   can do for our community.  On behalf of all the members of

           10   our community, we ask to be taken into account.  I hope to

           11   get a good response from whomever is in charge of this

           12   problem.

           13                  I live very close to the 710 freeway and so,

           14   for me, it is very important that a nitrogen dioxide

           15   monitoring system is set up along highways and to establish

           16   stricter ambient air quality standards that can protect us

           17   against this very hazardous pollutant, which is nitrogen

           18   dioxide.

           19                  As you can see just now, there's already

           20   four children and I personally who have told you about

           21   suffering from this illness, so I ask again, how many

           22   thousands of children are suffering what I'm suffering,

           23   choking day after day like fish out of water?

           24                  Thank you.

           25           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.


                                                                           100


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  Any questions?

            2                  If there is no one else waiting to speak,

            3   then we'll take a short break.  And I'd like again to thank

            4   everyone for coming.

            5                  (Break taken at 2:48 p.m.)

            6                  (Hearing resumed at 2:52 p.m.)

            7           DAVID ORLIN:  Our next speaker is Jennyffer

            8   Velasquez.

            9           JENNYFFER VELASQUEZ:  Hello.  Good afternoon.  My

           10   name is Jennyffer Velasquez.  I am a health educator with

           11   the American Lung Association.

           12                  As a health educator with the American Lung

           13   Association, I help kids with asthma manage their asthma,

           14   so I'm out in the community, in the schools, in parent

           15   centers, and I have the one-on-one encounters with people

           16   who have asthma and I have been there when they have an

           17   asthma attack.  Having said that, I have firsthand

           18   experience working with the kids who are affected with

           19   asthma and the air pollution.

           20                  According the CDC, there are approximately

           21   250,000 children living with asthma just in L.A. County

           22   alone, and there's 6.7 million children in the USA.  Asthma

           23   strikes hardest among minority and low-income populations.

           24   More than one in four African-American children in urban

           25   Los Angeles have probable asthma.  Latino children with


                                                                           101


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   asthma experience nearly twice as much activity limitation

            2   compared to white children with asthma.

            3                  An asthma attack can be a very frightening

            4   experience that can send a kid to a hospital and also

            5   drives up medical costs.  Over 50 peer-reviewed community

            6   health studies have been published since 1996 examining the

            7   effects of short-term nitrogen dioxide concentrations on

            8   the rate of hospital admissions and emergency room visits

            9   for breathing problems.  The studies found that these

           10   effects occur when daily pollution levels are well below

           11   the current annual standard of 53 parts per billion,

           12   meaning that the current nitrogen dioxide standard does not

           13   protect the millions of asthmatics.

           14                  The Lung Association strongly supports the

           15   EPA establishing a one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide.

           16   But instead of the EPA proposal for the one-hour standard

           17   in the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion, we would like

           18   to see a lower one-hour standard.  Data from 19 controlled

           19   human exposure studies provided evidence that 100 parts per

           20   billion would not protect asthmatics.  An hourly standard

           21   of 50 parts per billion or lower would be more appropriate.

           22                  Secondly, the Lung Association urges the EPA

           23   to tighten the current annual standards from 53 parts per

           24   billion to 30 parts per billion or lower in order to

           25   protect from long-term, day-in and day-out exposure to


                                                                          102


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   nitrogen dioxide.

            2                  Finally, the Lung Association strongly

            3   supports the EPA's proposal for a roadside monitoring

            4   network.  In addition to not protecting asthmatics, the

            5   current standards does not protect the millions of people

            6   who live in pollution hotspots near freeways, rail yards,

            7   ports, and other -- and sources where there's busy

            8   boulevards.  I know that I've encountered a couple of

            9   elementary schools, especially Pacoima Charter Elementary,

           10   and their school is right behind the airport, so the

           11   incidents of kids with asthma is really high.  And even

           12   though they have medicine, the asthma attacks are very high

           13   there.

           14                  Hundreds of recent scientific studies have

           15   reported association between living near heavily trafficked

           16   roadways and harm to health, yet no national network exists

           17   for monitoring traffic pollution.  We need to know what's

           18   in the air that we breathe, not just the air for those who

           19   have the fortune to live far from freeways.

           20                  In conclusion, we need all three:  Stronger

           21   annual standards, a health protective one-hour standard,

           22   and a roadside monitoring network.  The health of our

           23   future generation depends on the air and air that we all

           24   breathe.

           25                  Thank you.


                                                                          103


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

            2                  Any questions?

            3                  Okay.  We'll take a short break.

            4                  (Break taken at 2:56 p.m.)

            5                  (Hearing resumed at 3:40 p.m.)

            6           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you for coming to today's

            7   hearing on the proposed national ambient air quality

            8   standard for nitrogen dioxide.

            9                  We will take testimony in pairs.  If you

           10   can, speak into the microphone and state your name for the

           11   court reporter.  And we're asking everyone to try to keep

           12   your comments to five minutes.  We're not enforcing it too

           13   strictly.

           14                  (Time lapse.)

           15           DAVID ORLIN:  So if you're ready, we'll have Juan

           16   Garibay and Sofia Carrillo come forward.

           17                  Who would like to go first?

           18           JUAN GARIBAY:  I will go first.

           19           DAVID ORLIN:  If you give us copies, then we'll put

           20   those into the record.  And then, obviously, your oral

           21   testimony will also be part of the record.

           22           JUAN GARIBAY:  Good afternoon.

           23                  My name is Juan Garibay.  I currently live

           24   with my family in Wilmington and I am the environmental

           25   justice campaign coordinator for the Coalition for a Safe


                                                                          104


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   Environment located in the EJ community of Wilmington in

            2   the city of Los Angeles.  The coalition has over 500

            3   members in over 25 cities in California.

            4                  I am here to support the U.S. EPA

            5   establishing a new NO2 one-hour standard, but not as

            6   proposed by the EPA.  A 50 parts per billion standard is

            7   not adequate to protect public health.  I support a NAAQS

            8   standard equal to that of California, which is 30 parts per

            9   billion.  I also request that a 15 parts per billion NO2

           10   standard be adopted by the year 2015.

           11                  Since 2001, the Coalition for a Safe

           12   Environment has been fighting air pollution from U.S. and

           13   international ships transporting cargo, bulk products, and

           14   containers in and out of the Port of Los Angeles and Long

           15   Beach.  Air pollution and NO2 in our environmental justice

           16   harbor communities has been increasing every year for the

           17   past 30 years.  Our communities are now facing a public

           18   health crisis caused by the international trade industry.

           19                  The international trade industry has failed

           20   to utilize the cleanest and most efficient technologies to

           21   protect public health and the environment because they want

           22   to make the maximum profit possible.  Our organization's

           23   research has disclosed that engine efficiencies, exhaust

           24   capture, and filtering technologies exist today to reduce

           25   NO2 by over 90 percent.  The problem is that polluting


                                                                          105


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   industries do not want to invest in the best technologies,

            2   the best clean technologies.

            3                  With the change in leadership this past

            4   year, our country has new goals specifically for our

            5   environment and education.  But even with the best

            6   educational policies, how can our children, especially from

            7   environmentally polluting communities, prosper in our

            8   schools when they cannot study comfortably and are missing

            9   classes due to health problems or, even worse, passing away

           10   prematurely.

           11                  The way I got involved with this

           12   organization was, coming from Wilmington, growing up in

           13   Wilmington, I experienced chronic nosebleeds.  I was a

           14   couple points away from being diagnosed with asthma.  And

           15   growing up, I never knew why.

           16                  And after getting involved with this

           17   organization and growing up and actually doing my own

           18   research and graduating from UCLA, I realized where that

           19   was coming from.  I used to think it was malnutrition or

           20   something I was eating or just that I was weak, but of

           21   course that wasn't it.  It was from the port industry's

           22   cargo, the trucks, trains, the refineries that exist

           23   everywhere in our communities and the lack of regulation on

           24   them.

           25                  The U.S. EPA has the authority and


                                                                          106


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   responsibility to establish standards necessary to protect

            2   its citizens', residents', and workers' public health and

            3   the environment.

            4                  Thank you.

            5           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

            6                  Any questions from the panel?

            7           SCOTT JENKINS:  I have one question.

            8                  When you said a standard of 15 parts per

            9   billion, I assume you're talking about an annual standard

           10   of 15 parts per billion, I think you said by 2015?

           11           JUAN GARIBAY:  Yes.

           12           SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

           13           VERONICA TRUJILLO:  Hello.  Good afternoon.  My

           14   name is Veronica Trujillo and I live in Wilmington with my

           15   family.

           16                  I believe that we need a more stringent

           17   one-hour daily maximum standard for NO2 to protect public

           18   health and our environment.  I support a minimum NO2

           19   standard equal to that of California, which is 30 ppb.  I

           20   would like to see the EPA also set a future second tier

           21   standard of 15 ppb by the year 2015.  I believe that we

           22   need to have monitoring at all major NO2 air pollution

           23   sources.

           24                  There are five oil refineries in Wilmington

           25   and many others in the Los Angeles area that release


                                                                          107


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   hundreds of tons of NO2 and other pollutants every day.

            2   Wilmington and other harbor communities are now in the

            3   middle of a public health crisis caused by the petroleum

            4   industry.  Thousands of diesel trucks transporting gasoline

            5   and natural gas are always traveling throughout the Los

            6   Angeles area.

            7                  I have attached some photos showing the

            8   clouds of pollution put out by refineries in my community.

            9                  The Port of Los Angeles is also in

           10   Wilmington and, every day, thousands of diesel fuel

           11   polluting trucks pass through our community, all the

           12   highways, freeways, and transportation corridors.  Every

           13   year hundreds of ships enter our port also causing more air

           14   pollution.  Port traffic has been increasing every year

           15   since the day I was born, and almost every family I know

           16   has someone sick with some type of respiratory health

           17   problem.

           18                  The U.S. EPA has the authority to establish

           19   strict standards necessary to protect the public, wildlife,

           20   and the environment.

           21                  Thank you.

           22           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           23                  Any questions?

           24                  Thank you for coming out today.

           25           SOFIA CARRILLO:  Good afternoon.  My name is Sofia


                                                                          108


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   Carrillo.  I live in Wilmington and I am a community

            2   organizer for the Coalition for a Safe Environment.  I'm

            3   here to support the adoption for a new more stringent

            4   one-hour NO2 standard.

            5                  Every day I work with Los Angeles harbor

            6   area families who are suffering from numerous respiratory

            7   health problems caused by air pollution and NO2 emitted by

            8   construction equipment, diesel trucks, ships, port

            9   vehicles, port equipment, goods movement transportation

           10   corridors, and oil refineries.

           11                  The ports, transportation companies,

           12   shipping companies, and retail stores are not paying the

           13   medical costs for the public health.  They do not care.

           14   They are only interested in making high profits.

           15                  The U.S. EPA now has the opportunity to

           16   adopt stringent regulations that can prevent thousands of

           17   innocent premature deaths and thousands of families from

           18   suffering respiratory problems.

           19                  I support:

           20           1.  The U.S. EPA adopting the most stringent NO2

           21   one-hour standard legally allowable and as necessary to

           22   prevent and eliminate significant public health impacts.

           23           2.  The U.S. EPA, as a minimum, adopt a standard

           24   equal to California at 30 ppb.

           25           3.  The U.S. EPA adopt a 15 ppb NO2 standard by the


                                                                          109


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   year 2015.

            2           4.  The U.S. EPA require both NO2 and PM 2.5

            3   monitoring along highways, freeways, and port goods

            4   movement transportation corridors.

            5                  The U.S. EPA must base its final decision on

            6   adopting the most stringent standards to protect the public

            7   health.

            8                  Thank you.

            9           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           10                  Any questions?

           11                  Mr. Marquez?

           12           JESSE MARQUEZ:  My name is Jesse Marquez.  I am

           13   executive director and founder of the Coalition for a Safe

           14   Environment, which was founded in the year 2001.

           15                  So that you know, Wilmington is a community

           16   in the City of Los Angeles.  Seventy percent of the Port of

           17   Los Angeles is physically in Wilmington.  The other

           18   30 percent of the Port of Los Angeles is in the Los Angeles

           19   community of San Pedro.  Bordering Wilmington is the Port

           20   of Long Beach.  The Port of L.A. is the No. 1 air pollution

           21   source in Southern California.  The Port of Long Beach is

           22   second largest air pollution source in Southern California.

           23                  There are five oil refineries in Wilmington.

           24   There's at least another four oil refineries bordering or

           25   near Wilmington.  In addition to that, there are field


                                                                          110


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   storage tank facilities that are also within three to four

            2   miles of Wilmington.  Because of the ports, there's also

            3   bulk loading terminals that are there.

            4                  Over 40,000 truck trips are made every day

            5   going out of the Port of L.A. and the Port of Long Beach.

            6   It is projected that the volume of the ports will triple in

            7   the next 15 to 20 years, which means that if there is 40-,

            8   45,000 truck trips a day now, it will easily exceed 120,000

            9   truck trips a day in the future.

           10                  Because of the refineries there, we have

           11   manufacturing going on.  And what happens is that, in

           12   addition to the normal everyday manufacturing process that

           13   goes on, there are numerous problems that occur at

           14   refineries.  Almost every week, one of the oil refineries

           15   has some type of a breakdown or malfunction so flaring

           16   begins.  As you saw with Veronica, those color photos

           17   there, show you the type of flaring that occurs.  You've

           18   seen what a sunset looks like in Wilmington by looking at

           19   the flaring there.

           20                  Our organization is in support of the U.S.

           21   EPA adopting a new, stricter NO2 one-hour daily maximum

           22   standard.

           23                  We also support the U.S. EPA in adopting

           24   what we are requesting to be a Tier 1 and a Tier 2, Tier 1

           25   adopting the national standard to be 30 ppb and a Tier 2


                                                                          111


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   standard to drop even further to be a 15 parts per billion

            2   by 2015.

            3                  We are asking that the U.S. EPA require

            4   roadside monitoring of NO2 and its partner PM 2.5 at all

            5   major diesel truck routes, highways, freeways, and

            6   transportation corridors that border residential

            7   communities and sensitive receptor areas.

            8                  We're asking that the U.S. EPA establish new

            9   compliance monitoring guidelines and requirements to assure

           10   compliance to the federal Clean Air Act NO2 and other

           11   criteria for the national ambient air quality standards.

           12                  We ask that the U.S. EPA conduct an audit to

           13   determine what industries have in fact been increasing in

           14   NO2 and other criteria emissions.

           15                  In the process in the last 12 months, we

           16   have been involved in reviewing oil refinery Title V

           17   permits in the South Coast AQMD District.  What we

           18   discovered is that many of the refineries have actually

           19   been increasing in their criteria pollutants.  In the

           20   handout that I've given you are two of the refineries.  You

           21   will see ExxonMobil.  You will also see Chevron.  And if

           22   you look at the NOx, which is the No2, you'll actually see

           23   that it's been going up.

           24                  What you will also see is that in some of

           25   the other criteria pollutants, there has been no


                                                                          112


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   significant decreases.  We, the public, are being misled

            2   that our regulatory agencies are, in fact, decreasing

            3   significantly air pollution and protecting our public

            4   health.  However, the data is showing that that is not

            5   true.

            6                  But we've also learned that when a permit is

            7   issued by the South Coast AQMD, they are claiming that they

            8   are using the best available control technology.  Well,

            9   guess what we found out?  That's not true, also.  What

           10   we've actually done is look at some of the best available

           11   control technologies.  It is possible -- and I'm going to

           12   give you an example -- Tesoro Oil Refinery in Wilmington

           13   chose to use a dry scrubber technology.  ConocoPhillips in

           14   Wilmington decided to use a wet scrubber technology while

           15   the wet scrubber is about 25- to 30-percent more efficient

           16   in its scrubbing capabilities and efficiency.

           17                  So the question and challenge that we have

           18   for the AQMD, how can you claim that two technologies that

           19   vary by as much as 20 or 40 percent in their efficiency be

           20   both the best?  So we no longer have confidence in our

           21   South Coast AQMD in claiming that they are in fact using

           22   the best available control technology.  What we are now

           23   asking for is MACT, the maximum achievable control

           24   technology.

           25                  Now, what else have we learned about air


                                                                          113


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   pollution?  Well, we've learned that by studying equipment

            2   manufacturers and different types of air pollution control

            3   technologies that all air emissions -- that includes your

            4   NOx, that includes your SOx, your carbon monoxide, carbon

            5   dioxide, and your particulate matter -- can be reduced by

            6   over 90 percent right now today with existing technology.

            7   The petroleum industry is choosing not to do it, not to

            8   invest the money.

            9                  We've also done a study looking at the net

           10   incomes of refineries.  It ranged anywhere from 10 billion

           11   to 40 billion over the last five years.  They have the

           12   money.  The only problem we have is there is no regulation

           13   forcing them to utilize the best technologies.  There are

           14   no regulations requiring them to reduce their pollution

           15   levels to a safe level.  So they are not meeting the

           16   thresholds that we want to have.

           17                  We, the public, also depend on medical and

           18   scientific studies to help us evaluate the impacts, so I've

           19   also turned in -- I didn't give you a copy, but it was

           20   turned in right here -- a 14-page document that has 158

           21   medical and scientific and government studies and reports

           22   that show the impact of air pollution and NOx on public

           23   health that we would like to submit for the record so that

           24   you do know that we are trying to do our best in

           25   researching those technologies.


                                                                          114


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  And so I'd like to thank you for this

            2   opportunity and we will be submitting some additional

            3   written comment before the deadline.

            4           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

            5                  Any questions?

            6           SCOTT JENKINS:  The studies that you're talking

            7   about, do you know if any of them actually looked at health

            8   effects within the port communities, the Long Beach

            9   community, or any communities in port areas?

           10           JESSE MARQUEZ:  Well, actually, yes.  There have

           11   been two major port areas studied.  The South Coast AQMD in

           12   2008 completed what is called the MATES II study, M-A-T-E-S

           13   II, and in 2000, they released the MATES I study.

           14                  Now, what got us upset and what got my

           15   organization founded was, in the year 2001, when the Port

           16   of L.A. hired a PR firm to announce that the port was going

           17   to build a wall 20 feet tall, 1.4 miles long, to separate

           18   the Wilmington community from the port activities.

           19                  Well, we didn't quite trust what they were

           20   up to, because why build a wall now?  But the first

           21   reaction had nothing to do with public health impact.  The

           22   first reaction from the community was, "Ah, we don't want

           23   that, that will be the biggest graffiti magnet on the

           24   planet, a 20-foot tall wall that long."  And so they said,

           25   "Well, maybe we can do something else, we can make it a


                                                                          115


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   berm."

            2                  "Well, what is a berm?"  "Well, we can put

            3   dirt up against the wall and we can plant ivy."  "Oh, no,

            4   we don't like ivy, we don't want that."

            5                  So, anyway, you've heard the expression "You

            6   can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" and "You can't crack a

            7   coconut with your bare hands"?  Well, we did.  We asked

            8   them, "You bring some port officials next month for another

            9   meeting because we want to learn more, why do they want the

           10   wall now?"  They also used the word, because it was like a

           11   sound wall like on the freeways for mitigation.  Well, in

           12   2001, none of us knew what the word mitigation meant.  And

           13   then we learned shortly after what it did there.

           14                  So what happened, at the next meeting, and

           15   until the public hearings, a fellow suggested to ask them

           16   about the MATES II study.  So I rose and raised my hand,

           17   "Can you tell me about the MATES II study and did it have

           18   anything to say about Wilmington?"  Well, then the

           19   representative pointed out that they did -- it was a

           20   multiple air toxic study done in the Port of L.A. and the

           21   Port of Long Beach area, and it showed that Wilmington, San

           22   Pedro, and West Long Beach were at the highest risk of

           23   cancer due to diesel fuel emissions.

           24                  Now, they just completed in 2008 the

           25   MATES II, which was the repeat, with some more testing.


                                                                          116


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   And then if you read the reports, it said, well,

            2   regionally, the air pollution decreased in the South Coast

            3   District, which it did, but you had to read the fine print

            4   to find out that it went up 17 percent in the port

            5   communities and along transportation corridors.  And that's

            6   where we have concerns.

            7                  Even right now, the Port of L.A. and the

            8   Port of Long Beach have been leery about coming out with

            9   their EIRs because we the public have been challenging

           10   them.  So what they did is they passed it to Caltrans in

           11   California for a new Heim Bridge SR47 highway expansion.

           12   So the little street that comes off Henry Ford Bridge, they

           13   now want to make it an SR47 highway.

           14                  Well, the highway passes fenceline to

           15   residents.  And, actually, I'm going to leave a brochure

           16   here, I forgot I have our latest news bulletin, where we

           17   had a class for residents where we got a tape measure to

           18   measure from that street, which becomes Alameda corridor,

           19   over the railroad tracks to the fence and people's houses.

           20   And we found out that the recommended safe distance was

           21   500 feet from a pollution source to be a new highway.

           22                  Well, over 100 families live within

           23   500 feet.  In fact, the Wilmington Park Elementary School

           24   public school was within 1,000 feet.  There was another

           25   private little school that was within 700 feet.  So now our


                                                                          117


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   recommendation for a safe distance from any highway,

            2   freeway, or transportation corridor, is 1500 feet or

            3   500 meters.  We figure that's the best.  And even looking

            4   at some of the studies that have been done by USC and UCLA

            5   and some of the others where they're showing 500 feet and

            6   more, we have now come to the conclusion that the 1500 feet

            7   is the best way to go for a safe distance.

            8                  Now, do we really need to have that highway

            9   corridor built?  Well, again, we're talking about

           10   efficiencies and technologies.  Well, the pride of our

           11   organization is that we research the technologies.  We

           12   would not have to build that highway corridor right there

           13   if they were, in fact, maximizing their use of the Alameda

           14   corridor.

           15                  If you talk to the ports right now, they'll

           16   tell you, "Oh, it's only being utilized about 35 percent,

           17   40 percent.  It's open for 60 percent more expansion."

           18   Well, that's not acceptable to us.  It should be maximized

           19   now.  Because what's happened is that there is no

           20   requirements for the shipping and transportation industry

           21   to use the Alameda corridor, so they're not.  So now we're

           22   putting the burden of truck traffic, diesel traffic, on the

           23   pubic by building more highways and freeways or allowing

           24   them to go on our highways and freeways at the expense of

           25   public health when, in fact, we need to use technologies


                                                                          118


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   that reduce the pollution.

            2                  We suggest using Magna trains.  We suggest

            3   using electric trains.  Even right now on the ports when

            4   they talk about -- we're now winning on one little aspect

            5   about having on-dock rail.  Yes, we support it, so now

            6   they're building on-dock rail on all new port terminals.

            7   But guess what?  They're not building the on-dock rail

            8   dockside to where the ships dock.  So when a ship arrives

            9   and has to unload the container, it has to be dropped to a

           10   truck or dropped to the ground and picked up by another UTR

           11   or vehicle and then moved to a staging area.

           12                  Well, we the public -- you know, it doesn't

           13   take a high IQ to figure what's the best way to do it.  You

           14   build the rail dockside to the ship so that it goes

           15   immediately to the rail and not have to be moved two or

           16   three times on the ground.  So in our public comment, we

           17   are challenging that theory, as well.

           18                  Now, does everything have to be electric?

           19   Well, at least for now, we feel that in high-density, urban

           20   communities, yes.  Why?  Because we have too much.  The

           21   Port of L.A. and Port of Long Beach right now do a little

           22   over 30 percent of the national container volume.  So we

           23   need to look for solutions and we the community and

           24   community-based organizations, we have now gotten involved

           25   in that type of thing to find out what is the best


                                                                          119


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   available technologies.

            2                  And we do know that there are vapor recovery

            3   systems that can be put on storage tanks.  We do know there

            4   are various types of emission control technologies that can

            5   be placed on any type of exhaust system.  There is a new

            6   company right now, Miracle Mile Solution, which has just

            7   designed two things.  One is that they've built a new

            8   device that goes onto basically like the carburetor and it

            9   offers a high combustion efficiency for any type of diesel

           10   engine.  Well, we're embracing that technology.

           11                  The Port of L.A., the Port of Long Beach,

           12   we've been supporting a new company, also, a few years ago

           13   that came up with another idea, which was put a sock on the

           14   smokestack.  Back a few years ago when Rubin Garcia and his

           15   company showed up at the Port of L.A. and showed a

           16   presentation of a technology which is basically a vacuum

           17   the size of a house that has a hose and a hood or bonnet

           18   that would go over the smokestack of a ship or over a

           19   locomotive train.

           20                  They laughed at him.  If you had been there,

           21   you would have seen all staff, board of harbor

           22   commissioners, laughing their heads off, you got to be

           23   crazy.  But I walked up to him and introduced myself to him

           24   saying, "I like that technology.  I think it's feasible."

           25                  Well, guess what?  The EPA, AQMD,


                                                                          120


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   contributed for them to do a prototype.  Last April, the

            2   report for Roseville Road Yard was published.  It showed

            3   that that sock/bonnet/capture technology was 92- to

            4   97-percent effective in capturing all NOx, all SOx, and all

            5   PM.

            6                  Last July, it was demonstrated on an oil

            7   tanker ship at the Port of Long Beach.  It was 92- to

            8   98-percent effective in capturing all NOx, all SOx, and PM.

            9                  Not only is it effective in doing that, when

           10   you do a cost-effective analysis, it is more cost-effective

           11   than the ships running on their bunker fuel.

           12                  So, yes, there are alternatives.  We're only

           13   asking that when you do these type of assessments, you

           14   realize that there are many organizations and individuals

           15   and new emerging companies that have solutions.  And we

           16   feel that you can adopt a standard that is doable and that

           17   can be met.

           18                  So all we're asking is that you listen to

           19   our comments, receive the information, take it into

           20   consideration, and realize that if we the public know

           21   90-percent efficiency is available, then, yes, we can meet

           22   the new standards.

           23                  Thank you.

           24           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

           25                  Any further questions?


                                                                          121


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1           NEALSON WATKINS:  You mentioned flaring at

            2   refineries and you mentioned the frequency of occurrence.

            3   Can you repeat that?  And did you measure it?

            4           JESSE MARQUEZ:  Okay.  What is happening is that

            5   due to AB-2588 in California, it is required that all

            6   refineries have their annual emissions reported.  So the

            7   South Coast AQMD every year posts on its Web site the

            8   reporting.

            9                  So what I did was actually print out for

           10   every refinery the year 2000, -one, -two, -three, -four,

           11   all the way up to 2007, the spreadsheet or the data.  And

           12   then what I gave you are two examples where I take the data

           13   from each year and put them in a criteria column, and

           14   that's how I'm able to look at what that is.

           15                  Now, in addition to that, they also have

           16   flaring reporting.  So when I looked at the flaring

           17   reporting, another thing came up.  Right now, based on the

           18   first four months of this year, the number of flare events

           19   at every -- of the top five oil refineries will already

           20   exceed last year's.  And that's why we're able to now

           21   analyze the data and be able to make a public comment that

           22   it is increasing.  The other thing that we noticed is that

           23   they have categorized it as planned and unplanned.

           24   Unplanned typically is your malfunction, your breakdown,

           25   and then your planned.  Well, another strange thing


                                                                          122


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   occurred.

            2                  When looking at ExxonMobil, for example, the

            3   number of planned flare events was almost every four or

            4   five days.  So what is our evaluation assessment of that?

            5   They're gaming it.  They know they want to flare, so

            6   they're just reporting it as a planned event in order to do

            7   it and, therefore, already exceeding what would be last

            8   year's annual amounts of flare events.  And, again, in our

            9   Title V permit, those are part of the public comments we

           10   are making.

           11                  Now, I can also provide you every refinery's

           12   data of all that.  So I have like, for example, the

           13   criteria, I can give you all that.  I can give you all of

           14   the flaring data.

           15                  We also look at the top 10, 15 toxic

           16   pollutants.  Like your benzene, well, we did research and

           17   found out that benzene causes leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma,

           18   and anemia.  And where does it come from?  Well, if it's a

           19   refinery community, we found out that we were finding high

           20   incidents of those health problems in the residents that

           21   bordered the refineries.  So when I looked at the same data

           22   that was reported annually, in every refinery, benzene has

           23   increased every year for the last eight years.  It has not

           24   decreased.

           25                  So in my public comments where I ask you to


                                                                          123


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   do an audit of what's being reported, right now, you

            2   probably just look at the year that they sent in, but

            3   unless you look at the spreadsheet for the last eight

            4   years, you have no clue if it's going up or down.  And

            5   that's where we're now focusing.  It's in fact going up in

            6   many categories.  And in the few categories where it did go

            7   down, it did not go down significantly.

            8                  When I'm saying significantly, part of the

            9   problem is that there are no requirements that say it must

           10   be reduced by 50 percent in five, ten years, 75 percent

           11   within 15, 20 years.  Those are the type of regulations we

           12   want, whereby all pollutants over a specific period of

           13   time, be it 20, 25 years, will be reduced to insignificant.

           14   And we the public support that.

           15                  We've also done some analysis in terms of

           16   what does it cost to do some of these reductions?  Even if

           17   the public, in terms of, say, Cargo, Nike shoes and Levi

           18   jeans, and things of that nature, a few pennies on the

           19   extra retail price would be enough money to implement all

           20   these technologies where everything would be reduced by

           21   over 90 percent.

           22           NEALSON WATKINS:  Thank you.

           23           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           24                  Our next speaker is David Holtzman.

           25                  If you could state your name for the court


                                                                          124


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   reporter.

            2           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  I will do that.

            3                  Good afternoon, Mr. Hearing Officer and

            4   Panel and EPA.

            5                  My name is David Holtzman, H-o-l-t-z-m-a-n.

            6   I am a resident of Los Angeles.  I am here as a private

            7   citizen.  I have some credentials in the field, however.  I

            8   just ask that you not take them too seriously, because I'm

            9   really not up on the health effects today of NO2.

           10                  I got a public health degree from the

           11   University of Michigan.  I worked in the pesticide program

           12   while I was studying there.  I worked for about a dozen

           13   years in the air pollution program of the State of

           14   California in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard

           15   Assessment and its predecessor agency there.  And I

           16   currently work as an environmental consultant for a project

           17   in Santa Monica, but I took some vacation time this

           18   afternoon.  I also have a law degree from UCLA's program in

           19   public interest law and policy, so I also hold a MPH/JD.

           20                  Anyway, I wanted to just say one thing about

           21   the standards and one other thing in general.  Thank you,

           22   EPA, for considering adopting a one-hour standard for NO2.

           23   I really appreciate as a public health person your

           24   willingness to look at the issue and perhaps join

           25   California with an hourly standard.


                                                                          125


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  The one thing I noticed that I just wanted

            2   to point out is that you are proposing to adopt a standard

            3   that's based on the distribution of one-hour daily maximum

            4   concentrations.  And unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounds

            5   like you might be wasting a lot of data in doing so, the

            6   other 23 hours of the day.  I just don't see where an area

            7   that has an exceedance of your standard for eight or nine

            8   hours or four or five hours should be treated the same way

            9   as an area that only has an exceedance for one hour or two

           10   hours.

           11                  So I would like to just make as my formal

           12   comment that you should consider using all the data from a

           13   day's exposure to NO2.  And if you're not going to use the

           14   other 23 hours from some days, please explain clearly why.

           15   You should explain clearly why you are not using those

           16   data.

           17                  That's all I had to say.

           18           DAVID ORLIN:  So are you suggesting that we set a

           19   24-hour standard?

           20           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  I'm suggesting that if you are

           21   going to use a distribution of hourly concentrations, you

           22   should use all the hourly concentrations and not throw out

           23   the other concentrations from a day that may have a peak.

           24           DAVID ORLIN:  So then if we're using the fourth

           25   highest --


                                                                          126


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  It wouldn't -- yeah, I don't think

            2   it would end up being the fourth highest anymore because

            3   you'd have a lot more data points.

            4           DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  So if we're doing

            5   99 percentile --

            6           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  Yeah.

            7           DAVID ORLIN:  -- it would be 99 percentile of all

            8   the data points even with --

            9           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  Correct.  That sort of thing,

           10   yeah.

           11           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

           12           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  You're welcome.

           13           DAVID ORLIN:  Any more questions?

           14                  Thank you very much.

           15           DAVID HOLTZMAN:  Thank you.

           16           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.  We'll be taking a break.

           17   We don't have anyone scheduled in the near future.

           18                  (Break taken at 4:15 p.m.)

           19                  (Steven John left the hearing.)

           20                  (Hearing resumed at 6:03 p.m.)

           21           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  My name is Faramarz Nabavi.  I'm

           22   a member of the Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, and I am here

           23   to speak on the proposed changes to the national ambient

           24   air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide.

           25                  I am a person who had the misfortune of


                                                                          127


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   growing up with asthma and so, for me, the impact of air

            2   quality is a personal issue.  And I strongly support both

            3   the introduction of a higher one-hour level standard, such

            4   as 100 parts per billion for the measurement of nitrogen

            5   dioxide.

            6                  I would note that as someone who is a

            7   frequent user of public transit and uses my bicycle on

            8   public roadways for transportation that I am directly

            9   affected by the emissions of nitrogen dioxide by motor

           10   vehicles in a way that is probably greater and more

           11   immediate than someone who may even live in a home that is

           12   adjacent to a highway.  I am literally on it.

           13                  I would also like to encourage the

           14   Environmental Protection Agency to consider adoption of a

           15   more stringent annual standard, such as one to match that

           16   of the State of California at 30 parts per billion.

           17                  I also want to note that I appreciate the

           18   fact that the EPA is holding a hearing here in Los Angeles

           19   and also one in Wilmington, two communities that are

           20   particularly impacted by air pollution, and I would like to

           21   encourage you in the future when you have these types of

           22   proposed rule changes to continue to come to communities

           23   that are most heavily impacted by these issues.

           24           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           25           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  And I hope you enjoy your dinner.


                                                                          128


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

            2                  Any questions?

            3           SCOTT JENKINS:  I have one quick question.

            4           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  Sure.

            5           SCOTT JENKINS:  And this is just clarification.

            6                  Are you representing the Sierra Club here or

            7   is the position you're presenting a recitation of Sierra

            8   Club's position or are you presenting this as an

            9   independent person?

           10           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  I am presenting this as an

           11   individual.  However, it is my understanding that the

           12   Sierra Club is in support of this, and I did discuss my

           13   participation and comments to be presented here at a Sierra

           14   Club meeting on Monday.  So I'm not doing this

           15   independently, I'm doing this in consultation with both our

           16   chapter as well as the national organization.  To repeat, I

           17   believe the national Sierra Club staff in DC are or will be

           18   in touch with the EPA about this.

           19           SCOTT JENKINS:  Okay, thank you.

           20           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much for coming in.

           21           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  Do you have any other question?

           22           DAVID ORLIN:  I was going to ask you if you had any

           23   comments on the monitoring network?

           24           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  On the monitoring network?  Any

           25   particular aspect of that that you would be curious for me


                                                                          129


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   to comment on?

            2           NEALSON WATKINS:  What we proposed.

            3           DAVID ORLIN:  Yes, we proposed a new near road

            4   network.

            5           FARAMARZ NABAVI:  I'm strongly in favor of a near

            6   road network.  Thank you for asking that.  That was

            7   something that I actually did want to mention, and being

            8   out of breath running here from the train station across

            9   the street, I neglected to mention that.

           10                  As someone who uses bicycles and public

           11   transit, I believe that it's very important to have

           12   accurate measurement of the actual ambient air pollution

           13   near roadways and so the addition of that I think is

           14   beneficial.

           15                  Thank you very much.

           16           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.

           17                  And with that, I think we'll break for

           18   dinner and pick up again at 7:30.

           19                  (Break taken at 6:10 p.m.)

           20                  (Hearing resumed at 7:30 p.m.)

           21           DAVID ORLIN:  Good evening and thanks for coming to

           22   the EPA's hearing on the proposed rule for nitrogen

           23   dioxide.  This is our opportunity to hear public comment on

           24   our proposed rule.

           25                  My name is David Orlin.  I am an


                                                                          130


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   attorney-advisor for EPA's general counsel.

            2                  This is Scott Jenkins, who is lead scientist

            3   with the EPA's ambient standards group.

            4                  And Nealson Watkins with the EPA monitoring

            5   group.

            6                  So we'd like to invite you to join us and

            7   spell your name for our court reporter.  And we're asking

            8   people to limit their comments to five minutes of

            9   testimony.

           10           DAVID GREENE:  Hello.  My name is David Greene.

           11   Greene is spelled G-r-e-e-n-e.  And I am a resident of

           12   San Pedro.

           13                  And the reason I came is that I'm part of

           14   this group, the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, and

           15   we're trying to do something about air pollution,

           16   particularly diesel truck pollution, in the San Pedro Bay

           17   Area, which affects a good portion of Southern California.

           18                  And I don't really have a scientific

           19   background or anything along those lines, but I do know

           20   from my efforts with the coalition that there's an

           21   incredible amount of people that are affected by the air

           22   pollution in our area.  And also, particularly for the

           23   people in Long Beach, who are a little bit kind of windward

           24   of the port -- or leeward, I guess it would be, of the

           25   port, that asthma rates I think doubled the national


                                                                          131


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   average and things like that.

            2                  And what I did read about in some of the

            3   scientific studies and surveys and the like is that

            4   particularly people that suffer from asthma are

            5   particularly sensitive to the NO2.

            6                  And so basically I'm kind of here to support

            7   some of my friends that are advocating, like the Lung

            8   Association, that 50 parts per billion limit on the hourly,

            9   and then also to do more of the monitoring.  And I guess,

           10   yeah, that's basically what my position is and what I'm

           11   trying to say.

           12                  And I guess, too, my understanding is that

           13   the old standards have been in place nearly 40 years now --

           14   is that correct? -- and so there's something to be said

           15   for, okay, well, we don't want to make things too severe

           16   but, by the same token, how many more years would the

           17   standard be typed all the more.  And given where the

           18   standards are now, there's a lot of people that are

           19   suffering very much so from the air pollution and the

           20   effects of it.

           21                  So the very name, Environmental Protection

           22   Agency, I understand the need to protect the environment,

           23   but I think, at heart, it's to protect us and particularly

           24   those people that I spoke of, like the kids there in

           25   Long Beach.


                                                                          132


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  And I think what we want for all our

            2   children -- you spoke about teaching your daughter chess or

            3   whatever -- is we want the brightest future possible for

            4   our children.

            5                  And I enjoyed athletics in school and did

            6   fairly well in it, things like that, but somebody born in

            7   Long Beach just south of the freeway or so, even if they

            8   had the potential at birth, they might not have the

            9   potential when they come into their teens and the like.

           10                  And so, also, too, you know, it might be

           11   great to have rules, but if they're not enforced or

           12   measured, you might say, okay, you can't break into

           13   people's houses, but if nobody ever has a way to report

           14   that somebody broke in their house or something happened,

           15   then what good does that do?

           16                  So basically those two points, the points

           17   that the Lung Association is bringing up is let's make the

           18   standard 50 instead of the 80 to 100, and then, also, too,

           19   let's really do the monitoring, otherwise, everything is

           20   for naught.

           21                  So that's basically my take on things.

           22           DAVID ORLIN:  Great.  Well, thank you very much for

           23   coming out, sir.

           24                  Any questions?

           25           DAVID GREENE:  Well, can I ask questions of you?


                                                                          133


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   Is that permitted?

            2           DAVID ORLIN:  You can ask questions clarifying on

            3   the proposal if you have questions about the process or the

            4   details on the proposal.

            5           DAVID GREENE:  Okay.  I understand.  That's

            6   perfectly all right.

            7                  Well, I'm sorry there aren't more people

            8   here like myself.  I really appreciate you making

            9   yourselves available here in the evening, because with

           10   working full time, like most of us do, it's very hard to

           11   attend these things.

           12                  Thanks for all that you're doing and I hope

           13   that you will make the 50 rule and ensure monitoring.

           14           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.

           15                  (Break taken at 7:36 p.m.)

           16                  (Hearing resumed at 8:17 p.m.)

           17           DAVID ORLIN:  Good evening.  And thanks for coming

           18   to the EPA's public hearing on a proposed rule for NO2

           19   standards and ambient air quality standards.

           20                  I am David Orlin.  I am an attorney-advisor

           21   for EPA's general counsel.

           22                  This is Scott Jenkins.  He's our lead

           23   scientist in the ambient standards group.

           24                  And also Mr. Watkins from the monitoring

           25   group.


                                                                          134


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1                  So, generally, we're asking for people to

            2   aim at about five minutes.

            3           DeANN McEWEN:  Okay.  Well, thank you.  I just have

            4   a prepared statement, so if you don't mind I'll just read

            5   from that and then leave a copy for you.

            6           DAVID ORLIN:  That's great.

            7                  And, actually, if you could spell your name

            8   for our court reporter.

            9           DeANN McEWEN:  Sure.  It's D-e capital A-n-n M-c

           10   capital E-w-e-n.  Thank you.

           11                       Good evening.  My name is DeAnn McEwen.

           12   I am a registered nurse and I am a member of the board of

           13   directors of the California Nurses Association/National

           14   Nurses Organizing Committee.

           15                  I currently work as a direct care registered

           16   nurse in the intensive care unit for a major health care

           17   system and trauma center based in Los Angeles County.  My

           18   career includes over 35 years of extensive experience

           19   treating infant, pediatric, and adult pulmonary diseases,

           20   such as asthma and bronchitis, and the sequelae of those

           21   diseases, which include respiratory insufficiency, acute

           22   pulmonary failure, and even death.

           23                  My very first code blue patient as a

           24   newly-minted RN was a young woman with asthma who had

           25   required emergency artificial ventilator support in the


                                                                          135


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   intensive care unit after becoming acutely ill with

            2   pneumonia.  She was progressed to the medical/surgical ward

            3   and was getting out of bed to use the restroom and I'll

            4   never forget a sudden look of panic on her face, the sounds

            5   of the gasping and wheezing and the extreme air hunger, her

            6   body weakening from the buildup of carbon dioxide and the

            7   lack of desperately needed oxygen.  The supreme effort as

            8   her throat tightened, her chest began heaving, every muscle

            9   in her body tried to force the air in that she desperately

           10   needed.  Her skin became pale and took on a bluish hue.

           11   She became drenched with perspiration from the effort, and

           12   I caught her as she collapsed and eased her to the floor as

           13   the tight high-pitched wheezing noises suddenly stopped.

           14   We began CPR and she did not survive.

           15                  In my experience, underlying chronic

           16   pulmonary disease is the most significant co-morbidity that

           17   is the ultimate predictor of mortality in medically fragile

           18   patients who may have multi-organ system diseases and those

           19   who require restorative, therapeutic, and surgical

           20   intervention.

           21                  Florence Nightingale and subsequent nurse

           22   scholars have written about the impact of the environment

           23   on human health.  Nightingale's attention to air quality

           24   represented some of the first modern thinking about the

           25   relationship of environmental conditions to human health


                                                                          136


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   status.  In her Notes On Nursing published in 1946, she

            2   discussed how in the 1800s, England was plagued with poor

            3   air quality from the heavy use of coal as a fuel for home

            4   heating.  She was concerned with indoor as well as outdoor

            5   air quality.  Nightingale was so adamant about the

            6   importance of air quality and ventilation that she

            7   prioritized it in Notes as the first canon of nursing.

            8                  Today, poor air quality is still a

            9   health-related concern.  In workplaces and in schools, poor

           10   air quality has been cited as a significant contributor to

           11   the increase in asthma, a disease that is a leading cause

           12   of absenteeism, according to the American Academy of

           13   Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.  While there are many

           14   factors contributing to the ups and downs of smog levels,

           15   such as weather, heat, and geographical features, the one

           16   factor we can control is the amount of smog-forming

           17   pollution we put into the air.  We may have to live with

           18   the heat and the geography we're given, but we do not have

           19   to live with this crisis, because we have pollution control

           20   technologies that can cut emissions to a tiny fraction of

           21   current levels if the political will is there to enforce

           22   the law.

           23                  It's time we begin to conserve and restore

           24   this planet's most valuable resource of all, the health of

           25   its people.  As advocates for the public's health, our


                                                                          137


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   primary focus should be prevention.  Not every event is

            2   preventable, but every event has a preventable component.

            3   Nitrogen dioxide is a particular problem in the Los Angeles

            4   region.

            5                  Cars, trucks, buses, emit much of the

            6   nitrogen dioxide.  Schools, urban neighborhoods,

            7   communities of color, and low-income communities are often

            8   found close to these highways, making their residents more

            9   vulnerable to this harmful gas.  People who have

           10   highway-based jobs, like truck drivers and police officers,

           11   are also highly exposed.

           12                  Millions of people are also at higher risk

           13   simply because of their age, children, teens, and older

           14   adults, or because they have asthma or other lung diseases

           15   or cardiovascular disease.  For all these people, we are

           16   calling on EPA to significantly tighten the standards of

           17   nitrogen dioxide and to increase the monitoring of this

           18   pollutant.

           19                  Research over the past 35 years shows that

           20   the current standard fails to protect public health and

           21   that a short-term standard must be added to protect the

           22   health of people who have lung diseases like asthma and

           23   children and older adults.  Nitrogen dioxide causes a range

           24   of harmful effects on the lungs.  This summary comes from

           25   the EPA's official assessment of research compiled in the


                                                                          138


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   integrated science assessment published in July 2008.

            2   Evidence shows that nitrogen dioxide causes worsened cough

            3   and wheezing, increased inflammation of the airways,

            4   reduced lung function and increased asthma attacks; also

            5   increased likelihood of emergency department and hospital

            6   admissions and increased susceptibility to respiratory

            7   infection, such as influenza.

            8                  Many of my colleagues and I have serious

            9   concerns about the declared pandemic influenza and the

           10   alarming rise in the number of critically ill patients with

           11   fatal and near fatal cases of pneumonia in the patients we

           12   have cared for here in California.

           13                  Clinical studies provide clear evidence of

           14   harm to people with asthma who breathed nitrogen dioxide

           15   for 30 minutes to one hour while they were exercising.

           16   Nitrogen dioxide enhances the responsiveness of the airways

           17   to allergens.  This airway hyper-responsiveness, a

           18   narrowing of the airways in response to various stimuli, is

           19   a hallmark of asthma.  Clinical studies typically include

           20   only mildly asthmatic adults.  In setting standards, safety

           21   factors must be incorporated to account for the potential

           22   effect on infants, children, and those with moderate or

           23   severe asthma or other respiratory disease.

           24                  Epidemiological studies provide convincing

           25   evidence that short-term nitrogen dioxide concentrations


                                                                          139


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   affect respiratory symptoms and increase the likelihood of

            2   emergency and hospital admissions for respiratory diseases

            3   at levels far below the current standard.  The California

            4   Childrens' Health Study found that long-term exposure to

            5   nitrogen dioxide was associated with stunted lung function

            6   and growth in children.

            7                  The California Nurses Association/National

            8   Nurses Organizing Committee supports the establishment of a

            9   one-hour daily maximum standard of 50 parts per billion or

           10   below.  A short-term standard at that level would reduce

           11   the likelihood that children with asthma would end up in

           12   the emergency room because of a serious asthma attack.

           13                  We stand together with the American Lung

           14   Association in support of strengthening the annual average

           15   standard in order to protect against harm from long-term

           16   exposure.  The California annual average air quality

           17   standard for nitrogen dioxide is 30 parts per billion as

           18   compared to the current federal standard of 53 parts per

           19   billion.

           20                  We agree that the monitoring of nitrogen

           21   dioxide must be adapted to capture information on pollution

           22   levels near highways and ports and other locations where

           23   high concentrations are likely to occur.  Nitrogen dioxide

           24   concentrations on roadways are on average 80 percent higher

           25   than concentrations measured at central site monitors, yet


                                                                          140


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   there are very few monitors located near busy highways.

            2                  Lillian Wald, the founder of Public Health

            3   Nursing, had a vision of nursing in the community, meeting

            4   people where their need is, based on the ideal of service

            5   to humanity.  She observed:

            6                  "Without claiming the gift of prophecy,

            7           one can foresee that our sins, political and

            8           social, must recoil upon the heads of our

            9           descendants.  We commit ourselves to any wrong

           10           or degradation or injury when we do not protest

           11           against it."

           12                  Nitrogen dioxide pollution is both dangerous

           13   and pervasive.  Do not sentence our children and

           14   grandchildren to a future of pain and suffering and the

           15   terror of suffocation as the result of preventable

           16   environmental contamination.

           17                  True responsibility for protecting and

           18   maintaining a healthy environment lies with each one of us

           19   and we are here today to hold our government accountable

           20   for protecting the quality of our common, vital asset, the

           21   air we breathe.  In 2002, the Supreme Court unanimously

           22   ruled that protecting the public health, including that of

           23   sensitive populations, is the sole factor the EPA should

           24   consider in setting the standards.

           25                  As a certified public health nurse and on


                                                                          141


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014





            1   behalf of over 80,000 direct care registered nurses, who

            2   advocate in the exclusive interest of public health and

            3   safety as members of the California Nurses

            4   Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, we concur

            5   with the consensus of the scientific and medical

            6   communities that the EPA should strengthen the nitrogen

            7   dioxide standard to maintain the adequate margin of safety

            8   for public health as required by law.

            9                  Thank you.

           10           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you very much.  Can you leave

           11   us with a written copy and we'll put that in the record?

           12           DeANN McEWEN:  Yes.

           13           DAVID ORLIN:  Any questions from the panel?

           14                  Thank you very much.

           15           DeANN McEWEN:  Thank you for being here today.

           16           DAVID ORLIN:  Thank you.  Now we'll take a break.

           17                  (Break taken at 8:26 p.m.)

           18                  (Hearing resumed at 9:03 p.m.)

           19           DAVID ORLIN:  Okay.  It's 9 o'clock.  And without

           20   anyone else here to testify, we're going to close the

           21   hearing.  So thanks very much everyone who showed up and

           22   good night.

           23                  (Whereupon the EPA hearing was

           24           adjourned at 9:04 p.m.)

           25                               * * *


                                                                          142


                            CENTURY COURT REPORTERS  800.555.0014
